Chumblywumbly wrote:
Not wholly, but most often when we discuss ethnicity - and when we were doing so above - we're talking about a shared heritage that is much more than just cultural, that has something to do with one's ancestors. This often chimes with skin colour.
Now, we can define ethnicity in a much more broad fashion - South Norwega has done just that - and I've no problem with describing the Scots as an ethnic group in the sense that we have a shared cultural heritage. But what I'm objecting to is the notion that Scots have a shared set of ancestors - i.e., if you're a Scot you've got to be white and descendent from a Celt/Pict/Viking - who all originate from the place we now call Scotland.
I have to say I agree with you there. Defining ethnicity by skin colour could exclude third, fourth generation people from places where different skin colours are the norm. Broad definitions are the best in this case.





