On Ethnicity

[Furious Grandmothers]

Perhaps my original usage of ethnicity is in error, but I will persevere. I see a distinction between ethnic groups of a cultural origin and those of a national origin. However, I seem to have treated ethnicity as a concept interlinked with genetics and will continue to do so.

I stand by my original comment regarding new ethnicities, continual interbreeding will never cause a new ethnicity unless only the same ethnicities interbreed. That is, no more new ones enter the mix. New cultures are all too easy to produce; a fact I doubt will ever change.

With regards to those amongst you who treat ethnicity as relating only to culture, you are also wrong. This can be seen by the second 'or' in the following definition: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." This is the Oxford Dictionaries Online's definition. However, your answer to the original question is not.

The person who stated that by going back far enough we would conclude that everyone is African is also wrong. African is not an ethnicity. There are many different ethnicities that come under the category African ethnicities, Sub-saharan or Eastern as examples. However, my calling this wrong seems hypocritical as I have linked Dutch, German and French people into the category 'European,' but I see a distinction between these two situations. What I have done is failed to put Western European, whereas this person has given no indication of a similar case.

Having addressed the above, it appears that what the individual identifies with is what they are. This is the conclusion I have reached from the comments.

Yes, I really mean it, we all could have come from Africa. Why are "ethnic" distinctions still relevant? The way I see it, ethnicity has no function in society.

[The Blaatschapen]

for race, I usually put 'Human'.

for Ethnic Background... I put Hawaiian... that gets some weird looks from the officals. they ask me how? I simply turn to look behind me and wave to the wide background and say... "Hawaii... so Hawaiian."

the usual response is for them to press their lips together and hand me a new form to fill out.

And do you fill in the second form exactly the same? Or do you fill in one of the more expected responses?

[Bluth Corporation]

Broad ethinic categories such as NZ European, European, Maori, Polynesian, Asian or Indian are also fairly easy to decide upon. An NZ European is born in New Zealand with ancestors from Europe, normally Britain. If the individual also has, say, Maori ancestry the individual just picks which (s)he identifies with the most, or both. This system works quite well but is arbitary.

Of course is. Ethnicity is entirely a cultural construction, after all.

That said, I would question your assertion that the "individual just picks." Certainly, he can pick what he wants to call himself; but it is up to other members of the ethnic group to decide whether or not they want to accept that self-designation.

For example, the individual has one Maori great-grandparent and all the others were born in, say, London. However, this person sees themself as Maori, although they are only one eighth so (12.5%.) Obviously, this is quite innacurate.

Why is it inaccurate? If he finds the designation suits him, and other Maori are willing to accept it (I do not claim to understand how Maori themselves define their ethnic boundaries), then he is Maori. Ethnicity is entirely culturally constructed. It has no objective biological basis--what is and is not relevant, and to what degree, to determining membership in a particular ethnicity is entirely subjective. I don't know that I'd call it arbitrary--oftentimes, we see that it's chosen with a view to certain specific purposes, such as gaining access to political or economic resources--but the characteristics that make up a given ethnicity are determined culturally.

To be short: your entire argument is based on the assumption that ethnicity is something that can be objectively determined according to universal criteria. Ethnographic research shows that the opposite is quite clearly true.

[Free Soviets]

The way I see it, ethnicity has no function in society.

seen many people wearing penis gourds around town recently? been speaking much russian?

[Arumdaum]

Ethnically, I'd be a Southern Coastal Californian I guess.

My race'd be human.

[Penguinland]

As far as ethnicity goes, I'm 1/2 Irish, 1/4 English, and 1/4 Scottish, being that all of my ancestors are from the British Isles, am I British-American? Or does that tie in too closely with the UK?

[Furious Grandmothers]

The way I see it, ethnicity has no function in society.

seen many people wearing penis gourds around town recently? been speaking much russian?

No and no. Wait. Russian penis gourds? *Stifles bad "in Soviet Russia" joke*

[Teotan]

Whys it matter? It's not like stereotypes are true.

[Bluth Corporation]

As far as ethnicity goes, I'm 1/2 Irish, 1/4 English, and 1/4 Scottish, being that all of my ancestors are from the British Isles, am I British-American? Or does that tie in too closely with the UK?

