Talk:List of contemporary ethnic groups/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Aramean people are the indigenous people of Syria (Aram) and Mesopotamia (Aram-Nahrin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.23.227 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be on record saying that this article will eventually be a problem, and is probably not very useful. Tokerboy 21:03 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Tokerboy; unless this list serves solely as a list of future articles, I think it should be deleted. In any event, I do want to comment on a few lines in the article:

For example, is Asian an ethnic group, or are only Cambodian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Chinese, etc. ethnic groups? If Asian is an ethnicity, shouldn't European be one as well? Does it then follow that French and Germans belong to the same ethnic group?

These questions (assuming they were not posed rhetorically) reveal the dangerous assumption that ethnic identity is best understood in terms of essences or ideal types (an 18th century approach to taxonomy). The existence, composition, names, and significance of ethnic groups is historically contingent; therefore, only the most abstract and general definition of, or criteria for, "ethnic group" are possible, and there is no point in ethnic groups to be parallel or symmetrical. Ethnic identity generally develops when a group of people become distinct because they are plugged into a social, political, or economic order in a particular location; at that point, differences is appearance, geographic origin, or language within the group are demphasized, and differences between them and others are emphasized. For example, people living in various parts of central Europe, speaking different (even mutually unintelligible) dialects of German, practicing different religions, and definitely not identifying with one another emmigrate to the US around the same time, and in the US develop a "German" ethnic identity that transcends any of the differences among them. This is but one example; the main point is that ethnicity changes over time, and one simply cannot expect all ethnic groups to base their identity on consistent principles. Slrubenstein

I just happpened to notice that German-American is listed as an ethnic group. Unless this is meant to refer to the Amish or something, then this article is truly heading in a ridiculous direction. With 190ish countries and presumably a at least a small community of immigrants from most other countries in most of them, that's 190ish to the 190ish power ethnic groups just from immigrant communities alone (I think), to take it to its logical conclusion. Russo-Egyptians? East-Timorese-Kazakhs? See

Obviously German-American is a bit much, however Amish is certainly a cultural group. I think a list is quite useful.

According to the Ethnologue, there are 6,800 main languages--virtually all of them (except sign languages, Esperanto, etc) are probably a distinct ethnic group. There are also 41,000 dialects, according to Ethnologue. If even 1/10 of them are also ethnic groups, we're talking about a list 10,000 long. It would be nice, but not feasible. Tokerboy 01:51 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument against wikipedia altogether. Yet we already have 90,000+ articles... Lir 01:55 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

It's gonna have to be

List of Australian Aborigine tribes, etc. It's more informative and easier to link to, as well as easier to create and maintain. Tokerboy

02:10 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

First of all, I think we should distinguish between ethnic groups and national groups. That would mean that Bengali is a legitimate entry, but Bangladeshi is not. I don't mind the numbers. Once it gets to big, we should organize them into geographical locations, i.e., Native North American, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Other than that, the numbers don't daunt me. Danny

Why is "Jewish" in the list of ethnic groups? Jews are not an ethnic group and never were. That the different Jewish groups around the world have a common root is a myth. Even if it was true, different Jewish groups around the world are still NOT an ethnic group. They have vastly different cultures, vastly different genes, and until recent times have been separated from each other for many years.

Genetic studies that "prove" Jews around the world to have the same genes have several problems with them that I am not going to go into now.

Anyway, there is no "Jewish" ethnic group and it should not be in the list.

- anonymous user

I changed Belorussian to Belarusian but, while this name is prefered for the language, I'm not sure if it is so for the ethnic group. Consider that, dear Internet! 6birc

I notice that, for example, Haiwaiian in the list is linked to Hawaii. But an article on Hawaii will have a lot of information (e.g. its current status as a U.S. state, its role in World War II, its physical geography) which have not much to do with Hawaiians as an ethnic group. Hawaiian should really point to a separate article about the native Hawaiian people (their culture, history, language, religion, biological features & origin, etc.) -- the history of the Hawaiian people is not identical to the history of Hawaii.

I made most of the links you're referring to, and I did so because (AFAIK) there is no more appropriate article to link to. If I'm wrong, or a new article is created, feel free to change the link. Tokerboy 03:25 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Redirected link to Native HawaiiansSauliH 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, many of the groupings that various ethnicities are attributed to belong to don't make sense. For example, the Turkish are put down as "Middle Eastern group", and their cousins the Turkmen are put down as "Central Asia" - are not both Turkic peoples? And the Azerbaijani, who are closely related to the people of Turkey, are put down as "group of the Caucasus", which to me is an error as although they're in the Caucasus, they're ethnically Turkic, and distinct from the real ethnic-grouping 'group-of-the-Caucasus' which is primarily the various peoples of Georgia. The Icelanders are put down as "North Atlantic island", but surely their relationship with other Germanic peoples is comparable with the relationships of the various Polynesian groups with each other? The Maori should have their relationship with the Polynesian group noted. I think this whole page should be put in a table with columns, where it can be clearly shown which group(s) each ethnicity belongs to and their geographic location(s) (without the two catagories being confused and mixed up).
Actually, I think this whole article as it is now is hap-hazard, inconsistant and messed up.

Good comment. Why not start a geographical alternate grouping? Lapaz 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This could never be a sensible article. Even if we could agree on what constitutes an ethnic group, then any definitive list would be monstrously long. And we never will agree. If anybody ever takes this seriously it will be the scene of a lot of angry and wasteful edit wars. Real wars are fought (and whole countries established) because of this messy concept. So Wikipedians are never going to agree about it. Even if we could, I can't see what possible use this list could be. This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted. GrahamN 15:36 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We have articles about some ethnic groups (see

The NPOV-principle is not promising for lists and similar instances where there is no space for qualifications of the arguments for and against, as the discussion on the date of Germany's "independence" has showed.

Furthermore, a list must be maintained by someone, or it will simply reflect the status of the last time it was properly maintained - and there the usefulness of the list escaped! I suggest that the search-function and "What links here" are more useful means.

