An ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು is a ಗುಂಪು of ಜನರು whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[೧][೨] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ಮನೆತನ, history, ರಕ್ತಸಂಬಂಧ, religion, language, shared territory, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯity or physical appearance. Members of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು are conscious of belonging to an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು; moreover ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a ಗುಂಪು's distinctiveness.[೩][೪]

According to "Challenges of Measuring an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ World: Science, politics, and reality", a conference organised by ಸ್ಟಾಟಿಸ್ಟಿಕ್ಸ್‌ ಕೆನಡಾ and the United States ಸೆನ್ಸಸ್‌ ಬ್ಯೂರೋ (April 1–3, 1992), "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience."[೫] However, many social scientists, such as anthropologists ಫ್ರೆಡ್ರಿಕ್‌ ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ and ಎರಿಕ್‌ ವೊಲ್ಫ್‌, do not conಸೈಡರ್‌ ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity to be universal. They regard ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as a product of specific kinds of inter-ಗುಂಪು interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human ಗುಂಪುಗಳು.[೬]

Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are called ಜನಾಂಗ ಜನ್ಯತೆ. Members of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time. Historians and cultural anthropologists have documented, however, that often many of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent invention.[೭][೮]

According to ಥಾಮಸ್‌ ಹೈಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್‌ ಎರಿಕ್ಸೆನ್‌, the study of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was dominated by two distinct debates until recently. One is between "primordialism" and "instrumentalism". In the primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ view, the participant perceives ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ties collectively, as an externally given, even coercive, social bond.[೯] The instrumentaಪಟ್ಟಿ approach, on the other hand, treats ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ primarily as an ad-hoc element of a political strategy, used as a resource for interest ಗುಂಪುಗಳು for achieving secondary goals such as, for instance, an increase in wealth, power or status.[೧೦][೧೧] This debate is still an important point of reference in Political science, although most scholars' approaches fall between the two poles.[೧೨]

The second debate is between "constructivism" and "essentialism". Constructivists view ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identities as the product of historical forces, often recent, even when the identities are presented as old.[೧೩][೧೪] Essentiaಪಟ್ಟಿs view such identities as ontological categories defining social actors, and not the result of social action.[೧೫][೧೬]

According to ಎರಿಕ್‌ಸೆನ್‌, these debates have been superseded, especially in anthropology, by scholars' attempts to respond to increasingly politicised forms of self-representation by members of different ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs. This is in the context of debates over multiculturalism in countries, such as the United States and Canada, which have large immigrant populations from many different cultures, and post-colonialism in the Caribbean and South Asia.[೧೭]

Defining ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

The terms "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ" and "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು" are derived from the Greek word ethnos , normally translated as "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ" or commonly said ಜನರು of the same race that share a distinctive culture. The term "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" and related forms were used in English in the meaning of "pagan/ heathen" from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century. ThiE. Tonkin, M. McDonald and M. Chapman, History and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ (ಲಂಡನ್‌ 1989), pp. 11–17 (quoted in J. ಹಚಿನ್‌ಸನ್‌ & A.D. ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌ (eds.), ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ ರೀಡರ್ಸ್‌: ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ (ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ 1996), pp. 18–24)</ref>

The modern usage of "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು", however, reflects the different kinds of encounters industrialised states have had with subordinate ಗುಂಪುಗಳು, such as immigrants and colonised subjects; "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು" came to stand in opposition to "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ", to refer to ಜನರು with distinct cultural identities who, through migration or conquest, had become subject to a foreign state. The modern usage of the word is relatively new—1851[೧೮] — with the first usage of the term ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು in 1935,[೧೯] and entering the ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ English Dictionary in 1972.[೨೦][೨೧]

The modern usage definition of the ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ English Dictionary is:


2.a. Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common 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 rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity. Also attrib.


3 A member of an ethnic group or minority. orig. U.S.
— Oxford English Dictionary "ethnic, a. and n."[೨೨]

Writing about the usage of the term "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" in the ordinary language of Great ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌ and the United States, ವಾಲ್‌ಮನ್‌ notes that

The term 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ' popularly connotes 'race' in ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North Amಎರಿಕ್‌a, by contrast, 'race' most commonly means color, and 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯs' are the descendents of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ' is not a noun in ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌. In effect there are no 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯs'; there are only 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ relations'.[೨೩]

Thus, in today's everyday language, the words "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" and "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ" still have a ring of exotic ಜನರುs, ಅಲ್ಪಸಂಖ್ಯಾತರು issues and race relations.