Ethnicity is not ancestry, you know.

[Free Soviets]

seen many people wearing penis gourds around town recently? been speaking much russian?

No and no. Wait. Russian penis gourds? *Stifles bad "in Soviet Russia" joke*

my point, of course, is that the reason you haven't is because these are not part of your ethnicity's cultural traits. but there are some ethnic groups where such things are quite common. basically, ethnicity has a shit-ton of functions in society.

[Kirrig]

Broad ethinic categories such as NZ European, European, Maori, Polynesian, Asian or Indian are also fairly easy to decide upon. An NZ European is born in New Zealand with ancestors from Europe, normally Britain. If the individual also has, say, Maori ancestry the individual just picks which (s)he identifies with the most, or both. This system works quite well but is arbitary.

Of course is. Ethnicity is entirely a cultural construction, after all.

That said, I would question your assertion that the "individual just picks." Certainly, he can pick what he wants to call himself; but it is up to other members of the ethnic group to decide whether or not they want to accept that self-designation.

For example, the individual has one Maori great-grandparent and all the others were born in, say, London. However, this person sees themself as Maori, although they are only one eighth so (12.5%.) Obviously, this is quite innacurate.

Why is it inaccurate? If he finds the designation suits him, and other Maori are willing to accept it (I do not claim to understand how Maori themselves define their ethnic boundaries), then he is Maori. Ethnicity is entirely culturally constructed. It has no objective biological basis--what is and is not relevant, and to what degree, to determining membership in a particular ethnicity is entirely subjective. I don't know that I'd call it arbitrary--oftentimes, we see that it's chosen with a view to certain specific purposes, such as gaining access to political or economic resources--but the characteristics that make up a given ethnicity are determined culturally.

To be short: your entire argument is based on the assumption that ethnicity is something that can be objectively determined according to universal criteria. Ethnographic research shows that the opposite is quite clearly true.

The individual, in this example, has failed to acknowledge the majority of his ancestry, either cultural or genetic, which is why it is inaccurate.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Of course is. Ethnicity is entirely a cultural construction, after all.

That said, I would question your assertion that the "individual just picks." Certainly, he can pick what he wants to call himself; but it is up to other members of the ethnic group to decide whether or not they want to accept that self-designation.


Why is it inaccurate? If he finds the designation suits him, and other Maori are willing to accept it (I do not claim to understand how Maori themselves define their ethnic boundaries), then he is Maori. Ethnicity is entirely culturally constructed. It has no objective biological basis--what is and is not relevant, and to what degree, to determining membership in a particular ethnicity is entirely subjective. I don't know that I'd call it arbitrary--oftentimes, we see that it's chosen with a view to certain specific purposes, such as gaining access to political or economic resources--but the characteristics that make up a given ethnicity are determined culturally.

To be short: your entire argument is based on the assumption that ethnicity is something that can be objectively determined according to universal criteria. Ethnographic research shows that the opposite is quite clearly true.

The individual, in this example, has failed to acknowledge the majority of his ancestry, either cultural or genetic, which is why it is inaccurate.

For you to claim it as inaccurate, there must be an objective measure against which accuracy can be determined, and which is relevant to the attribute of note. What if this objective measure, then? If you can't point it out, then in no way is he inaccurate.

Also, where in his point did he not acknowledge the majority of his ancestry, either cultural or genetic? Stop strawmanning him.

[Furious Grandmothers]

No and no. Wait. Russian penis gourds? *Stifles bad "in Soviet Russia" joke*

my point, of course, is that the reason you haven't is because these are not part of your ethnicity's cultural traits. but there are some ethnic groups where such things are quite common. basically, ethnicity has a shit-ton of functions in society.

That's begging the question and making a presumption that culture is linked with ethnicity. Your examples are of cultural traits, but in no way are these traits linked to ethnicity if we can't even have an objective basis for ethnicity.

[Bluth Corporation]

Of course is. Ethnicity is entirely a cultural construction, after all.