This article will do much more harm than good to Wikipedia and should be deleted.
-- Ruhrjung 08:07 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, all our lists are incomplete and in need of continual maintenance. That's just the nature of a Wiki. But an incomplete and slightly out-of-date list is better than no list at all, surely? And I have no idea what you mean by it doing "harm". Even if it becomes hopelessly incomplete and utterly out-of-date, it will at worst just waste a bit of space, and we're not short of that, from what I hear. However, you raise a good point about the NPOV principle being troublesome for lists - by inclusing a group in a list of ethnic groups we are implicitly advocating the point of view that it is an ethnic group. But there is space for qualifications. We can put "considered an ethnic group by X but not by Y - see the article for further details", or something like that. Oliver P. 16:23 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You put it very well when you say "by including a group in a list of ethnic groups we are implicitly advocating the point of view that it is an ethnic group". But even if that problem could be overcome (and I don't think it ever could be), I'm afraid I still can't see what use this article might be to anybody. In fact I have the same reservation about the the whole genre of "List of xxx" articles. Alphabetical lists are normally used to look things up, but there is never any need to do this: we have that nice "search" box on every page. Is anybody really ever going to want to find out which ethnic group (or whatever) is closest alphabetically to another? GrahamN 12:01 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Finaly!!!!!! A list of all the peoples in the world, YES! Found it! Thank you all, but I still don't get this Wikipedia thing, who is responsable for checking the information here, and deciding if it is reliable... Yaron Livne March 4 2004

The idea of this site is that everybody checks everything. If you notice something is wrong, you should fix it yourself, there and then. But it doesn't work for this page, because it is such dull reading - just a list. Nobody reads it, so nobody checks it. It may well be riddled with inaccuracies, political bias, and fantastic invented peoples. I can't say for sure because it is so dull to read I can't be bothered. But it doesn't worry me because I can't imagine why anybody would ever want to refer to it. Why on earth are you interested in it? GrahamN 09:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, tell me, for example there is a small village in Israel where only German people live, it's a small comunity, are they considered to be an ethnic group? or are they Germans? Yaron Livne March 4 2004

Why would anybody care? GrahamN 09:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I care. I am a college student and I am sure there are many more who will care too. (CSUSB Student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.54.185 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we consider turning this page into an umbrella article organized by continents?

This would give us links to for example List of ethnic groups in Asia, List of ethnic groups in Europe etc. It would be easier to search and find peoples while allowing visitors to explore the immense diversity of languages and cultures that (still) exist on our planet.

At first I thought you were making up this "sub-ethnicity" thing, but then I read it in

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups. I will start talking to this User:Jmabel

to know where he got this idea from. Searching Google gives only 9 pages with this term. It seems the word was coined to deal with the Chinese diversity, or maybe more generally the various original ethnicities which formed a new people together. I suspect a lot of these pages took the word from the same place. We need to know if it is a valid concept. It is probably being misused. There were a lot of pages contradicting themselves in defining a "sub-ethnicity". There was notably someone using the word to speak of the "sub-ethnicities" of the "whites". This is absolute non-sense. I think it is to be take with a grain of salt. I think we should stick to geography / people / language/dialect spoken. That's the typical classification right now. I don't think Wikipedia should try experimental sortings if it wants to inform people.

If you read French, I suggest you read this: http://fr.encyclopedia.yahoo.com/articles/ni/ni_468_p0.html. Very informative. Mathieugp 16:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just made up the term "sub-ethnicity" - I don't know if it's used by others. Either way it's clearly something that exists I would think. Otherwise how do you decide what level of commonality is an "ethnicity"?

I suppose there's two ways such a thing could work. One would just be to discribe differing levels of commonality: E.g. Indo-European > Germanic > German > Bavarian, etc. The other would be cases where we can clearly see one ethnicity developing from a 'mother ethnicity': E.g. French > French Canadian > Quebecois > Metis (+ various aboriginal), etc.

The first one you described is a linguistic classification (with the last one Bavarian being a nationality). The second one probably only exists in English Canada. The Quebecois are not all ancestors of the French and are not an ethnic group. You have the Quebecers --> Franco-Quebecers. Franco-Quebecers being the dominant ethnic group inside Quebec (~74%). This cultural/social/political reality is denied by Ottawa, it is very difficult to explain it to outsiders. If Quebec was not home to 90% of Francophones of Canada, if they were all scattered accross the federation, then they would be French-Canadians. However, Quebec exist. And Acadia managed to keep existing in spite of deportation. The difference is that the Acadians are not a majority in any of the maritime provinces. In fact, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were originally split to avoid just that. Mathieugp 19:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a Germanic cultural as well as linguistic tradition. I had culture exclusively in mind. Fins' and Hungarians for example speak non-Indo-European languages, but I'd still consider them to be within the Indo-European cultural tradition. Language has never acted as a barrier to culture, although it is often indicative of common cultural ancestry.

A language is a universe of sense. In order for a group of people to share a common social experience, they have to communicate with each other. This is accomplished by speaking/writing a common language. Language is the carrier of a people's collective memory. Language is the barrier to sharing a common culture, but it is not impossible to cross that barrier with a little open mindedness. Look, I am doing it right now. Mathieugp 21:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And when English Canadians (myself included) say Quebecois we imply Franco-Quebecers. I'm not sure how many non-Franco-Quebecers would consider themselves part of your broader Quebecois nation as exclusive to Canadian (none I've ever met). I won't be the first to point out the (ironic) imperialism of many French Quebecers (e.g. ragarding people in the north, border with Labrador, etc.).

When non-Francophones speak a French (as a second language), sign that they have participated to our society and shared our culture to some extent, they understand that Quebec is no regular province. They find the issue very complex and they prefer the status quo, which makes sense. When non-Francophones speak English (as a second language or as a first) they identify to English Canada and English Canadian culture and generally think the Quebecois are an ethnic group like the Iroquois or the Zulus. That's normal, that's what the Anglo-Canadian media told them. Mathieugp 21:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Take for example a high school teacher of mine (here in Ontario) who moved away from Quebec in (IIRC) the 60's or 70's sometime. She grew up fluently bilingual in a very multicultural part of Montreal and still loves the city and the province, but couldn't stand to live in a province with a government that was hostile to non-ethnic-Quebecois such as herself (IIRC she was of British heritage). While she beleived very much in a multicultural civil nationalism and bilingualism for Quebec and Canada (and was a massive supporter of Trudeau) she felt incredibly betrayed by francophone quebecers who at the time and in her eyes rejected multiculturalism in favour of ethnic nationalism.