Within the social sciences, however, the usage has become more generalized to all human ಗುಂಪುಗಳು that explicitly regard themselves and are regarded by others as culturally distinctive.[೨೪] Among the first to bring the term "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು" into social studies was the ಜರ್ಮನ್‌ sociologist ಮ್ಯಾಕ್ಸ್‌‌ ವೆಬೆರ್‌, who defined it as:

[T]hose human ಗುಂಪುಗಳು that entertain a subjective belief in their common ತಲೆಮಾರು because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for ಗುಂಪು formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.[೨೫]

Conceptual history of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Weber maintained that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the ಗುಂಪು; the ಗುಂಪು created the belief. Third, ಗುಂಪು formation resulted from the drive to monopolise power and status. This was contrary to the prevailing naturaಪಟ್ಟಿ belief of the time, which held that socio-cultural and behavioral differences between ಜನರುs stemmed from inherited traits and tendencies derived from common ತಲೆಮಾರು, then called "race".[೨೬]

Another influential theoretician of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was ಫ್ರೆಡ್ರಿಕ್‌ ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌, whose "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in social studies in the 1980s and 1990s.[೨೭] ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ went further than Weber in stressing the constructed nature of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ. To ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification. ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌'s view is that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are not discontinuous cultural isolates, or logical a prioris to which ಜನರು naturally belong. He wanted to part with anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ bonds, replacing it with a focus on the interface between ಗುಂಪುಗಳು. "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌", therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identities. ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ writes: "[...] categorical ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories."

In 1978, anthropologist ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ claimed that the identification of "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು" in the usage of social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:

... the named ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.[೨೭]

In this way, he pointed to the fact that identification of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು by outಸೈಡರ್‌s, e.g. anthropologists, may not coincide with the self-identification of the members of that ಗುಂಪು. He also described that in the first decades of usage, the term ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ had often been used in lieu of older terms such as "cultural" or "tribal" when referring to smaller ಗುಂಪುಗಳು with shared cultural systems and shared heritage, but that "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ" had the added value of being able to describe the commonalities between systems of ಗುಂಪು identity in both tribal and modern societies. ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ also suggested that claims concerning "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" identity (like earlier claims concerning "tribal" identity) are often coloniaಪಟ್ಟಿ practices and effects of the relations between colonized ಜನರುs and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-states.[೨೭]

Social scientists have thus focused on how, when, and why different markers of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity become salient. Thus, anthropologist ಜೋವನ್‌ ವಿನ್ಸೆಂಟ್‌ observed that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ boundaries often have a mercurial character.[೨೮] ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ concluded that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness".[೨೭] He agrees with ಜೋವನ್‌ ವಿನ್ಸೆಂಟ್‌'s observation that (in ಕೋಹೆನ್‌'s paraphrase) "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization.[೨೭] This may be why ತಲೆಮಾರು is sometimes a marker of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is salient depends on whether ಜನರು are scaling ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation.

Ethnies and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categoriesಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

In order to avoid the problems of defining ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ classification as labelling of others or as self-identification, it has been proposed to distinguish between concepts of "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories", "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ networks" and "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ communities" or "ethnies".[೨೯][೩೦]

  • An "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ category " is a category set up by outಸೈಡರ್‌s, that is, those who are not themselves members of the category, and whose members are populations that are categorised by outಸೈಡರ್‌s as being distinguished by attributes of a common name or emblem, a shared cultural element and a connection to a specific territory. But, members who are ascribed to ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories do not themselves have any awareness of their belonging to a common, distinctive ಗುಂಪು.
  • At the level of "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ networks ", the ಗುಂಪು begins to have a sense of collectiveness, and at this level, common myths of origin and shared cultural and biological heritage begins to emerge, at least among the élites.[೩೦]
  • At the level of "ethnies " or "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ communities ", the members themselves have clear conceptions of being "a named human population with myths of common ಮನೆತನ, shared historical memories, and one or more common elements of culture, including an association with a homeland, and some degree of solidarity, at least among the élites". That is, an ethnie is self-defined as a ಗುಂಪು, whereas ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories are set up by outಸೈಡರ್‌s whether or not their own members identify with the category given them.[೩೧]
  • A "Situational ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ " is an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity that is chosen for the moment based on the social setting or situation.[೩೨]

Approaches to understanding ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Different approaches to understanding ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ have been used by different social scientists when trying to understand the nature of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as a factor in human life and society. Examples of such approaches are: primordialism, essentialism, perennialism, constructivism, modernism and instrumentalism.