That said, I would question your assertion that the "individual just picks." Certainly, he can pick what he wants to call himself; but it is up to other members of the ethnic group to decide whether or not they want to accept that self-designation.


Why is it inaccurate? If he finds the designation suits him, and other Maori are willing to accept it (I do not claim to understand how Maori themselves define their ethnic boundaries), then he is Maori. Ethnicity is entirely culturally constructed. It has no objective biological basis--what is and is not relevant, and to what degree, to determining membership in a particular ethnicity is entirely subjective. I don't know that I'd call it arbitrary--oftentimes, we see that it's chosen with a view to certain specific purposes, such as gaining access to political or economic resources--but the characteristics that make up a given ethnicity are determined culturally.

To be short: your entire argument is based on the assumption that ethnicity is something that can be objectively determined according to universal criteria. Ethnographic research shows that the opposite is quite clearly true.

The individual, in this example, has failed to acknowledge the majority of his ancestry, either cultural or genetic, which is why it is inaccurate.

How does that make his ethnic identity inaccurate? If he chooses to identify with an ethnicity whose boundaries are defined in such a way that the ancestry makeup you describe is irrelevant, then that particular ancestry is irrelevant. Again, you're ignoring the fact that ethnicity is culturally constructed. If Maoris define their boundaries in such a way that the person in your example is a Maori (I don't know if indeed they do or not), then he is a Maori, regardless of how much you might wish to push your own conception of what constitutes "correct" ethnic boundaries upon the situation.

Certainly, he is not obligated to consider himself ethnically British simply because the bulk of his ancestry is British. Others may see him as such, but he is not required to. And his choice is in no way objectively "incorrect," because again, ethnicity is constructed, not objective. Ancestry may indeed be (and often is) one of the many ways ethnic groups define themselves, but that is not necessarily the case, and you can't assume or insist that it must be.

[Bluth Corporation]

my point, of course, is that the reason you haven't is because these are not part of your ethnicity's cultural traits. but there are some ethnic groups where such things are quite common. basically, ethnicity has a shit-ton of functions in society.

That's begging the question and making a presumption that culture is linked with ethnicity. Your examples are of cultural traits, but in no way are these traits linked to ethnicity if we can't even have an objective basis for ethnicity.

Cultural traits are indeed linked to ethnicity, in that certain shared (whether this sharing is perceived or actual) cultural traits is one of the ways many ethnic groups choose to delineate themselves and their members.

[Kirrig]

The individual, in this example, has failed to acknowledge the majority of his ancestry, either cultural or genetic, which is why it is inaccurate.

How does that make his ethnic identity inaccurate? If he chooses to identify with an ethnicity whose boundaries are defined in such a way that the ancestry makeup you describe is irrelevant, then that particular ancestry is irrelevant. Again, you're ignoring the fact that ethnicity is culturally constructed. If Maoris define their boundaries in such a way that the person in your example is a Maori (I don't know if indeed they do or not), then he is a Maori, regardless of how much you might wish to push your own conception of what constitutes "correct" ethnic boundaries upon the situation.

Certainly, he is not obligated to consider himself ethnically British simply because the bulk of his ancestry is British. Others may see him as such, but he is not required to. And his choice is in no way objectively "incorrect," because again, ethnicity is constructed, not objective. Ancestry may indeed be (and often is) one of the many ways ethnic groups define themselves, but that is not necessarily the case, and you can't assume or insist that it must be.

So, what you are saying is that an individual's ethnicity is down to the individual, provided the ethnicity that the individual identifies with accepts them as part of that ethnicity. Also, you are saying that it is right for an individual to ignore a whole part of his heritage. This state of affairs is clearly wrong: an individual can be left without an ethnicity.

[Bluth Corporation]

How does that make his ethnic identity inaccurate? If he chooses to identify with an ethnicity whose boundaries are defined in such a way that the ancestry makeup you describe is irrelevant, then that particular ancestry is irrelevant. Again, you're ignoring the fact that ethnicity is culturally constructed. If Maoris define their boundaries in such a way that the person in your example is a Maori (I don't know if indeed they do or not), then he is a Maori, regardless of how much you might wish to push your own conception of what constitutes "correct" ethnic boundaries upon the situation.