And who is playing the victim here? The problem with a lot of bilingual Montrealers (English first; French second) is that they fail to see that if Quebec ended up speaking so much English it because a certain foreign element was stepping on the rights of the majority. Colonial bilingualism is a temporary situation. At first there is a native language. Then there is a bilingual native population and a mostly unilingual ruling class. Then the majority becomes a minority. After that, only luck can reverse the trend. Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also as I'm sure you're well aware many of the sovereigntist elite were disgusted by the xenophobia of the sepratist rank-and-file (Levesque and Bouchard most noteably) -- stewacide

I am perfectly aware of the BS that Ontario's newspapers write on Quebec on a regular basis since 1995. That's a desparate strategy that will eventually turn against Ottawa. Supporters of independencce among the ethnic minorities is rising as French adoption is advancing (which occurs with great difficulty). It is already established that among the younger generations, fear of the evil Quebecois no longer exists (since they consider themselves Quebecois too and they cannot fall in the trap). Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not certain what "people in the north, border with Labrador, etc." is referring to. Can you elaborate? I find it quite bizarre to see the word imperialism used to describe a conquered people. I had never seen that before. The only Canadian imperialists I know of are those who have put the natives in reserves and stepped on my people's right for two centuries. These people numbered in the hundreds, but unfortunately, they were rich and loyal to the Crown. Mathieugp 21:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of the many Quebec nationalists who claim all or most of Labrador as part of Quebec despite the fact that the people there want nothing of it. Look at Quebec government maps for instance and they will either show the existing border as a dotted disputed line or will draw their own border. It was only in the dieing days of the last PQ government that they relented to the province of Newfoundland being renamed Newfoundland & Labrador under the constitution.

That's ridiculous. You think that is shows imperialism? Do you even know the history and the law behind this? Please read: http://www.mce.gouv.qc.ca/v/html/v2125001.html Mathieugp 01:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for the North I was thinking about the whole issue of the indivisibility of Quebec after a vote to seperate vs. those who call for local self-determination.

Oh God. Do you have any notion of international law? Did you ever bother reading the Constitution of your country? Please read: http://www.mce.gouv.qc.ca/v/html/v2125001.html Mathieugp 01:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe the constitution and "international law" to say it simply stands to reason that if Canada can be broken up so can Quebec. That's quite the double standard otherwise.

That's plain ignorance. In international law, only states can use their right to self-determination (not my choice). Cities are created by the provinces. Cities are not states. Inside the constitution of Canada, a province cannot have its border redrawn without its assent. All of this was clarified by the Belanger-Campeau commission, which was created by a federalist Quebec government. You are falling right in the trap of the feds. The strategy is simple: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is done to scare Quebecers from voting with their heart and fool the population of English Canada in justifying a military intervention in Quebec. If that were to happen, the little Bush invading Iraq scam would look like peanuts compared to this. Imagine this: the Canadian Armed Forces shooting Quebec civilians at random because Quebec has NO army. "Hum, which ones are the Frogs Sarge?" . "I don't know son. If they have an accent, shoot them!". Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm an international relations major and I can tell you "international law" is whatever world leaders (and the US primarily) decide it is, and none of them support successionism - and certainly not with a 50%-plus-one majority (that would lead to complete chaos in the world). Even allowing a referendum on those terms to go ahead just about saw Canada thrown out of the UN.

You are making up stuff here. The question was dealt with in 1991 with the Belanger-Campeau commission. The studies were then revised in 2002. The right to self-determination of states is part of the international corpus jure. You can even read on it inside Wikipedia: self-determination Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And even supposing anyone was serious about applying "international law" since when did the UN recognize the Canadian constitution as the last word in what's indivisible and what's not?

It doesn't. International law cannot intervene inside sovereign states. Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're dreams of victimhood went into overgear with that last bit... -- stewacide

It's OK for the Canadian state to govern in the name of all its citizens, but it's not OK to imagine Quebec doing the same. Where is the double-standard? Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Either way I think it's aparent that ethnicity works at many different, non-exclusive levels. -- stewacide

Have a look at http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Canada . (They actually managed to mispell Québécois :-). That will make it clearer what an ethnicity is. I guess "sub-ethnicities" could be all the groups who developped a distinct variant of the same language. But I prefer not to claim that just yet. Mathieugp 19:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That site seems to just list language/dialect groups, which I don't think is synonymous with "ethnicity" which is cultural. Most of those native groups now speak English or French but that doesn't mean their culture and ethnicity disapear. -- stewacide

Inside Quebec, the majority of the Amerindians still speak their language. That's because Quebec remained rural for a long time. If we do nothing though, they will suffer the faith of the others who are trying to revive their ancestral languages. When a people is completely assimilated, its culture stops being renewed generation after generation. It is still there, but it is reinterpreted from another point of view, from another culture. Some elements will be transfered, but a great deal of it is lost forever. Mathieugp 21:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the connection between race and culture (implied in earlier concepts of ethnicity) are garbage. However the idea of cultural lineages certainly is valib. No man is an island, and neither is any ethnicity (the ancient people of Tasmania may have been complete isolates but AFAIK they're all dead now - the rest of the world however has constantly been mixing and diferentiating). -- stewacide

I'd add that the term as applied to China seems to be politically modivated rather than based in objective fact. While the indigineous cultures of China clearly have common ancestry I don't think this is any more so the case within the borders of china than without. E.g. if Vietnam and Mongolia were still part of China I'm sure many Chinese nationalists would claim them as being part of a larger Chinese ethnicity. This is where the distinction between nationality and ethnicity becomes important: the Chinese are free to conceptualize their nationality (and sub-nationalities) however they want, but their ethnicity is simply an observable (yet stil subjective) fact.

A more useful example of the clear existence of "sub-ethnicities" would be pan-Arab culture, where distinct sub-ethnicities clearly exist whinin a broader macro-ethnicity, and most people don't see any conflict between the two. On a personal note I don't see any problem seeing myself as part of a broader pan-Anglo ethnicity (with people in the UK, US, Australia, NZ, SA, etc.), but more narrowly as an Anglo-Ontarian (while furthermore defining my nationality in terms of Canadian values, entirely without refrence to ethnicity). -- stewacide

Read --> http://www.cam.org/~ipso/doc/declcommune_an.html. That's about as neutral as you can get when dealing with the Canadian political issue. The key word here is "overlapping". Nationality cannot be totally dissociated from ethnicity because the place you were born will pretty much make you who you are. I think what you wrote makes perfect sense by replacing "nationality" with "citizenship". Mathieugp 19:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it can't be disassociated from ethnicity - and in fact that is the trend in the most advanced societies. Many of the most patriotic Americans and Canadians I meet for example are immigrants who adopt the values and secular traditions of their new country while maintaining their distinct ethnicity. I suppose it depends on whether you consider such values fundamental to ethnicity. You're also making the assumption that people can't abandon the values they were raised with which in my experience they are perfectly capable of doing - at least some can.

