Этническая принадлежность или этническая группа — это группа людей , которые идентифицируют себя друг с другом на основе воспринимаемых общих атрибутов, которые отличают их от других групп. Эти атрибуты могут включать общую нацию происхождения или общий набор предков, традиций, языка, истории, общества, религии или социального обращения. [1] [2] Термин «этническая принадлежность» часто используется как синоним термина « нация» , особенно в случаях этнического национализма .
Этническая принадлежность может быть истолкована как унаследованная или навязанная обществом конструкция. Этническая принадлежность обычно определяется общим культурным наследием , происхождением , мифом о происхождении , историей , родиной , языком , диалектом , религией , мифологией , фольклором , ритуалом , кухней , стилем одежды , искусством или внешним видом . Этнические группы могут иметь узкий или широкий спектр генетического происхождения, в зависимости от групповой идентификации, при этом некоторые группы имеют смешанное генетическое происхождение. [3] [4] [5]
Посредством языкового изменения , смешанных браков , аккультурации , усыновления и религиозного обращения отдельные лица или группы могут со временем переходить из одной этнической группы в другую. Этнические группы могут делиться на подгруппы или племена , которые со временем сами могут стать отдельными этническими группами из-за эндогамии или физической изоляции от родительской группы. И наоборот, ранее отдельные этнические группы могут объединиться, образовав панэтничность, и в конечном итоге могут слиться в одну единую этническую группу . Формирование отдельной этнической идентичности, будь то путем разделения или слияния, называется этногенезом .
Хотя этнические группы характеризуются как органическими, так и перформативными критериями, в прошлом в дискуссиях велись дихотомии между примордиализмом и конструктивизмом. «Примордиалисты» начала 20-го века рассматривали этнические группы как реальные явления, чьи отличительные характеристики сохранились с далекого прошлого. [6] Перспективы, возникшие после 1960-х годов, все чаще рассматривают этнические группы как социальные конструкции , идентичность которых определяется социальными правилами. [7]
Термин «этнический» происходит от греческого слова ἔθνος ethnos (точнее, от прилагательного ἐθνικός ethnikos , [ 8] которое было заимствовано в латынь какethnicus ). Унаследованный английский языковой термин для этого понятия — « фолк» , используемый наряду с латиноамериканцами с позднего среднеанглийского периода.
В раннем современном английском языке и до середины XIX века слово «этнический» использовалось для обозначения язычника или язычника (в смысле разрозненных «наций», которые еще не участвовали в христианской ойкумене ), поскольку в Септуагинте использовалось ta ethne («нации»). «) для перевода еврейских гоев «чужие народы, неевреи, неевреи». [9] Греческий термин в ранней античности ( гомеровский греческий ) мог относиться к любой большой группе, множеству людей, группе товарищей, а также к рою или стае животных. В классическом греческом языке этот термин приобрел значение, сравнимое с понятием, которое сейчас выражается как «этническая группа», которое в основном переводится как «нация, племя, уникальная этническая группа»; только в эллинистическом греческом языке этот термин имел тенденцию еще больше сужаться и относиться к «иностранным» или « варварским » нациям, в частности (отсюда более позднее значение «язычник, язычник»). [10] В 19 веке этот термин стал использоваться в смысле «свойственный племени, расе, народу или нации», вернувшись к первоначальному греческому значению. Понятие «различные культурные группы», а в американском английском «племенное, расовое, культурное или национальное меньшинство » возникает в 1930-1940-х годах [11], заменив термин « раса» , который ранее имел это значение, но был сейчас устаревает из-за своей ассоциации с идеологическим расизмом . Абстрактная этническая принадлежность использовалась в качестве замены «язычества» в 18 веке, но теперь стала выражать значение «этнического характера» (впервые зафиксировано в 1953 году). Термин «этническая группа» был впервые записан в 1935 году и вошел в Оксфордский словарь английского языка в 1972 году. [12] В зависимости от контекста термин « национальность» может использоваться либо как синоним этнической принадлежности, либо как синоним гражданства (в суверенном государстве). Процесс, в результате которого возникает этничность, называется этногенезом — термин, используемый в этнологической литературе примерно с 1950 года. Этот термин может использоваться и в значении чего-то уникального и необычайно экзотического (ср. «этнический ресторан» и т. д.). ), как правило, связано с культурами более поздних иммигрантов, прибывших после того, как на территории сформировалось доминирующее население.