  • "Primordialism ", holds that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ has existed at all times of human history and that modern ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು have historical continuity into the far past. For them, the idea of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is closely linked to the idea of ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs and is rooted in the pre-Weber understanding of humanity as being divided into primordially existing ಗುಂಪುಗಳು rooted by ರಕ್ತಸಂಬಂಧ and biological heritage.
    • "Essentiaಪಟ್ಟಿ primordialism " further holds that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is an a priori fact of human existence, that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ precedes any human social interaction and that it is basically unchanged by it. This theory sees ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು as natural, not just as historical. This understanding does not explain how and why ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು seemingly appear, disappear and often reappear through history. It also has problems dealing with the consequences of intermarriage, migration and colonization for the composition of modern day multi-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ societies.[೩೧]
    • "ರಕ್ತಸಂಬಂಧ primordialism " holds that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ communities are extensions of ರಕ್ತಸಂಬಂಧ units, basically being derived by ರಕ್ತಸಂಬಂಧ or ಕುಲ ties where the choices of cultural signs (language, religion, traditions) are made exactly to show this biological affinity. In this way, the myths of common biological ಮನೆತನ that are a defining feature of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ communities are to be understood as representing actual biological history. A problem with this view on ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is that it is more often than not the case that mythic origins of specific ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು directly contradict the known biological history of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ community.[೩೧]
    • "ಗೀರ್ಟ್ಜ್‌'s primordialism ", notably espoused by anthropologist ಕ್ಲಿಫೋರ್ಡ್‌ ಗೀರ್ಟ್ಜ್‌, argues that humans in general attribute an overwhelming power to primordial human "givens" such as blood ties, language, territory, and cultural differences. In ಗೀರ್ಟ್ಜ್‌' opinion, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is not in itself primordial but humans perceive it as such because it is embedded in their experience of the world.[೩೧]
  • "Perennialism " holds that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is ever changing, and that while the concept of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ has existed at all times, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are generally short lived before the ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ boundaries realign in new patterns. The opposing perenniaಪಟ್ಟಿ view holds that while ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುings has existed throughout history, they are not part of the natural order.
    • "Perpetual perennialism " holds that specific ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು have existed continuously throughout history.
    • "Situational perennialism " holds that ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು emerge, change and vanish through the course of history. This view holds that the concept of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is basically a tool used by political ಗುಂಪುಗಳು to manipulate resources such as wealth, power, territory or status in their particular ಗುಂಪುಗಳು' interests. Accordingly, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ emerges when it is relevant as means of furthering emergent collective interests and changes according to political changes in the society. Examples of a perenniaಪಟ್ಟಿ interpretation of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ are also found in ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌,and ಸೀಡ್ನರ್‌ who see ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as ever-changing boundaries between ಗುಂಪುಗಳು of ಜನರು established through ongoing social negotiation and interaction.
    • "Instrumentaಪಟ್ಟಿ perennialism ", while seeing ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ primarily as a versatile tool that identified different ಜನಾಂಗೀಯs ಗುಂಪುಗಳು and limits through time, explains ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as a mechanism of social stratification, meaning that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is the basis for a hierarchical arrangement of individuals. According to Donald Noel, a sociologist who developed a theory on the origin of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification is a "system of stratification wherein some relatively fixed ಗುಂಪು membership (e.g., race, religion, or ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯity) is utilized as a major criterion for assigning social positions".[೩೩] ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification is one of many different types of social stratification, including stratification based on socio-economic status, race, or gender. According to Donald Noel, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification will emerge only when specific ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are brought into contact with one another, and only when those ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are characterized by a high degree of ಜನಾಂಗ ಕೇಂದ್ರೀಯತೆ, competition, and differential power. ಜನಾಂಗ ಕೇಂದ್ರೀಯತೆ is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture, and to downgrade all other ಗುಂಪುಗಳು outside one’s own culture. Some sociologists, such as Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings, say the origin of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification lies in individual dispositions of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ prejudice, which relates to the theory of ಜನಾಂಗ ಕೇಂದ್ರೀಯತೆ.[೩೪] Continuing with Noel's theory, some degree of differential power must be present for the emergence of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification. In other words, an inequality of power among ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು means "they are of such unequal power that one is able to impose its will upon another".[೩೩] In addition to differential power, a degree of competition structured along ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ lines is a prerequisite to ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ stratification as well. The different ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು must be competing for some common goal, such as power or influence, or a material interest, such as wealth or territory. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings propose that competition is driven by self-interest and hostility, and results in inevitable stratification and conflict.[೩೪]
  • "Constructivism " sees both primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ and perenniaಪಟ್ಟಿ views as basically flawed,[೩೪] and rejects the notion of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as a basic human condition. It holds that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are only products of human social interaction, maintained only in so far as they are maintained as valid social constructs in societies.
    • "Modernist constructivism " correlates the emergence of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ with the movement towards ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರstates beginning in the early modern period.[೩೫] Proponents of this theory, such as ಎರಿಕ್‌ ಹಾಬ್ಸ್‌ಬಾಮ್‌, argue that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and notions of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ pride, such as ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯತೆ, are purely modern inventions, appearing only in the modern period of world history. They hold that prior to this, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ homogeneity was not conಸೈಡರ್‌ed an ideal or necessary factor in the forging of large-scale societies.

ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and raceಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Before Weber, race and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ were often seen as two aspects of the same thing. Around 1900 and before the essentiaಪಟ್ಟಿ primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ understanding of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was predominant, cultural differences between ಜನರುs were seen as being the result of inherited traits and tendencies.[೩೬] This was the time when "sciences" such as phrenology claimed to be able to correlate cultural and behavioral traits of different populations with their outward physical characteristics, such as the shape of the skull.

With Weber's introduction of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as a social construct, race and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ were divided from each other. A social belief in biologically well-defined races lingered on. In 1950, the UNESCO statement, "The Race Question", signed by some of the interರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯly renowned scholars of the time (including Ashley Montagu, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Gunnar Myrdal, Julian ಹಕ್ಸ್ಲೆ, etc.), suggested that: "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural ಗುಂಪುಗಳು do not necessarily coincide with racial ಗುಂಪುಗಳು: and the cultural traits of such ಗುಂಪುಗಳು have no demonstrated ತಳಿ 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 'ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು'."[೩೭]

In 1982, Amಎರಿಕ್‌an cultural anthropologists, summing up forty years of ethnographic research, argued that racial and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories are ಚಿಹ್ನೆic markers for different ways that ಜನರು 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 "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" 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 ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ 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.

According to ವೊಲ್ಫ್‌, races were constructed and incorporated during the period of European mercantile expansion, and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು during the period of capitaಪಟ್ಟಿ expansion.[೩೮]

Often, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ also connotes shared cultural, linguistic, behavioural or religious traits. For example, to call oneself Jewish or Arab is to immediately invoke a clutch of linguistic, religious, cultural and racial features that are held to be common within each ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ category. Such broad ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories have also been termed macroಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ .[೩೯] This distinguishes them from smaller, more subjective ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ features, often termed microಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ .[೪೦][೪೧]

ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

In some cases, especially involving transರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ migration, or colonial expansion, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is linked to ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯity. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as proposed by ಅರ್ನೆಸ್ಟ್‌ ಗೆಲ್ನರ್‌[೪೨] and Benedict ಆಂಡರ್‌ಸನ್‌[೪೩] see ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ as developing with the rise of the modern state system in the seventeenth century. They culminated in the rise of "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-states" in which the presumptive boundaries of the ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ coincided (or ideally coincided) with state boundaries. Thus, in the West, the notion of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ, like race and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ, 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 nineteenth century, modern states generally sought legitimacy through their claim to represent "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs." ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-states, however, invariably include populations that have been excluded from ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ life for one reason or another. Members of excluded ಗುಂಪುಗಳು, consequently, will either demand inclusion on the basis of equality, or seek autonomy, sometimes even to the extent of complete political separation in their own ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-state.[೪೪] Under these conditions—when ಜನರು moved from one state to another,[೪೫] or one state conquered or colonized ಜನರುs beyond its ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ boundaries—ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು were formed by ಜನರು who identified with one ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ, but lived in another state.

Ethno-ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ conflictಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Sometimes ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are subject to prejudicial attitudes and actions by the state or its constituents. In the twentieth century, ಜನರು began to argue that conflicts among ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು or between members of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು 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 ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ 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 ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity and develop processes through which the particular needs of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು can be accommodated within the boundaries of the ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-state.