Individuals can definitely change their values. I don't see where I said the contrary in what I wrote. Mathieugp 20:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even in Europe many people are begining to adopt a pan-European national identity which has everything to do with common values and (to many at least) nothing to do with common European culture. -- stewacide

It has everything to do with a common European culture. This new identity is a supra-national identity made possible by the introduction of a supra-national citizenship. A lot of people will argue that European identity existed before that. Rather, the citizenship only officialized the thing. What the West Europeans are doing is a great project to bring together peoples of many different nationalities without melting them into a uniform whole. On our continent, the only person who points to Europe as an example for the Americas is

sovereignty-association project of René Lévesque. Personally, I would prefer a world wide planetary citizenship, but I am afraid that is not really feasable right now. We will need continental integration before we can move on to world wide integration. Eventually, we will have Planet--> Community--> Home--> Me. Unfortunately, a lot of human cultures will be a thing of the past before we get there. I am pretty sure I will die before I see that happening. Mathieugp

20:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's probably the most mind-bogling part, that English Canada compares its model, a dinosaur inherited from centuries of disgusting imperialism and colonization by Great Britain, to modern Europe and its respect of linguistic and cultural diversity, its respect of national sovereignty for the small and the bigger nations. Multiculturalism is a buzzword invented by pseudo-federalist to put a pretty paint on top of the Canadian state which refused to evolve in spite of all logic. Mathieugp 21:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Multiculturalism" isn't unique to Canada. Most countries on earth outside of Europe and a few East Asian examples are functionally multicultural. Besides that Canada in fact inherited the old segrationalist federalism model from Endland, and only in the last half century has multiculturalism been adopted in practice. Like I've explained before Canada a century ago or the US two centuries ago mirrors exactly what exists in Europe today. -- stewacide

Since it has been adopted in practice for the last 50 years, you won't have any difficulty naming a practical effect, besides the sponsorship scandal. Mathieugp 01:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you give me the date when it stopped? When did English Canada stop making all the important political decision for all Canadians wherever they are inside Canada. Do you know what the assimilation rate of Francophone is outside Quebec is? Did you know it has increased since the adoption of the Law on official languages in 1969? Mathieugp 01:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is completely off-topic, but you started it. In a representative democracy, the majority rules. All the important decisions taken by the central government are taken in the interest of a middle to rich class of Anglophones. They consider their interests first. That's actually a normal behaviour. There are no gifts between nations. Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not off-topic since you keep saying that the government is controlled by the anglo's yet without offering any proof or explination as to how this happens (that and the fact that your brand of marxist "anti-colonialism" went of the style +30 years ago - nobody talk like you anymore). -- stewacide

How this happens? You have to be jocking. How can 23% of the population send MPs who will form a majority government? You are not very good at math for someone who claims to be a logical person. Do you remember the Union which put us i a minority? Can you tell me the date when this forced union ended? Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is more than justified, the opposite was a desaster. Unfortunately, it is insufficiant to give us a normal rate of integration of our immigrants. Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At any point in time, any human being can become a "Quebecois". (that includes Anglo-Quebecers. Thanks to God, the younger ones are not the subborn unilingual their parents were. Today, I can engage in a conversation with an Anglo-Quebecer without bowing to the masters like in the 50s (by speaking their royal language). Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's looking at it from the wrong angle. Of course urbanization affects all populations, but once they meet in the city, it is the dominant socio-economic group who assimilates the others by imposing its language in the working place, in the public space. Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are solutions to every problem. The asymmetrial federation of Belgium could be an example of the coexistence of multiple linguistic communities. However, Anglophones would never accept to lose their linguistic privileges inside Quebec. Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You talk as if you blame living Anglo Canadians for the fact that French (and 99% of the other languages in the world BTW) is/are in decline. As if we have some master plan to assimilate the whole world ;) ...if anything Anglo's the world over take a more laissez faire, relativistic approach to language and culture than anyone else - although perhapse that's only because we can afford to. -- stewacide

There definitely is a power pushing the adoption of English all over the Earth. It is just south of the border from us. The US market is too small for uber big multinationals owned by American interest. There is a lot of people pushing for the adoption of English as the common language of Europe. This would be a fatal mistake. Luckily, Europeans are beginning to see the world the way we see it here. Being so close to the US, we feel the wave before they do. Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article says it all: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040226.wlang0226/BNStory/National/

I guess you should understand what assimilation is then. Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that a lot of people sent their children to French immersion to save their country. This could have been part of a program to revive French in all the provinces where the Francophones's had had their constitutional right violated. If there had been a serious desire to build a binational and bilingual country out of Canada it would have occured already. The historical truth however is that for almost a century, Quebec was the only one asking for that. It is only in reaction to Quebec's separatist movement that Ottawa made a timid move to recognize what was written in the constitution concerning language rights. This was totally insufficiant. In the meantime here in Quebec, we had come to the conclusion that institutional bilingualism WAS the problem, it was a trojan horse inside Quebec, anglicizing Francophones even in areas where they were the great majority. Today, we find it more suited to the situation that English provinces be English and that Quebec be French. There can really be just one common public language inside a state. When there are more than one, the strongest one overshadows the weakest one and it has almost the same effect as just one language. Official minority languages can be good in certain situations. That is not the case in Quebec. Ottawa's bilingualism has detrimental effect on the situation of French. Mathieugp 15:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also dropping all the pointless (not to mention sexist) gendering would go a LONG way towards making the language more accessable ;) -- stewacide 07:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Multiculturalism developed as a rejection of this model in favour of cultural and linguistic pluralism. Believe me English Canada recognizes the mistakes of the past and agonizes over them endlessly. What worries us however is that Francophone Quebecers haven't gotten the same message and learnt the same lessons, and are repeating our mistakes. -- stewacide 22:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well that's just the best. Yet another one in denial of history and the reality of Canada. The solution to the threat of Quebec's independence never was the late adoption of bilingualism at the federal level (too little, too late), never was to plant maple leaf flags all over our "province" to rid us of our deviant belonging to Quebec and its institutions, the solution was always to reform the Constitution (which was never approved by the majority of the people and is a major fraud), so that Canada becomes a multi-national asymmetrical federal state where ALL, not just Ontarians, can feel comfortable. If that were done, the evil separatist that I am would have no argument left. Meanwhile, this is not happening and I am one of those millions who favour the creation of a new state in which even if the worst happened, it could not be anywhere close the mistakes of those few WASP businessmen who try to keep it all for themselves since 1867 and keep trying today. Mathieugp 01:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale immigration also poses a signifigant challenge to the traditional concept of what it means to be European.

BTW I definately consider myself a world federalist, although I think it's premature in most cases and will only come about as values converge. Even the EU is becoming too ambitious IMHO and would have been better to limit itself to the countries of continental Western Europe where political values and opinions are mostly the same (France-Germany primarily). The UK and Ireland especially (but Scandanavia as well) have quite distinct political values as is becoming increasingly apparent and probably shouldn't have joined, or should have formed unions among themselves (looking back the Irish-UK split seems increasingly pointless).