В зависимости от того, какой источник групповой идентичности подчеркивается при определении членства, можно выделить следующие типы (часто взаимно перекрывающихся) групп:
Во многих случаях членство определяется более чем одним аспектом: например, армянская этническая принадлежность может определяться армянским гражданством, наличием армянского происхождения, использованием армянского языка на родном языке или членством в Армянской Апостольской церкви .
Этнография начинается в классической античности ; после ранних авторов, таких как Анаксимандр и Гекатей Милетский , Геродот заложил основы как историографии , так и этнографии древнего мира ок. 480 г. до н.э. Греки разработали концепцию собственной этнической принадлежности, которую они сгруппировали под названием эллины . Геродот (8.144.2) дал знаменитое описание того, что определяло греческую (эллинскую) этническую идентичность в его время, перечислив
Квалифицируется ли этническая принадлежность как культурная универсалия , в некоторой степени зависит от точного используемого определения. Многие социологи, [20] такие как антропологи Фредрик Барт и Эрик Вольф , не считают этническую идентичность универсальной. Они рассматривают этническую принадлежность как продукт особых видов межгрупповых взаимодействий, а не как важнейшее качество, присущее человеческим группам. [21] [ неуместная цитата ]
По словам Томаса Хилланда Эриксена , в изучении этнической принадлежности до недавнего времени преобладали две отдельные дискуссии.
По словам Эриксена , эти дебаты были заменены, особенно в антропологии , попытками ученых реагировать на все более политизированные формы саморепрезентации представителей различных этнических групп и наций. Это происходит в контексте дебатов о мультикультурализме в таких странах, как США и Канада, где проживает большое количество иммигрантов из самых разных культур, а также о постколониализме в странах Карибского бассейна и Южной Азии . [30]
Макс Вебер утверждал, что этнические группы являются künstlich (искусственными, т.е. социальными конструкциями ), поскольку они основаны на субъективной вере в общий Gemeinschaft (сообщество). Во-вторых, эта вера в общее общество не создала группу; группа создала убеждение. В-третьих, формирование групп было результатом стремления монополизировать власть и статус. Это противоречило преобладающему натуралистическому убеждению того времени, которое считало, что социокультурные и поведенческие различия между народами проистекают из унаследованных черт и тенденций, возникших в результате общего происхождения, которые тогда назывались «расой». [31]
Другим влиятельным теоретиком этнической принадлежности был Фредрик Барт , чья книга «Этнические группы и границы» 1969 года была описана как способствующая распространению использования этого термина в социальных исследованиях в 1980-х и 1990-х годах. [32] Барт пошел дальше Вебера, подчеркнув сконструированную природу этничности. Для Барта этническая принадлежность постоянно обсуждалась и пересматривалась как внешними приписываниями, так и внутренней самоидентификацией. Точка зрения Барта заключается в том, что этнические группы не являются прерывистыми культурными изолированными группами или логическими априорными элементами , к которым люди естественным образом принадлежат. Он хотел отказаться от антропологических представлений о культурах как ограниченных сущностях и об этничности как примордиалистских связях, заменив их акцентом на взаимодействии между группами. Таким образом, «Этнические группы и границы» фокусируются на взаимосвязанности этнических идентичностей. Барт пишет: «... категорические этнические различия не зависят от отсутствия мобильности, контактов и информации, но влекут за собой социальные процессы исключения и инкорпорации, посредством которых отдельные категории сохраняются, несмотря на изменение участия и членства в ходе индивидуальной жизненной истории. ." [ нужна цитата ]
В 1978 году антрополог Рональд Коэн заявил, что определение «этнических групп», используемое социологами, часто отражает неточные ярлыки , а не реалии коренных народов:
... названные этнические идентичности, которые мы принимаем, часто неосознанно, как базовые данные в литературе, часто навязываются произвольно или, что еще хуже, неточно. [32]
Таким образом, он указал на то, что идентификация этноса посторонними людьми, например, антропологами, может не совпадать с самоидентификацией членов этой группы. Он также рассказал, что в первые десятилетия использования термин «этническая принадлежность» часто использовался вместо старых терминов, таких как «культурный» или «племенной», когда речь шла о более мелких группах с общими культурными системами и общим наследием, но эта «этническая принадлежность» имело дополнительную ценность, заключающуюся в возможности описать общие черты между системами групповой идентичности как в племенных, так и в современных обществах. Коэн также предположил, что утверждения, касающиеся «этнической» идентичности (как и более ранние утверждения относительно «племенной» идентичности), часто являются колониалистской практикой и следствием отношений между колонизированными народами и национальными государствами. [32]
По мнению Пола Джеймса , формирования идентичности часто менялись и искажались в результате колонизации, но идентичности не создаются из ничего:
Категоризации идентичности, даже когда они кодифицированы и закреплены в четких типологиях в результате процессов колонизации, формирования государства или общих процессов модернизации, всегда полны напряженности и противоречий. Иногда эти противоречия носят деструктивный характер, но они могут быть также созидательными и позитивными. [33]
Таким образом, социологи сосредоточили внимание на том, как, когда и почему различные маркеры этнической идентичности становятся заметными. Так, антрополог Джоан Винсент заметила, что этнические границы часто имеют непостоянный характер. [34] Рональд Коэн пришел к выводу, что этническая принадлежность представляет собой «серию вложенных дихотомизаций инклюзивности и исключительности». [32] Он согласен с наблюдением Джоан Винсент о том, что (в перефразировании Коэна) «Этническая принадлежность ... может быть сужена или расширена в граничных терминах в зависимости от конкретных потребностей политической мобилизации. [32] Возможно, именно поэтому происхождение иногда является маркером. этнической принадлежности, а иногда и нет: какой диакритический признак этнической принадлежности является существенным, зависит от того, увеличивают или уменьшают люди этнические границы, а увеличивают или уменьшают они их, зависит в целом от политической ситуации.
Канчан Чандра отвергает расширительные определения этнической идентичности (например, те, которые включают общую культуру, общий язык, общую историю и общую территорию), предпочитая вместо этого определять этническую идентичность узко как подмножество категорий идентичности, определяемых верой в общее происхождение. [35] Йоханна Бирнир аналогичным образом определяет этничность как «групповую самоидентификацию вокруг характеристики, которую очень трудно или даже невозможно изменить, например, языка, расы или местоположения». [36]
Разные социологи использовали разные подходы к пониманию этнической принадлежности, пытаясь понять природу этнической принадлежности как фактора человеческой жизни и общества. Как отмечает Джонатан М. Холл , Вторая мировая война стала поворотным моментом в этнических исследованиях. Последствия нацистского расизма обескуражили эссенциалистские интерпретации этнических групп и расы. Этнические группы стали определять как социальные, а не биологические образования. Их согласованность объяснялась общими мифами, происхождением, родством , общим местом происхождения, языком, религией, обычаями и национальным характером. Таким образом, этнические группы воспринимаются как изменчивые, а не стабильные, созданные в дискурсивных практиках, а не записанные в генах. [37]
Примерами различных подходов являются примордиализм, эссенциализм, перенниализм, конструктивизм, модернизм и инструментализм.
