The Swiss and the Dutch did. We could have a PoD of the 1860s, where the North Germans have one state, and the South Germans have another state, and both try to make themselves as different from the other as possible.The problem are that it would make little sense, yes there's mire Protestants in the north and more Catholics in the south, but there's massive regions of both areas populated by people of the other religion. It doesn't lend itself to develop separate national identities.
The Swiss and the Dutch did. We could have a PoD of the 1860s, where the North Germans have one state, and the South Germans have another state, and both try to make themselves as different from the other as possible.
The Dutch are an ethnicity. Also, what is an ethnicity may depend on the particular context. Language also does not always determine ethnicity, Serbs and Croats consider themselves different ethnicities.People are confusing nationalities with ethnicities. The Dutch and Swiss are not ethnicities, they are nationalities. The Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are not ethnicities, they are nationalities; Serbo-Croatian is the ethno-linguistic common denomination. Religion doesn't determine ethnicity and has nothing to do with it.
No. That's not even close to the use of the word ethnicity in English. We seem to have a language barrier here. An ethnic group requires an ethnogenesis in part through a unique genetic background. The difference between a Serb and Croat is less than that of someone from Ireland and Northern Ireland. Nationality is the English term you are looking for.The Dutch are an ethnicity. Also, what is an ethnicity may depend on the particular context. Language also does not always determine ethnicity, Serbs and Croats consider themselves different ethnicities.
People are confusing nationalities with ethnicities. The Dutch and Swiss are not ethnicities, they are nationalities. The Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are not ethnicities, they are nationalities; Serbo-Croatian is the ethno-linguistic common denomination. Religion doesn't determine ethnicity and has nothing to do with it.
That's what I am saying: ethnicity does not have a universal meaning, it is what a people who consider itself an ethnicity wants it to be.No. That's not even close to the use of the word ethnicity in English. We seem to have a language barrier here. An ethnic group requires an ethnogenesis in part through a unique genetic background.
How is that? I doubt that the genetic difference between people in Ireland and Northern Ireland is so much greater than between Serbs and Croats.The difference between a Serb and Croat is less than that of someone from Ireland and Northern Ireland. Nationality is the English term you are looking for.
The Swiss and the Dutch did. We could have a PoD of the 1860s, where the North Germans have one state, and the South Germans have another state, and both try to make themselves as different from the other as possible.
Again you're defining nationality, not ethnicity. You don't seem to understand the difference. I don't know if this is a linguistic problem and the English word ethnicity isn't being translated correctly, but nationality and ethnicity are not the same. Your idea of ethnicity is what is called nationality in English.That's what I am saying: ethnicity does not have a universal meaning, it is what a people who consider itself an ethnicity wants it to be.
How is that? I doubt that the genetic difference between people in Ireland and Northern Ireland is so much greater than between Serbs and Croats.
And on-topic: it's possible to have more 'German' ethnicities: Bavarians and Saxons at least could have gone 'the way of the Dutch' and became their own ethnicities on the basis of linguistic and religious divide.
Again you're defining nationality, not ethnicity. You don't seem to understand the difference. I don't know if this is a linguistic problem and the English word ethnicity isn't being translated correctly, but nationality and ethnicity are not the same. Your idea of ethnicity is what is called nationality in English.
Again you're defining nationality, not ethnicity. You don't seem to understand the difference. I don't know if this is a linguistic problem and the English word ethnicity isn't being translated correctly, but nationality and ethnicity are not the same. Your idea of ethnicity is what is called nationality in English.
You're using an equivalence of the "languages are dialects with armies to back it up". That is fine for nationalities, but not for ethnicities. Austria having an army does back up their claim to a nationality, but it does nothing to change that they are German by ethnicity, whether the people themselves see themselves that way or not. There is not, and never can be, an American ethnicity, or Canadian. There is no defining ethnogenesis by way of isolation from a larger ethno-racial group or a mixing of two or more established ethnic populations resulting in a future population with unique genetic markers that can be traced back showing descent from that group. If a hypothetical blood or genetic test can't find unique markers to set your group apart then it's not an ethnic group.As to the difference between Nationality and Ethnicity: Bosniak is an ethnicity. Bosnian is a nationality. Bosnian Serbs are Bosnian by nationality but Serbian by ethnicity. The ethnic difference between Bosniaks and Bosnian Serbs (within the same nationality) is not somehow erased by your stipulation of a greater Serbo-Croatian ethnicity.
I think the best way to think of ethnicity is as a classification system. Two related ethnicities can be grouped together into super-ethnicity (e.g. Dutch and German are both "Germanic") and sub-ethnicities can be found within a given ethnicity. But that doesn't mean that there's only one level of this classification system that can be called "ethnicity". Whether two groups of people are the same or different ethnicities depends on the level of analysis you are using.
You are assuming people use "ethnicity" to mean only genetical differences, only a minority of people does that.You're using an equivalence of the "languages are dialects with armies to back it up". That is fine for nationalities, but not for ethnicities. Austria having an army does back up their claim to a nationality, but it does nothing to change that they are German by ethnicity, whether the people themselves see themselves that way or not. There is not, and never can be, an American ethnicity, or Canadian. There is no defining ethnogenesis by way of isolation from a larger ethno-racial group or a mixing of two or more established ethnic populations resulting in a future population with unique genetic markers that can be traced back showing descent from that group. If a hypothetical blood or genetic test can't find unique markers to set your group apart then it's not an ethnic group.
You misspelled majority.You are assuming people use "ethnicity" to mean only genetical differences, only a minority of people does that.
No I didn't, in any case no point in arguing semantic, you have to accept that this is how people are using the word, maybe it's not used by the majority of people(although frankly not sure how you have that impression) but in the context of this thread ethnicity is not used to mean racial groups.You misspelled majority.
Now your conflating it with racial groups. Ethnicity by the correct definition which I gave has nothing to do with racial groups, which is why Hispanic (an ethnic group) has nothing to do with whether someone is white, black, or American Indian or a mixture of the two; it also has nothing to do with nationality. One can be be born in Argentina, and be a citizen of Argentina, and still be ethnically not Hispanic if both parents are ethnically not Hispanic (replace Argentina with any Hispanic nation still true) because nationality does not equal ethnicity.No I didn't, in any case no point in arguing semantic, you have to accept that this is how people are using the word, maybe it's not used by the majority of people(although frankly not sure how you have that impression) but in the context of this thread ethnicity is not used to mean racial groups.
Dude you literally said:Now your conflating it with racial groups. Ethnicity by the correct definition which I gave has nothing to do with racial groups, which is why Hispanic (an ethnic group) has nothing to do with whether someone is white, black, or American Indian or a mixture of the two; it also has nothing to do with nationality. One can be be born in Argentina, and be a citizen of Argentina, and still be ethnically not Hispanic if both parents are ethnically not Hispanic (replace Argentina with any Hispanic nation still true) because nationality does not equal ethnicity.
There is no defining ethnogenesis by way of isolation from a larger ethno-racial group or a mixing of two or more established ethnic populations resulting in a future population with unique genetic markers that can be traced back showing descent from that group. If a hypothetical blood or genetic test can't find unique markers to set your group apart then it's not an ethnic group.