A federation can only work within a unified nation. Above that, there can only be loose unions and confederations. Mathieugp 21:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's silly. I can count the number of ethnically homogenious countries in the world on my fingertips (some of which don't work that well BTW). In fact a great many diverse countries work very well (including Canada, which judgeing by our standard of living and history of peace and prosperity is the best-functioning country in the world). -- stewacide

The majority of the countries are not federations. The majority are Republican nation-states. Mathieugp 04:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The majority are multicultural, I never said anything about federalism. How many countries are there with only one dominant ethnic group? Well, basically however many there are in North-Western Europe plus a few in Asia (Japan, Korea, etc.) and most of the world'd micro-states. OTOH all of Africa, most of Asia and most of the New World (excluding mainly the small Caribbean countries) is composed on multicultural countries. I would also guess that the VAST majority of the world's population lives in multicultural countries (the US, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria just off the top of my head are at least half). -- stewacide

The US has a majority of Anglophones. Canada as well. Brazil is in the majority Portuguese speaking, China is in the majority Mandarin speaking. India, Pakistan and Nigeria are made-up States resulting from colonization by a foreign power. They will eventually see linguistic unification or disintegration. Hopefully, the greatest number of languages native to the place will keep existing and will not be replaced by English. I fail to see your point about multiculturalism. This planet is multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural and the federal government of Canada has nothing to do with this fact. France is multicultural, Spain also. That no justicication for inequalities among nations. Canada has to possible solutions: reform or USSR. Mathieugp 07:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again language does not equal ethnicity. There are signifigant cultural minorities of all sorts in all the countries listed and non is associated exclusively or primarily with one ethnic group. Also while Spain is multicultural (that's why I said North-Western Europe) it's hard to say the same about France - definately some regional diversity but about as unitary as they come. -- stewacide

France is a unitary nation state. Canada is a federal nation-state. Both can call themselves multicultural to give themselves a good conscience (and France is more diverse than Canada just by being in a free market with the rest of Europe), but that would not solve the social/cultural/economic development problems of (in France) the Corsicans, the Bretons, the Basques and (in Canada) the Native peoples, Quebecers, and the Acadians.

Similarily while the US and Canada share the same basic liberal democratic values they are still quite far apart in most respects and therefore political union wouldn't be a good idea. Much further apart it seems than 'inner' and 'outer Europe'. -- stewacide 21:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also a great many ethnic groups span continental 'borders' since they aren't real barriers to diffusion (e.g. in the real world the distinction between Europe, Asia, and Africa is pretty meaningless). In the past there would have been a definite distinction between the Old and New World, but even that no longer exists.

Also a great many ethnic groups span continental 'borders' since they aren't real barriers to diffusion (e.g. in the real world the distinction between Europe, Asia, and Africa is pretty meaningless). In the past there would have been a definite distinction between the Old and New World, but even that no longer exists.

On balance I think we're better off keeping the single list. -- stewacide 02:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If one population originated from a place that is both Asia and Africa, we can just put the link in both articles (continents). Mathieugp 05:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The umbrella article could also link to the now extinct languages/ethnic groups. Also, I think a short definition of what exactly is an ethnic group in terms of antropology/ethnology should be given at the top. This could be an excerpt of what is already writtent in the

I think it is better to have an incomplete list than no list at all. We could however inform visitors that there might be missing or innacurate information in the pages because ethnology is a young dicipline. Listing all the various ethnic groups that have existed throughout history is not possible for lack of information. However, listing the currently existing ethnic groups is something being done right now. It will never be perfect of course, but so is the exact measurement of Pi. There is at least one quality public source of information for that in www.ethnologue.com. Are there other good online sources in English? If we work hard there will also be www.wikipedia.com. With more accurate data and research, we will eventually be able to tell how many human languages really exist on Earth and how many different dialects these languages are made out of. Sadly, a lot of the languages will die out before we are finished studying them. Mathieugp 05:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the British groups in this article. English were denoted a 'germanic' group, Scottish a 'predominately Celtic' group and Welsh a 'celtic' group. There was also a listing for Cornish. These use of Germanic or Celtic to define the people of Britain is factually and historically incorrect and serves a nationalist purpose. I have added Briton to represent all the indigenous people of Great Britain and have listed English, Scottish and Welsh correctly as British groups within Britain. I have removed Cornish as there is no Cornish ethnic group. If defining ethnicity on culture, suffice to differentiate it from a majority culture, then I will replace it (for we have separate English, Welsh and Scottish) but also shall put in various other distinct groups from within England and Scotland, such as Highlanders, Geordies, Yorkshiremen, etc.

I have replaced Cornish because there is a Cornish ethnic group, I am of it. In 2001 for the UK census you could record yourself as Cornish and on the 2004 schools census in Cornwall you could describe yourself as Cornish. Many other organisations, companies and associations also allow people to describe themselves as Cornish such as the Royal Cornwall Hospital. Finally the Council of Europe has recommended that the UK government recognise the Cornish for protection under the framework convention for protection of national minorities.

So if you are going to argue that the Cornish are not a national / ethnic group you will have to tell me what I am. Legally I recorded myself as Cornish, other options being English or British. If I cannot be Cornish in this manner then what am I?

To the anonymous poster who removed Cornish please try to check your facts before making edits and try not to allow your personal prejudice cloud your judgements.

Bretagne 44

I agree with this. There is a good case for putting the Cornish down as an ethnic group, as they are so recognised in certain fields. --MacRusgail 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

For Census 2001 the UK Office of National Statistics designated separate codes for the English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish, debate over! Bretagne 44 21/7/05

See the new Cornish people page Bretagne 44 26/7/05

I added Hoklo (the cultural group of which most Han Chinese in Taiwan are members). As far as I'm concerned, if we're willing to lise Hakka as a distinct ethnic group in spite of being Han Chinese, the same concession should apply to the Hoklo. If anybody objects to this, I could removed both Hakka and Hoklo. The same is true of groups like French Canadians. Where should the line be drawn between ethnic and cultural groupings? The differece between a Serb and a Croat, for instance, are entirely cultural, with Serbs having a very Slavic culture and being members of the Serb Orthodox church and Croats being more aligned with Southern Europe in culture and being members of the Roman Catholic Church. --User:Jj frap

I've no idea about those Asian groups, but I know for a fact that the distinction between the Serbs and the Croats, not unlike many other such Slavic groups, stopped being considered in such a superficial manner and whatnot several centuries ago, so please apply a bit more tact before making such cursory remarks in the future, it can offend people... (I'll also restrain myself on commenting on the equation of "Eastern Orthodox" with "very Slavic".) --

Shallot

23:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

If groups like the Hakka, the Cajuns, French Canadians and similar groups are considered seperate ethnic groups, as adapted from older ethnic groups, would the Pennsylvania Dutch qualify as an ethnic group? They have a distinct cultural tradition that is German based but adapted to an American environment, much like French Canadians as opposed to just French, as well as a seperate dialect, and a shared ancestry through centuries of mixing between the ethnic Germans, Swiss, and Alsatians they descend from.