Ethnicity is an important means by which people may identify with a larger group. Many social scientists, such as anthropologists Fredrik Barth and Eric Wolf, do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups.[21] The process that results in emergence of such identification is called ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time, although historians and cultural anthropologists have documented that many of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent invention.[44][45]
Ethnic groups can form a cultural mosaic in a society. That could be in a city like New York City or Trieste, but also the fallen monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the United States. Current topics are in particular social and cultural differentiation, multilingualism, competing identity offers, multiple cultural identities and the formation of Salad bowl and melting pot.[46][47][48][49] Ethnic groups differ from other social groups, such as subcultures, interest groups or social classes, because they emerge and change over historical periods (centuries) in a process known as ethnogenesis, a period of several generations of endogamy resulting in common ancestry (which is then sometimes cast in terms of a mythological narrative of a founding figure); ethnic identity is reinforced by reference to "boundary markers" – characteristics said to be unique to the group which set it apart from other groups.[50][51][52][53][54][55]
Ethnicity theory argues that race is a social category and is only one of several factors in determining ethnicity. Other criteria include "religion, language, 'customs', nationality, and political identification".[56] This theory was put forward by sociologist Robert E. Park in the 1920s. It is based on the notion of "culture".
This theory was preceded by more than 100 years during which biological essentialism was the dominant paradigm on race. Biological essentialism is the belief that some races, specifically white Europeans in western versions of the paradigm, are biologically superior and other races, specifically non-white races in western debates, are inherently inferior. This view arose as a way to justify enslavement of African Americans and genocide of Native Americans in a society that was officially founded on freedom for all. This was a notion that developed slowly and came to be a preoccupation with scientists, theologians, and the public. Religious institutions asked questions about whether there had been multiple creations of races (polygenesis) and whether God had created lesser races. Many of the foremost scientists of the time took up the idea of racial difference and found that white Europeans were superior.[57]
The ethnicity theory was based on the assimilation model. Park outlined four steps to assimilation: contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. Instead of attributing the marginalized status of people of color in the United States to their inherent biological inferiority, he attributed it to their failure to assimilate into American culture. They could become equal if they abandoned their inferior cultures.
Michael Omi and Howard Winant's theory of racial formation directly confronts both the premises and the practices of ethnicity theory. They argue in Racial Formation in the United States that the ethnicity theory was exclusively based on the immigration patterns of the white population and did take into account the unique experiences of non-whites in the United States.[58] While Park's theory identified different stages in the immigration process – contact, conflict, struggle, and as the last and best response, assimilation – it did so only for white communities.[58] The ethnicity paradigm neglected the ways in which race can complicate a community's interactions with social and political structures, especially upon contact.
Assimilation – shedding the particular qualities of a native culture for the purpose of blending in with a host culture – did not work for some groups as a response to racism and discrimination, though it did for others.[58] Once the legal barriers to achieving equality had been dismantled, the problem of racism became the sole responsibility of already disadvantaged communities.[59] It was assumed that if a Black or Latino community was not "making it" by the standards that had been set by whites, it was because that community did not hold the right values or beliefs, or were stubbornly resisting dominant norms because they did not want to fit in. Omi and Winant's critique of ethnicity theory explains how looking to cultural defect as the source of inequality ignores the "concrete sociopolitical dynamics within which racial phenomena operate in the U.S."[60] It prevents critical examination of the structural components of racism and encourages a "benign neglect" of social inequality.[60]
In some cases, especially those involving transnational migration or colonial expansion, ethnicity is linked to nationality. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ethnicity as proposed by Ernest Gellner[61] and Benedict Anderson[62] see nations and nationalism as developing with the rise of the modern state system in the 17th century. They culminated in the rise of "nation-states" in which the presumptive boundaries of the nation coincided (or ideally coincided) with state boundaries. Thus, in the West, the notion of ethnicity, like race and nation, developed in the context of European colonial expansion, when mercantilism and capitalism were promoting global movements of populations at the same time that state boundaries were being more clearly and rigidly defined.
