Talk:List of ethnic groups

Contents

1 Eventually a problem 2 Belarusian 3 Link to place instead of ethnicity 4 Geographic rather than ethnic groupings 5 More on usefulness 6 Yaron Livne's comments 7 Umbrella article by continent? 8 List of articles on ethnicity and nationality 9 Hoklo

Eventually a problem

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 Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion for more reasons why I don't like this one.

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 (http://www.ethnologue.com/language_index.asp), 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 ethnic groups (Afar-Afghan), List of ethnic groups (Afrikaans-Bantu) etc then. Easier just to make ethnic group include a paragraph or two on what an ethnic group is and then links to List of Native American tribes, 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

Belarusian

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

Link to place instead of ethnicity

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 histork 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)

Geographic rather than ethnic groupings

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.

More on usefulness

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 African American, Basque, etc.). Someone might want to know what ethnic groups we have articles on. So how do they find out? The obvious way is to have a list of ethnic groups that they can come to to check! The "we could never agree" argument applies to every single article in the Wikipedia. But the principle of NPOV sorts it out. We don't have to know what an ethnic group actually is; we just report what is commonly held to be an ethnic group by other people. The length argument has been dealt with above - the answer is to split up long lists. Have you seen how many lists of people we have now? Of course this list is a mess at the moment, but that just means that it needs attention, not that it needs deleting. My opinion is that it should only list the groups that we have articles on, or that we're going to have articles on. The unopposed existence of such an article would in itself be convincing evidence that the grouping was a meaningful one. -- Oliver P. 07:44 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if the list was limited to ethnic groups covered by articles (or inteded to be urgently covered), it might be, to some small degree, useful. But it wouldn't be easy to keep it that way. Alternatively one changes the title of the page to "Incomplete list of nationals and ethnic groups covered by Wikipedia articles".

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)

Yaron Livne's comments

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)

Umbrella article by continent?

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.

How do you decide where to place an ethnic group? Where it developed? E.g. would you include Jewish only in Asia, despite the fact that more Jews live outside Israel than in? (more in the United States alone IIRC).

Yes, where it developped. Israel is home to many ethnic groups who share the Jewish faith. Look here: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Israel Mathieugp 05:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That begs the question then do you list Jewish as an ethnicity along with all the verious "sub-ethnicities"? Does Jewish-American, Jewish-New-Yorker, etc. count as ethnicities? Also how far "up" do you go? Semetic? Western? -- stewacide

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 Bernard Landry, the last person to stick to the ideals of the 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)

We'll see what happens when some of the "less European" countries enter the EU (Eastern Europe, Turkey, Cyprus... perhapse Tunisia...). You'll note that this inclusive (non-white/Christian/European) model for the EU is strongly supported by the US and Canada. And also the rise of the EU was certainly noted by everyone in North America, although most (myself included) see it as a matter of Europe following in our wake and as a stepping stone to true multiculturalism.

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)

In fact those instances of "disgusting imperialism" (Acadian expulsion, treatment of the Metis, Francophone education outside Quebec, aboriginal assimilation, etc.) were all examples of English Canada trying to impose uniculturalism and assimilationism on the old European model.

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)

You're victim complex notwithstanding Anglo block voting hasn't existed in any form since the constription crisis(!). And every federal government since has had at least signifigant minority support in Quebec. The apparent rise of Ontario (Liberal) block voting was simply a result of a crumbled and regionalized opposition, and with the re-emergence of a competative (although IMHO still weak) opposition many expect to see the Conservatives win ~1/3 of Ontario seats in the next election, and the NDP perhapse ~1/4.

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)

And yes the decline in French outside Quebec has been tragic. For English Canada to demand that Quebec adopt complete linguistic equality now would be a matter of changing the rules half-way through the game, and I think most English Canadians recognize this. While many people dislike the more vindictive aspects of Bill 101 (e.g. the sinage laws) most people I talk too believe the meat of the bill - the education requirements for immigrants - is entirely justified.

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)

Which you'll get by scareing them away and/or marginalizing them with Quebecois nationalism? Even if it hasn't been as succesful as English Canada Quebec is still far ahead of Europe in terms of integrating immigrants into society by all measures (numbers, quality...).

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)

Also it's worth noting that the decline in Francophones outside Quebec has been among rural people, and they're disapearing regardless (franco and anglo). IIRC in areas where French wasn't allowed to fall below the survivability threshold, such as in Eastern Ontario, the number of francophones is increasing.

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)

I don't doubt that, but I can't think of anything that can be done to help Francophone communities in majority English provinces that already isn't already being done?

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/

English Canadian are VERY open to learning French, but believe me it's REALLY hard to learn another language as an anglophone (in any country probably) English being as dominant as it is. Certainly nobody does it by accident. My (anglophone) parents for instance sent me to a French school from kindergarten to grade 3 (when we moved towns) yet I'm proof positive it's possible to de-learn a language through non-practice! Similarily I know MANY people with both anglo and Franco-Ontarian parents who went through years of French school but can barely speak the language. Moreover (!) I've tried off-and-on to reaquire French (using books, computer programs, etc.) but it's just really hard to do.

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

If only you could find some easy, effective, and enjoyable way for anglo's to learn French I GUARANTEE most of us would. It seems kinds of counter-productive for instance for me to pay +$100 for a computer program to improve my French when the government has a policy of official bilingualism. Free classes would be even better (IIRC they have a foolproof system worked out for teaching anglo civil servants).

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 ethnic group article. Mathieugp 16:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

List of articles on ethnicity and nationality

I agree this article can probably never be NPOV and if we ever managed to list all the ethnic groups in existence (ever?) from the very macro to the very micro it would be unworkably long. While ethnicity is definately a better defined concept than E.g. nationality it's still probably too ambigious to be of any real use.

A better solution could be a master List of articles on ethnicity and nationality or something to that effect that would link to anything and everything related to the subject EXCEPT supposed ethnic/national groups themselves. Only in actual articles (e.g. Ethnic groups of New Guinea, European nationalism, Jewish diaspora, etc.) can such a complicated subject even be approached. -- stewacide 02:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

Hoklo

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