Similarly, what about Latin American groups, like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans? Clearly there are a number of people living in Latin American countries like Mexico and Puerto Rico that, like African Americans, are a blending of many ethnic groups into an indistinguishable one with a common culture. --User:PAdutch

I wish to suggest that an "Australian" ethnic group be added to the list, as these could identify the inhabitants of Australia who have a long history compared to recent immigrants in Australia.

eg. one who was born in australia, and all their living family was also born in Australia, then they cannot possibly be of any other ethnic group, so therefore they could be considered a ethnic Australian.

I point to comparisons such as the English or Austrian Ethnic groups, where they are noticeably related to other ethnic groups yet they are recognised as their own ethnicties which is correct, and so would recognising the Australian ethnicity.

Also, the ABS allows for "Australian" to be answered as an ethnic group on the census, which further backs up my suggesion.

It makes sence, but the word "Australian" refers to the modern country. Is there a word for the original white people who moved there? --Arctic Gnome 08:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Most of them simply described themselves as "British", although of course there were a few non-British immigrants too. The word "Australia" wasn't in widespread usage in the late 18th century, so "Australian" would not have been a common term of self-reference. There has never really been an Australian equivalent to the New Zealand

Pakeha. At best, I suppose you could consider the fact that Aboriginals often used the word whitefella in Aboriginal English, but this was not widely used by the "whitefellas" themselves... Or you could consider the fact that many early settlers were very assertive about their British ethnicity; they were, in essence "British in New South Wales", and so on. Aridd (talk

) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Australian - and my ethnicity is mixed Punjabi, Serb, Russian and Slovene. Similarly, most people of the Northern European majority still identify themselves as English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Welsh, etc. so even saying that Northern European Australians are the ethnic Australians doesn't work.Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 11:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How can Jamaican be an ethnic group? Jamaican is a nationality. As defined there,

I removed it. Remember, though: be bold. You could have also removed it earlier. (Unless you did and it was added again, in which case I apologize). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 11:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to list more tribes of Ireland just as there are the tribes of the Americas listed. 66.73.198.159 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And we're now blessed with such luminous examples as "South-Side Irish". Gimme a break! I notice you left out the Irish-Australians; what tribe did Ned Kelly belong to? And how about me? As a descendant of Irishmen in Australia, where do I fit in the "Irish tribes" list? anon, old son, I think you might be going a bit over the top. We're not talking

WP:POINT, are we? --fuddlemark

15:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Australian is in here. And no this is not a point, I want all Irish ethnic groups to be listed, but wikipedia is making a point of descriminating against Irish. 66.73.198.159 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Australian is, sure, but where is Irish-Canberran, or Irish-Melbournian? Australia is a country, the Bronx and southern Chicago are not. As a member of an Irish tribe (apparently), I must say I'm not offended by this "discrimination" and "double standard". --fuddlemark 15:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Does an Irish-American who moves from the Bronx to the South Side change ethnicities? -Willmcw 04:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mike, I beleive it would be a grave mistake to remove ethnic backgrounds in order to be replaced by a citizanship,after all what purpose does a definement of citizan serve other than to create a control of government over the people. If one is to look hard at the U.S. constitution under the 14th amendment,which created a new status of citizanship of those not free men but made free under the color of law,thus making a once slave person based upon an ethnic background to be made free by privilage of the federal,and state governments. Thus the citizan of the government is an axiom of a citizan being a subject of government. And being a subject of government is in opposite of the powers of the people to change their own form of government. hittingrabbit

I have to agree with my fellow anon. I am half Irish, and am quite offended. If we remove all the specific tribes of Ireland, but that standard we must remove all the specific tribes of Americans Indians. Because I don't think anyone a agrees with doing that, those same people should not agree to lumping all Irish together. If you don't have any pride in your heritage that's your prerogative, but then just stay out of the way and let us do the work.--68.192.171.249 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

being irish is not an ethnicity its a nationality, you are making a holy show of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.39.213 (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as a step towards removing links to the Disambiguity page "Native Americans" as per Wikipedia policy, I changed the targets of all links pointing to that page. In future check that the link you create is not a Disambiguity page when you go to create it.

Secondly, someone may want to double check links for ethnic groups noted as in the Rocky Mountains area (Coeur d'Alene, Nez Percé, Pueblo people, Tetons, Ute), and in the Pacific Northwest (Coast Salish, Haida, Klamath, Nuu-chah-nulth, Tlingit, Tsimishian). Due to these two geographic areas being in both Canada, and the United States, I chose the more generalised article Indigenous peoples of the Americas to link them to. However, if these ethnic groups are solely in the one country or the other, then they should be redirected to "Native Americans in the United States", or "Aboriginal peoples in Canada". SauliH 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bostonian?? Ah, come on. This is a flawed article... AndrewMcQ 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with those who said that the article is problematic, and, in the end, useless. According to its premise, I would suppose that everyone is of some ethnic group. But I couldn't find one to fit in, nor I felt the urge to create one more... (Afro-Brazilian? Maybe, there's Afro-Cuban, right? Or should I adopt the categories invented in 19th century Brazil, that defined the population by "races" and "mixed races" and is still tought in schools?) The idea of having an article on the concept of "ethnic groups" is useful and desirable, but having a list is so essentialist and absurd that equals racism. How come there's no Caucasian? Or Aryan? Or whatever. Bostonian... Parababelico 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does have articles on

White (people). Perhaps they just need to be added to the list. — Amcaja

12:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not necessary to belong to an ethnic group. One may 1. reject the membership (or the entire concept), 2. being unable to identify an ethnic group to belong to. Since the ethnic identification is made by humans for cultural reasons, it is an entirely human-defined concept. Membership is therefore a matter of choice, f.ex. the individuals personal choice, or some choice defined by an "authority". Said: Rursus 08:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shanqella - Ethiopia

I deleted this because the Shanqella (or Shank'ella) aren't actually an ethnic group, but an Amharic word (actually originally an Agaw word) used to refer to the very black (in skin color, obviously) tribes of the Southwest peripheral areas of Ethiopia.