In the 19th century, modern states generally sought legitimacy through their claim to represent "nations". Nation-states, however, invariably include populations who have been excluded from national life for one reason or another. Members of excluded groups, consequently, will either demand inclusion based on equality or seek autonomy, sometimes even to the extent of complete political separation in their nation-state.[63] Under these conditions when people moved from one state to another,[64] or one state conquered or colonized peoples beyond its national boundaries – ethnic groups were formed by people who identified with one nation, but lived in another state.
In the 1920s Estonia introduced a flexible system of ethnicity/nationality self-choice for its citizens,[65]which included Estonians Russians, Baltic Germans and Jews.
Multi-ethnic states can be the result of two opposite events, either the recent creation of state borders at variance with traditional tribal territories, or the recent immigration of ethnic minorities into a former nation-state. Examples for the first case are found throughout Africa, where countries created during decolonization inherited arbitrary colonial borders, but also in European countries such as Belgium or United Kingdom. Examples for the second case are countries such as Netherlands, which were relatively ethnically homogeneous when they attained statehood but have received significant immigration in the 17th century and even more so in the second half of the 20th century. States such as the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland comprised distinct ethnic groups from their formation and have likewise experienced substantial immigration, resulting in what has been termed "multicultural" societies, especially in large cities.
The states of the New World were multi-ethnic from the onset, as they were formed as colonies imposed on existing indigenous populations.
In recent decades, feminist scholars (most notably Nira Yuval-Davis)[66] have drawn attention to the fundamental ways in which women participate in the creation and reproduction of ethnic and national categories. Though these categories are usually discussed as belonging to the public, political sphere, they are upheld within the private, family sphere to a great extent.[67] It is here that women act not just as biological reproducers but also as "cultural carriers", transmitting knowledge and enforcing behaviors that belong to a specific collectivity.[68] Women also often play a significant symbolic role in conceptions of nation or ethnicity, for example in the notion that "women and children" constitute the kernel of a nation which must be defended in times of conflict, or in iconic figures such as Britannia or Marianne.
Ethnicity is used as a matter of cultural identity of a group, often based on shared ancestry, language, and cultural traditions, while race is applied as a taxonomic grouping, based on physical similarities among groups. Race is a more controversial subject than ethnicity, due to common political use of the term.[citation needed] Ramón Grosfoguel (University of California, Berkeley) argues that "racial/ethnic identity" is one concept and concepts of race and ethnicity cannot be used as separate and autonomous categories.[69]
Before Weber (1864–1920), race and ethnicity were primarily seen as two aspects of the same thing. Around 1900 and before, the primordialist understanding of ethnicity predominated: cultural differences between peoples were seen as being the result of inherited traits and tendencies.[70] With Weber's introduction of the idea of ethnicity as a social construct, race and ethnicity became more divided from each other.
In 1950, the UNESCO statement "The Race Question", signed by some of the internationally renowned scholars of the time (including Ashley Montagu, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Gunnar Myrdal, Julian Huxley, etc.), said:
National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term "race" is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term "race" altogether and speak of "ethnic groups".[71]
In 1982, anthropologist David Craig Griffith summed up forty years of ethnographic research, arguing that racial and ethnic categories are symbolic markers for different ways people from different parts of the world have been incorporated into a global economy:
The opposing interests that divide the working classes are further reinforced through appeals to "racial" and "ethnic" distinctions. Such appeals serve to allocate different categories of workers to rungs on the scale of labor markets, relegating stigmatized populations to the lower levels and insulating the higher echelons from competition from below. Capitalism did not create all the distinctions of ethnicity and race that function to set off categories of workers from one another. It is, nevertheless, the process of labor mobilization under capitalism that imparts to these distinctions their effective values.[72]
According to Wolf, racial categories were constructed and incorporated during the period of European mercantile expansion, and ethnic groupings during the period of capitalist expansion.[73]
Writing in 1977 about the usage of the term "ethnic" in the ordinary language of Great Britain and the United States, Wallman noted
The term "ethnic" popularly connotes "[race]" in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, "[race]" most commonly means color, and "ethnics" are the descendants of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. "[Ethnic]" is not a noun in Britain. In effect there are no "ethnics"; there are only "ethnic relations".[74]
In the U.S., the OMB says the definition of race as used for the purposes of the US Census is not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference".[75]
Sometimes ethnic groups are subject to prejudicial attitudes and actions by the state or its constituents. In the 20th century, people began to argue that conflicts among ethnic groups or between members of an ethnic group and the state can and should be resolved in one of two ways. Some, like Jürgen Habermas and Bruce Barry, have argued that the legitimacy of modern states must be based on a notion of political rights of autonomous individual subjects. According to this view, the state should not acknowledge ethnic, national or racial identity but rather instead enforce political and legal equality of all individuals. Others, like Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka, argue that the notion of the autonomous individual is itself a cultural construct. According to this view, states must recognize ethnic identity and develop processes through which the particular needs of ethnic groups can be accommodated within the boundaries of the nation-state.