Certainly, he is not obligated to consider himself ethnically British simply because the bulk of his ancestry is British. Others may see him as such, but he is not required to. And his choice is in no way objectively "incorrect," because again, ethnicity is constructed, not objective. Ancestry may indeed be (and often is) one of the many ways ethnic groups define themselves, but that is not necessarily the case, and you can't assume or insist that it must be.

So, what you are saying is that an individual's ethnicity is down to the individual, provided the ethnicity that the individual identifies with accepts them as part of that ethnicity.

Of course.

Also, you are saying that it is right for an individual to ignore a whole part of his heritage.

Of course.

This state of affairs is clearly wrong: an individual can be left without an ethnicity.

He certainly can. You seem to think there's something wrong with that, and I'm not sure why.

[Kirrig]

So, what you are saying is that an individual's ethnicity is down to the individual, provided the ethnicity that the individual identifies with accepts them as part of that ethnicity.

Of course.

Also, you are saying that it is right for an individual to ignore a whole part of his heritage.

Of course.

This state of affairs is clearly wrong: an individual can be left without an ethnicity.

He certainly can. You seem to think there's something wrong with that, and I'm not sure why.

An individual's identity is, in part, due to their ethnicity. To lose one's ethnicity through the actions, or lack thereof, of another is wrong on that ground.

[Dagnia]

Like many Americans I'm also a total mutt (Polish, Irish, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Syrian, Navajo, possibly black somewhere up there....). I don't consider myself anything other than American and think ethnicity only matters to people looking for a handout or special status.

[Kirrig]

Like many Americans I'm also a total mutt (Polish, Irish, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Syrian, Navajo, possibly black somewhere up there....). I don't consider myself anything other than American and think ethnicity only matters to people looking for a handout or special status.

What would you say if all other Americans decided that you did not have a right to that ethnicity? Would you say that you are not an American?

And what of your other ancestors, what if they to decided that you had no right to those ethnicities?

According to Bluth Corporation you would then have no ethnicity. I seek another opinion on the matter.

[Kirrig]

Bump.

[Free Soviets]

my point, of course, is that the reason you haven't is because these are not part of your ethnicity's cultural traits. but there are some ethnic groups where such things are quite common. basically, ethnicity has a shit-ton of functions in society.

That's begging the question and making a presumption that culture is linked with ethnicity. Your examples are of cultural traits, but in no way are these traits linked to ethnicity if we can't even have an objective basis for ethnicity.

its not a presumption, its the definition. ethnicity is self-affirmed group identity based on culture.

[Leocardia]

When people say, "I am American Chinese."

Do they mean they are Chinese ethnically, with an American nationality? Or an American (Caucasian/white) with Chinese nationality?

[Milks Empire]

My nationality is American (as in, I hold US citizenship). I'll break down my ethnic background by my grandparents... and I'm only going back 500 years for this.

-Paternal grandfather: English, Scots-Irish, probably Welsh and Cornish, and possibly a little Protestant Irish.
-Paternal grandmother: Anyone who could answer that for me is long since dead.
-Maternal grandfather: Irish, Baden-Württemburg German, English, Bavarian German, Hessian German, Rhenish German, Nassau German, Italian, Irlando-Québecois, probably Dutch, and rumors of Mohawk.
-Maternal grandmother: English, German, Irish

[Kirrig]

That's begging the question and making a presumption that culture is linked with ethnicity. Your examples are of cultural traits, but in no way are these traits linked to ethnicity if we can't even have an objective basis for ethnicity.

its not a presumption, its the definition. ethnicity is self-affirmed group identity based on culture.

I believe I pointed out earlier that ethnicity is not just about culture, it could also be based on nationality. On the other hand, it seems to me to be frequently treated as a biological concept as well, which turns out to be in error (for now.)

The American Chinese question is quite interesting, although slightly off topic (althogh not as much as the next post.) I think they mean they are a Chinese individual who is American, this is because a Chinese American is the reverse. The problem arises because 'Chinese' can be either a noun or an adjective.

Milks Empire, by stating your ethnic background are you giving an example of how you would determine your ethnicity?