The nineteenth century saw the development of the political ideology of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯತೆ, when the concept of race was tied to ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯತೆ, first by ಜರ್ಮನ್‌ theorists including Johann Gottfried von Herder. Instances of societies focusing on ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ties, arguably to the exclusion of history or historical context, have resulted in the justification of ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರaಪಟ್ಟಿ goals. Two periods frequently cited as examples of this are the nineteenth century consolidation and expansion of the ಜರ್ಮನ್‌ Empire and the twentieth century Third (Greater ಜರ್ಮನ್‌) Reich. Each promoted the pan-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ idea that these governments were only acquiring lands that had always been inhabited by ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಜರ್ಮನ್‌s. The history of late-comers to the ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-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 former USSR, is marked by inter-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ conflicts. Such conflicts usually occur within multi-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ states, as opposed to between them, as in other regions of the world. Thus, the conflicts are often misleadingly labelled and characterized as civil wars when they are inter-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ conflicts in a multi-ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ state.

ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ in specific countriesಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

In the United States of Amಎರಿಕ್‌a, the term "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" carries a much broader meaning than how it is commonly used in some other countries. ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ usually refers to collectives of related ಗುಂಪುಗಳು, having more to do with morphology, specifically skin color, rather than political boundaries. The word "ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯity" is more commonly used for this purpose (e.g. Italian, ಜರ್ಮನ್‌, French, Russian, Japanese, etc. are ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯities). Most prominently in the U.S., Latin Amಎರಿಕ್‌an derived populations are ಗುಂಪುed in a "Hispanic" or "Latino" ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ. The many previously designated Oriental ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are now classified as the Asian racial ಗುಂಪು for the census.

The terms "Black" and "African Amಎರಿಕ್‌an", while different, are both used as ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories in the US. In the late 1980s, the term "African Amಎರಿಕ್‌an", was posited as the most appropriate and politically correct race desigರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ.[೪೬] While it was intended as a shift away from the racial inequities of Amಎರಿಕ್‌a's past often associated with the historical views of the "Black race", it largely became a simple replacement for the terms Black, Colored, Negro and the like, referring to any individual of dark skin color regardless of geographical ತಲೆಮಾರು. Likewise, Light-skinned Amಎರಿಕ್‌ans from Africa are not conಸೈಡರ್‌ed "African Amಎರಿಕ್‌an". Many African Amಎರಿಕ್‌ans are ಬಹುಜನಾಂಗೀಯ. More than half of African Amಎರಿಕ್‌ans also have European ಮನೆತನ equivalent to one great-grandparent, and 5 percent have Native Amಎರಿಕ್‌an ಮನೆತನ equivalent to one great-grandparent.[೪೭]

The term "White" generally describes ಜನರು whose ಮನೆತನ can be traced to Europe (including other European-settled countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, ಕೆನಡಾ, Chile, Cuba, New Zealand and South Africa among others) and who now live in the United States. However, due to the caucasoid origins of Middle Easterners, who in fact have darker skin than many mongoloid East Asians, they may sometimes also be included in the "white" category. This includes ಜನರು from Southwest Asia and North Africa, as well as the Arab ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರs, Iran, and Afghanistan,Pakistan. All the aforementioned are categorized as part of the "White" racial ಗುಂಪು, as per US Census categorization. This category has been split into two ಗುಂಪುಗಳು: Hispanics and non-Hispanics (e.g. White non-Hispanic and White Hispanic.) Although ಜನರು from East Asia may typically have lighter skin than Middle Easterners and Arabs, they are not conಸೈಡರ್‌ed "white" due to their mongoloid origin, which reflects upon the socially-constructed nature of racial ಗುಂಪುಗಳು.

In the United Kingdom, many different ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ classifications, both formal and informal, are used. Perhaps the most accepted is the ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ Statistics classification, identical to that used in the 2001 Census in England and Wales (see ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ (United Kingdom)). The classification White British is used to refer to the indigenous British ಜನರು. The term Oriental refers to ಜನರು from China, Japan, Korea and the Pacific Rim while Asian is used to refer to ಜನರು from the Indian subcontinent; India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

China officially recognizes 56 ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು, the largest of which is the Han Chinese. Many of the ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ minorities maintain their own cultures, languages and identity although many are also becoming more westernised. Han-Chinese predominate demographically and politically in most areas of China, although less so in Tibet and Xinjiang, where the Han are still in the ಅಲ್ಪಸಂಖ್ಯಾತರು. The Han Chinese was the only ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು bound by the one-child policy. (For more details, see ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ಪಟ್ಟಿ in China and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ minorities in China.)