The 19th century saw the development of the political ideology of ethnic nationalism, when the concept of race was tied to nationalism, first by German theorists including Johann Gottfried von Herder. Instances of societies focusing on ethnic ties, arguably to the exclusion of history or historical context, have resulted in the justification of nationalist goals. Two periods frequently cited as examples of this are the 19th-century consolidation and expansion of the German Empire and the 20th century Nazi Germany. Each promoted the pan-ethnic idea that these governments were acquiring only lands that had always been inhabited by ethnic Germans. The history of late-comers to the nation-state model, such as those arising in the Near East and south-eastern Europe out of the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, as well as those arising out of the USSR, is marked by inter-ethnic conflicts. Such conflicts usually occur within multi-ethnic states, as opposed to between them, as in other regions of the world. Thus, the conflicts are often misleadingly labeled and characterized as civil wars when they are inter-ethnic conflicts in a multi-ethnic state.
Ethnic groups in Africa number in the hundreds, each generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture.
Ethnic groups are abundant throughout Asia, with adaptations to the climate zones of Asia, which can be the Arctic, subarctic, temperate, subtropical or tropical. The ethnic groups have adapted to mountains, deserts, grasslands, and forests.
On the coasts of Asia, the ethnic groups have adopted various methods of harvest and transport. Some groups are primarily hunter-gatherers, some practice transhumance (nomadic lifestyle), others have been agrarian/rural for millennia and others becoming industrial/urban. Some groups/countries of Asia are completely urban, such as those in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. The colonization of Asia was largely ended in the 20th century, with national drives for independence and self-determination across the continent.
In Indonesia alone, there are more than 1,300 ethnic groups recognized by the government, which are located on 17,000 islands in the Indonesian archipelago
Russia has more than 185 recognized ethnic groups besides the eighty percent ethnic Russian majority. The largest group is the Tatars, 3.8 percent. Many of the smaller groups are found in the Asian part of Russia (see Indigenous peoples of Siberia).
Europe has a large number of ethnic groups; Pan and Pfeil (2004) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities within every state they inhabit (although they may form local regional majorities within a sub-national entity). The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people or 14% of 770 million Europeans.[77]
A number of European countries, including France[78] and Switzerland, do not collect information on the ethnicity of their resident population.
An example of a largely nomadic ethnic group in Europe is the Roma, pejoratively known as Gypsies. They originated from India and speak the Romani language.