Yom

Of course there is a French ethnic group! What do you think the native French-speakers of French origin and descent represent? They are so lucky these people, they even share a language, French, which allowed them to have a common culture for the past few centuries...

In anycase, the Ethnologue site seems to think there are some 51 million of them in France where some 61 million French citizens live.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=fra

-- Mathieugp 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The ethnologue site speaks only about the French-speaking people (I'm curious to know which language speaks the other 10 millions? I'm even more curious to know where they have founded those stats?). IT also says i don't know how much Algerians speak French. Are they part of the French ethnic group? Of course not! Lapaz

Your evidences is simple personal opinion, in crude words,

Reading again your comment: you are confusing French citizenship with a French ethnic. The French language was massively popularized in France with conscription and the French Third Republic public instruction laws. Before the 1789 revolution, only scholars and aristocrats spoke French. Lapaz 17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You are arrogant enough to call me a sophist, assume I don't understand anything about France all the while trying to associate my name with a racist and reactionary political group. After that, you try to educate me on things so obvious, you must think I have no education at all. (Although you are wrong to think French was spoken only by some classes before 1789. It was spoken by the popular classes of Paris and surroundings.) Its funny how the fact that my heading was "French citizens, French nationals, native French-speakers of French origin and descent" did not make you realize that I was trying to get people to realize the necessary distinctions between those three things. Being a French citizen requires that you either be born in France, which makes you a national by default or be naturalized as French. France being a former Kingdom made out of many countries in which lived many ethnic groups, a French national was not always a French ethnic, ie, someone who spoke French and identified as a French. Those who did were a minority ethnic group. Unfortunately for all the other ethnic groups, Paris and its aristocracy spoke French and, in an effort to unify the new French nation, the French speakers used the French State to organize the gradual assimilation of all French nationals. Now, back to the present time. Today, Jean DiMarotto, born in Marseille, whose ancestors were Italian, but doesn't not even speak Italian as he was brough up in French, has to be a French ethnic. His ethnicity is French, is native language is French and to him Italy and the Italians are foreign. The only people who would regard Jean DiMarotto as not-French are some members of the Front national who confuse ethnic identity and culture with blood line and physical appearance. Racism has nothing to do with culture, it has to do with believing that some communities of biological descent are genetically superior to others and are entitled to rule over the rest.

Studying ethnic groups doesn't make you a racist person poor boy, it only makes you discover and love humanity and culture even more. -- Mathieugp 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My arrogance is to the measure of yours. If you took the time to go to the French people page, you would see that this is more than a controversed topic, whatever your or my personal opinions about it. I don't really want to discuss your conception of the world; my interest is only in not blindly categorizing the French people in this list, according to the same policy that there exists a category of Category:Purported cults in order not to harm the feelings or opinions of new religious movement adepts; also according to the same policy that just not anybody can be put in the category of antisemitism or terrorism. Your claim that "racism has nothing to do with culture" is outdated, as some racists today have totally integrated Claude Lévi-Strauss's and general cultural relativism argument. "Race" can become a cultural concept, devoided of any biological simple determinism, and still be part of the racist discourse. In any case, this is not the place to discuss it.

Further information: French people

. Regards Lapaz

I will neglect that you again imply that I am some sort of a racist in disguise and try to reason you out the best I can. The confusion again seems to be coming from a disagreement on the definition of terms. Being a native French speaker, I have educated myself on the subject of human cultural groups mostly in that language.

It is my understanding that the current definition of an ethnie in French is something along the lines of:

"Ethnie : 1896. Du grec ethnos, « peuple, nation ». Ensemble d’individus que rapprochent un certain nombre de caractères de civilisation, notamment la communauté de langue et de culture (alors que la race dépend de caractères anatomiques). L’ethnie française englobe notamment la Belgique wallonne, la Suisse romande et le Canada français. Ethnique : 1752. Qui sert à désigner une population. Exemple : « Français » est un nom ethnique. « Berbères n’est pas un ethnique datant d’une époque lointaine ». Relatif à l’ethnie. Caractères ethniques, propres à une ethnie. Groupes ethniques."

That is the current definition of Le Robert at least. I have seen various other definitions, however, definitions that refer to "biology" or "genetics" can only be found in old books and dictionnary that were written when ethnie and race were nearly synomynous in the French language. This is no longer the case, to my knowledge, in the field of anthropologie and sociologie.

So, with this starting point, I am pretty confident that there is a French ethnic group, that is an ensemble of individuals who share language and culture, something Le Robert calls "caractères de civilisation", whatever that means. This is why if you browse www.ethnologue.com you will find a database of observable linguistic groups all over the Earth.

It is however possible that the distinction between the concept of race and ethnie hold only true in the French language. It seems, from the various readings I have done in English, that such a clear distinction does not exist and if it does, it is not widely accepted. If it is the case, then obviously the article French people is likely to remain a mess for a very long time and discussing the existence/non-existence of ethnic groups will continue to be ridiculously controversial.

I guess what we need is a clear stance on the current use of the term "ethnic group" (or "ethos") in the English-speaking community of anthropologists. -- Mathieugp 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathieu please accept my apologies concerning my tone and accusations of racism. Understand however that we have been discussing the subject for over a month at

Front National's actual discourse of La France aux Français. Mais qui sont les Français? Tous mes potes beurs, comme on dit, se sentent tous victimes de discriminations sociales et raciales. Parce qu'elle est bien réelle. Et pourtant, ils se sentent tous Français, bien plus qu'Algérien, Marocain, Berbère ou Turc, des pays qu'ils n'ont que trop rarement vu, dont ils ne connaissent pas la langue, dont ils ne partagent pas les coutumes ni la pratique religieuse. Ils payent leurs impôts, ils votent. Mais comme ils sont pas Blancs, ils n'appartiennent pas au peuple français??? BULLSHIT !!! Lapaz

17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that as a French person and as a French citizen, you will be interesting in this reading: Aménagement linguistique dans le monde - France. There is a lot of information on the so called langues régionales de France. By the way, I am not French, I am a Quebecer. -- Mathieugp 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You agree "that to define a common ancestry of the French is impossible and even silly". So you the French ethnic group would be composed of only its knowledge of the French language; and you add this "self-identification" issue. So, how to you deal with:

• people who speak French (native language or bilinguism) but do not identify as belonging to the French ethnic group

I did not say that "the French ethnic group would be composed of only its knowledge of the French language", otherwize, I would also be French and I am convinced I am not. :-) People who are French ethnics and do not identify as French are possibly apatride, or maybe people who have discovered their ancestral origin and have rejected their French identity. They might be people who travelled to another country and settled there. They can also be Bretons or Corsicans who were forcibly assimilated to French culture and are not happy about it. They may be individuals with, lets say, a francophone mother and a anglophone father. They can't decide if they are more French or more English so they say they are both. (I have seen this.) There are so many possibilities when we look at individual cases. Identity is complex, so is the sociology behind it. Hence the reason it is interesting to study it. :-)

• the large number of French citizens refusing to self-identify as belonging to a French ethnic group, whether they "objectivally" belong to it or not

It seems to me that people who do this do it for political reason alone, because of the enormous tabou on the subject in France, probably in part because a lot of French are understandably disgusted by the discourse of Le Front national.