In France, the government does not collect population census data with ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories. In recognition of abuses of the Vichy Regime, the legislature passed laws preventing the government from collecting, maintaining or using ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ population statistics.[೪೮] [69]

In India, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories are not recognized by the government. The population is categorized in terms of the 1,652 mother tongues spoken and/or the 645 scheduled tribes to which individuals belong.

In Russia, the Tofalar or Tof ಜನರು whom inhabit the Siberian region of Tofalaria are believed to be the smallest ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು in the world.[ಸೂಕ್ತ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖನ ಬೇಕು]

ಇವನ್ನೂ ನೋಡಿಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ


  1. ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌ 1987[page needed]
  2. ‌ಮಾರ್ಕಸ್‌ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಸ್, ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ: ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಾಜಿಕಲ್‌ ಕನ್ಸ್‌ಟ್ರಕ್ಷನ್ಸ್‌ (1996), ಪುಟ 151 "'ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌' ಇನ್‌ವೇರಿಯಬ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಟ್ರೆಸ್‌ ಕಾಮನ್‌ ಆನ್ಸೆಸ್ಟ್ರಿ ಆರ್‌ ಎಂಡೋಗೆಮಿ".
  3. "ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ. ದಿ ಸ್ಟಡಿ ಆಫ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ, ಮೈನಾರಿಟಿ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ," ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕಾ, 2007.
  4. Bulmer, M. (1996). "The ethnic group question in the 1991 Census of Population". In Coleman, D and Salt, J. (ed.). Ethnicity in the 1991 Census of Population. HMSO. p. 35.CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  5. ಸ್ಟಾಟಿಸ್ಟಿಕ್ಸ್‌ ಕೆನಡಾ
  6. ಫ್ರೆಡ್ರಿಕ್‌ ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ ಸಂಪಾದಿತ. 1969 ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌: ದಿ ಸೋಷಿಯಲ್‌ ಆರ್ಗನೈಸೇಷನ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಕಲ್ಚರಲ್‌ ಡಿಫರೆನ್ಸ್‌; ಎರಿಕ್‌ ವೊಲ್ಫ್‌ 1982 ಯುರೋಪ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ದಿ ಪೀಪಲ್‌ ವಿಥೌಟ್‌ ಹಿಸ್ಟರಿ ಪುಟ. 381
  7. ಹಾಬ್ಸ್‌ಬಾಮ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ರೇಂಜರ್‌‌ (1983), ದಿ ಇನ್ವೆನ್ಷನ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಟ್ರೆಡಿಷನ್‌ , ಸೈಡರ್‌ 1993 ಲುಂಬೀ ಇಂಡಿಯನ್‌ ಹಿಸ್ಟರೀಸ್‌ .
  8. ಸೀಡ್ನರ್‌,(1982), ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ, ಲಾಂಗ್ವೇಜ್‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಪವರ್‌ ಫ್ರಂ ಎ ಸೈಕೋಲಿಂಗ್ವಿಸ್ಟಿಕ್‌ ಪರ್‌ಸ್ಪೆಕ್ಟಿವ್‌ , ಪುಟಗಳು 2-3
  9. ‌ಗೀರ್ಟ್ಜ್, ಕ್ಲಿಫೋರ್ಡ್‌, ಸಂಪಾದಿತ (1967) ಓಲ್ಡ್‌ ಸೊಸೈಟೀಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ನ್ಯೂ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ಸ್‌: ದಿ ಕ್ವೆಸ್ಟ್‌ ಫಾರ್‌ ಮಾಡರ್ನಿಟಿ ಇನ್‌ ಆಫ್ರಿಕಾ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಏಷ್ಯಾ . ನ್ಯೂಯಾರ್ಕ್‌: ದಿ ಫ್ರೀ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌.
  10. ‌ಕೋಹೆನ್, ಅಬ್ನರ್‌‌ (1969) ಕಸ್ಟಮ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಪಾಲಿಟಿಕ್ಸ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ಅರ್ಬನ್‌ ಆಫ್ರಿಕಾ: ಎ ಸ್ಟಡಿ ಆಫ್‌ ಹೌಸಾ ಮೈಗ್ರೆಂಟ್ಸ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ಎ ಯೊರುಬಾ ಟೌನ್‌. ಲಂಡನ್‌: ರೂಲೆಟ್ಜ್‌ & ಕೆಗನ್‌ ಪಾಲ್‌.