The Serbian province of Vojvodina is recognizable for its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural identity.[79][80] There are some 26 ethnic groups in the province,[81] and six languages are in official use by the provincial administration.[82]
The indigenous people in North America are Native Americans. During European colonization, Europeans arrived in North America. Most Native Americans died due to Spanish diseases and other European diseases such as smallpox during the European colonization of the Americas. The largest pan-ethnic group in the United States is White Americans. Hispanic and Latino Americans (Mexican Americans in particular) and Asian Americans have immigrated to the United States recently. In Mexico, most Mexicans are mestizo, a mixture of Spanish and Native American ancestry. Some Hispanic and Latino Americans living in the United States are not mestizos.[83]
African slaves were brought to North America from the 16th to 19th centuries during the Atlantic slave trade. Many of them were sent to the Caribbean. Ethnic groups that live in the Caribbean are: indigenous peoples, Africans, Indians, white Europeans, Chinese and Portuguese. The first white Europeans to arrive in the Dominican Republic were the Spanish in 1492. The Caribbean was also colonized and discovered by the Portuguese, English, Dutch and French.[84]
A sizeable number of people in the United States have mixed-race identities. In 2021, the number of Americans who identified as non-Hispanic and more than one race was 13.5 million. The number of Hispanic Americans who identified as multiracial was 20.3 million.[85] Over the course of the 2010s decade, there was a 127% increase in non-Hispanic Americans who identified as multiracial.[85]
The largest ethnic groups in the United States are Germans, African Americans, Mexicans, Irish, English,Americans, Italians, Poles, French, Scottish, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Norwegians, Dutch people, Swedish people, Chinese people, West Indians, Russians and Filipinos.[86]
In Canada, European Canadians are the largest ethnic group. In Canada, the indigenous population is growing faster than the non-indigenous population. Most immigrants in Canada come from Asia.[87]
In South America, although highly varying between regions, people are commonly mixed-race, indigenous, European, black African, and to a lesser extent also Asian.
Nearly all states in Oceania have majority indigenous populations, with notable exceptions being Australia, New Zealand and Norfolk Island, who have majority European populations.[88] States with smaller European populations include Guam, Hawaii and New Caledonia (whose Europeans are known as Caldoche).[89][90] Indigenous peoples of Oceania are Australian Aboriginals, Austronesians and Papuans, and they originated from Asia.[91] The Austronesians of Oceania are further broken up into three distinct groups; Melanesians, Micronesians and Polynesians.
Oceanic South Pacific islands nearing Latin America were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans in the 16th century, with nothing to indicate prehistoric human activity by Indigenous peoples of the Americas or Oceania.[92][93][94] Contemporary residents are mainly mestizos and Europeans from the Latin American countries whom administer them,[95] although none of these islands have extensive populations.[96] Easter Island are the only oceanic island politically associated with Latin America to have an indigenous population, the Polynesian Rapa Nui people.[97] Their current inhabitants include indigenous Polynesians and mestizo settlers from political administrators Chile, in addition to mixed-race individuals with Polynesian and mestizo/European ancestry.[97] The British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands, to the west of Easter Island, have a population of approximately 50 people. They are mixed-race Euronesians who descended from an initial group of British and Tahitian settlers in the 18th century. The islands were previously inhabited by Polynesians; they had long abandoned Pitcairn by the time the settlers had arrived.[98] Norfolk Island, now an external territory of Australia, is also believed to have been inhabited by Polynesians prior to its initial European discovery in the 18th century. Some of their residents are descended from mixed-race Pitcairn Islanders that were relocated onto Norfolk due to overpopulation in 1856.[99]
The once uninhabited Bonin Islands, later politically integrated into Japan, have a small population consisting of Japanese mainlanders and descendants of early European settlers.[97] Archeological findings from the 1990s suggested there was possible prehistoric human activity by Micronesians prior to European discovery in the 16th century.[100]
Several political entities associated with Oceania are still uninhabited, including Baker Island, Clipperton Island, Howland Island and Jarvis Island.[101] There were brief attempts to settle Clipperton with Mexicans and Jarvis with Native Hawaiians in the early 20th century. The Jarvis settlers were relocated from the island due to Japanese advancements during World War II, while most of the settlers on Clipperton ended up dying from starvation and murdering one and other.[102]
The first evident ethnic group to live in Australia were the Australian Aboriginals, a group considered related to the Melanesian Torres Strait Islander people. Europeans, primarily from England arrived first in 1770.
The 2016 Census shows England and New Zealand are the next most common countries of birth after Australia, the proportion of people born in China and India has increased since 2011 (from 6.0 per cent to 8.3 per cent, and 5.6 per cent to 7.4 per cent, respectively).