• French citizens who don't speak French

French citizens who don't speak French are most likely immigrants, refugees or French nationals who were not assimilated to French (yet). We also have to talk about the sans-papiers and the nomads. They are not citizens according to the French Republic, but they are part of France. It is "expected" that if one wants to be a French citizens that he wishes to live with the French as an equal and be naturalized. However, the nature of immigration makes it so that people often immigrate but not out of a free choice. It is an understatement in the case of refugees, but even with people who "voluntarily" left their home country. They often do it for economic reasons and they are often homesick. I am sure I don't need to elaborate on this. Most countries have crappy immigration and integration policies that lack in humanity.

I understand what an ethnic group is. But you bypass the fact that the French nation-state has founded itself against this idea, because of a universalist and republican conception. It may be criticized, in the name of multiculturalism or whatever. But I think you don't realize how wide the gap is between this Anglo-Saxon conception and the French conception. The main question is this: if you are correct in your (unclear) definition of a so-called French ethnic group, how do you tie this notion to the French nation-state? Lapaz 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to convey above, the French nation-state has only made French ethnics out of all the peoples of France and all those who immigrated to it. Assimilation occurs slowly from generation to generation. The territorial citizenship of France did not zap the French ethnicity off the surface of the earth, it "universalized" it: in other words, it made it acceptable to all sorts of humans. You can be French and be Jewish or Christian or Muslim, you can be French and be of any origin (German, Chinese, Senegalese, Libanese, Martian, Klingon). There has never been more ways to be French than right now. However, for all these people to meet in society, they have to speak a common language. In France, well, they did not choose the German language as the common public language... ;-)

Is defining a language as the official language of a state against French republicanism? In the minds of a lot of people, it was not and still isn't since French is the official language of France. Although a natural language can only come from an ethnic group, it can nonetheless be learned by a group of citizens of all origins. That is what France is. This a good model. A civic model. So good, I wish it for all nations of the earth so they can keep their language and open themselves up to the rest of humanity at the same time. It is very difficult to do this without state power.

Unfortunately, some nations with very small population (for example the 11 aboriginal nations of Quebec who total 70 000 individuals) are trapped inside States where they are minorities and find themselves surviving instead of just living. The problem of course is not the nation, the state or the language. In my opinion, the problem is the territory and who controls it. A great number of nation-states in the world are in fact mutinational states created by the imperialism of a dominant nation that denies the rights of smaller nations and tries to silently erase them from the surface of the earth. Anyways, I am going off topic again. :-) -- Mathieugp 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The question of "French ethnicity" is a bit of a controversial one here in France. The French Republic does not recognise a "French ethnicity", only a French citizenship and nationality. No population census asks questions about ethnicity; it would actually be illegal for the government to collect data on the population's ethnic composition (although Sarko wants to change that). A few comments, therefore:

• The expression "Français de souche" is the most often used when trying to describe... well, "indigenous" French people (which, when you think about it, means fairly little). This expression is rarely used, because it's associated with the extreme right.
• There's a common stereotype that the French are very attached to the French language, and feel the need to defend it against "anglophone cultural imperialism". There's some truth to that stereotype (although it's far from being that simple). Consequently, language may be seen as one element of self-definition for the French... albeit only really if you equate ethnicity with citizenship, and consider that all French citizens are, by definition, ethnically French.
• If we consider that ethnicity is, above all, a matter of self-definition, that raises the issue of whether or not first- and second-generation immigrants consider themselves ethnically French. I haven't conducted study on this, of course, but I would venture to say that a great many draw a distinction between French citizenship and French ethnicity, even though that distinction is not legally recognised (and indeed is rejected by the law). My mother is an immigrant from England. She's lived in France for over half her life so far, and has French citizenship (as well as British). Even after all these years, she still considers herself British first and foremost, and does not really see herself as "French". She sees herself more as an English person living in France, despite the fact that she votes as a French citizen. If I were to ask her, I'm quite certain she would not consider herself "ethnically French", and would distinguish that from her French citizenship.
• I should also point out that there are what you might call "indigenous minorities" in France (Bretons, Basques, Corsicans, French Polynesians, New Caledonians...). These are "indigenous" regional / cultural / linguistic groups, among whom some assert their seperate identity, distinguished from being French. If they are "ethnically French", they are also, in their own sense of self, something else. The French Republic does not (with occasional exceptions) recognise them as being anything other than French citizens.
• Is being French only a matter of nationality? Speaking entirely from my subjective point of view, if I were to move to a foreign country and have children there, I think I would consider my children to be "French", irrespective of whether or not they have French nationality.
• To sum up: Legally speaking, from the perspective of the French authorities, there is no such thing as a "French ethnicity". The "French people" are those who have French nationality, not those whose "ethnic roots" are French. Of course, this is complicated by subjectivity. Ethnicity is necessarily a matter of self-definition, and by that criterion, the concept of Français de souche is a concept which exists, irrespective of whether or not it has any definable meaning. There is also, unfortunately, still a tendency to use the word "étranger" ("foreigner") to describe people who are French citizens but don't "look French" (sic). Ridiculous as that is, it's something which is still sadly rooted in many people's minds, preconceptions and prejudices. Aridd (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know a few people who are from both Chicano and White parents. What is the term for this new breed of people that are common in parts of Texas and California (not to mention a presence in a large quantity of other states)?—The preceding

There is no new breed of people, and Chicanos are white.--Ezeu 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mean is what is the term for of both Hispanic (that better?) and White people? And instead of new breed, how about increasing group.65.16.183.162

I believe what the above person is trying to ask what is the ethnicity called when people of descent from Latin American countries called when they mix with those of Anglo-American heritage. I for example am from Texas and I know about 1½ Hispanics consisting entirely of 3 people in all. -

RussB

Ethnicity is not defined by race or by descent alone. ANy person of mixed descent will be ethnically defined as belonging to one group or another by 1. society and 2. his own self image.Maunus 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{

Please see the Project's