The proportion of people identifying as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin increased from 2.5 per cent of the Australian population in 2011 to 2.8 per cent in 2016.
In essence, an ethnic group is a named social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or one's ancestors' experiences. Members of the ethnic group see themselves as sharing cultural traditions and history that distinguish them from other groups. Ethnic group identity has a strong psychological or emotional component that divides the people of the world into opposing categories of 'us' and 'them'. In contrast to social stratification, which divides and unifies people along a series of horizontal axes based on socioeconomic factors, ethnic identities divide and unify people along a series of vertical axes. Thus, ethnic groups, at least theoretically, cut across socioeconomic class differences, drawing members from all strata of the population.
a[djective]
- ...
- 2.a. About race; peculiar to a specific tribe, race or nation; ethnological. Also, about or having common tribal, racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic.
- b ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the majority of the community by racial origin or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity. Also attrib.
n[oun]
- ...
- 3 A member of an ethnic group or minority. Equatorians
(Oxford English Dictionary Second edition, online version as of 2008-01-12, s.v. "ethnic, a. and n.")
Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience.
Under the terms of the [1920] Estonian Constitution [which stipulated that each citizen was free to choose and change his/her nationality] and the 1925 law, a national minority was defined as a community of language and culture to which anyone could adhere, regardless of ethnic origin.
Britain's high commissioner in New Zealand continues to administer Pitcairn, and the other former British colonies remain members of the Commonwealth of Nations, recognizing the British Queen as their titular head of state and vesting certain residual powers in the British government or the Queen's representative in the islands. Australia did not cede control of the Torres Strait Islands, inhabited by a Melanesian population, or Lord Howe and Norfolk Island, whose residents are of European ancestry. New Zealand retains indirect rule over Niue and Tokelau and has kept close relations with another former possession, the Cook Islands, through a compact of free association. Chile rules Easter Island (Rapa Nui) and Ecuador rules the Galapagos Islands. The Aboriginals of Australia, the Maoris of New Zealand and the native Polynesians of Hawaii, despite movements demanding more cultural recognition, greater economic and political considerations or even outright sovereignty, have remained minorities in countries where massive waves of migration have completely changed society. In short, Oceania has remained one of the least completely decolonized regions on the globe.
Most of this account of the influence of the Hispanic languages in Oceania has dealt with the Western Pacific, but the Eastern Pacific has not been without some share of the presence of the Portuguese and Spanish. The Eastern Pacific does not have the multitude of islands so characteristic of the Western regions of this great ocean, but there are some: Easter Island, 2000 miles off the Chilean coast, where a Polynesian tongue, Rapanui, is still spoken; the Juan Fernandez group, 400 miles west of Valparaiso; the Galapagos archipelago, 650 miles west of Ecuador; Malpelo and Cocos, 300 miles off the Colombian and Costa Rican coasts respectively; and others. Not many of these islands have extensive populations – some have been used effectively as prisons – but the official language on each is Spanish.
[we] can further define the word culture to mean language. Thus we have the French language part of Oceania, the Spanish part and the Japanese part. The Japanese culture groups of Oceania are the Bonin Islands, the Marcus Islands and the Volcano Islands. These three clusters, lying south and south-east of Japan, are inhabited either by Japanese or by people who have now completely fused with the Japanese race. Therefore they will not be taken into account in the proposed comparison of the policies of non-Oceanic cultures towards Oceanic peoples. On the eastern side of the Pacific are a number of Spanish language culture groups of islands. Two of them, the Galapagos and Easter Island, have been dealt with as separate chapters in this volume. Only one of the dozen or so Spanish culture island groups of Oceania has an Oceanic population – the Polynesians of Easter Island. The rest are either uninhabited or have a Spanish – Latin – American population consisting of people who migrated from the mainland. Therefore, the comparisons which follow refer almost exclusively to the English and French language cultures.