  11. ಅಬ್ನರ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ (1974) ಟೂ-ಡೈಮೆನ್ಷನಲ್‌ ಮ್ಯಾನ್‌: ಆನ್‌ ಎಸ್ಸೆ ಆನ್‌ ಪವರ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ ಇನ್‌ ಕಾಂಪ್ಲೆಕ್ಸ್‌ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ . ಲಂಡನ್‌: ರೂಲೆಟ್ಜ್‌ & ಕೆಗನ್‌ ಪಾಲ್‌.
  12. J. ಹಚಿನ್‌ಸನ್‌ & A.D. ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌ (ಸಂಪಾದಕರು), ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ ರೀಡರ್ಸ್‌: ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ (ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ 1996), "ಇಂಟ್ರಡಕ್ಷನ್‌", 8-9
  13. ‌ಗೆಲ್ನರ್, ಅರ್ನೆಸ್ಟ್‌ (1983) ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ . ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌: ಬ್ಲ್ಯಾಕ್‌ವೆಲ್‌.
  14. ಅರ್ನೆಸ್ಟ್‌ ಗೆಲ್ನರ್‌ (1997) ನ್ಯಾಷನಲಿಸಂ. ಲಂಡನ್‌: ವೀಡನ್‌ಫೀಲ್ಡ್‌ & ನಿಕಲ್ಸನ್‌.
  15. ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌, ಆಂಟನಿ D. (1986) ದಿ ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಆರಿಜನ್ಸ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌. ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌: ಬ್ಲ್ಯಾಕ್‌ವೆಲ್‌.
  16. ಆಂಟನಿ ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌ (1991) ನ್ಯಾಷನಲ್‌ ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ . ಹಾರ್ಮಂಡ್ಸ್‌ವರ್ತ್‌: ಪೆಂಗ್ವಿನ್‌.
  17. ಆಶ್‌ಮೋರ್‌‌, ಜಸ್ಸಿಮ್‌, ವೈಲ್ಡರ್‌‌ (ಸಂಪಾದಕರು): ಸೋಷಿಯಲ್‌ ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ, ಇಂಟರ್‌ಗ್ರೂಪ್‌ ಕಾನ್‌ಫ್ಲಿಕ್ಟ್‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಕಾನ್‌ಫ್ಲಿಕ್ಟ್ ರಿಡಕ್ಷನ್‌‌ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ T.H. ಎರಿಕ್‌ಸೆನ್‌ನ "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ, ನ್ಯಾಷನಲ್‌ ಐಡೆಂಟಿಟಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಇಂಟರ್‌ಗ್ರೂಪ್‌ ಕಾನ್‌ಫ್ಲಿಕ್ಟ್‌: ದಿ ಸಿಗ್ನಿಫಿಕೆನ್ಸ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಪರ್ಸನಲ್‌ ಎಕ್ಸ್‌ಪೀರಿಯೆನ್ಸಸ್‌", ಪುಟಗಳು 42–70. ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌: ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌'. 2001
  18. ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್‌ ಡಿಕ್ಷ್‌ನರಿ ಎರಡನೇ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ, 2008-01-12ರ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಇದ್ದ ಆನ್‌ಲೈನ್‌ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ, "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌, a. ಅಂಡ್‌ n.". ಇದನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸುತ್ತದೆ: ಸರ್‌‌ ಡೇನಿಯಲ್‌ ವಿಲ್ಸನ್‌‌‌‌‌ನ, ದಿ ಆರ್ಕಿಯಾಲಜಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಪ್ರೀಹಿಸ್ಟಾರಿಕ್‌ ಆನಲ್ಸ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಸ್ಕಾಟ್ಲೆಂಡ್‌ 1851' (1863)
  19. ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್‌ ಡಿಕ್ಷ್‌ನರಿ ಎರಡನೇ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ, 2008-01-12ರ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಇದ್ದ ಆನ್‌ಲೈನ್‌ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ, "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌, a. ಅಂಡ್‌ n.". ಇದನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸುತ್ತದೆ: ಹಕ್ಸ್ಲೆ & ಹ್ಯಾಡನ್‌ (1935), ವೀ ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ಸ್‌, ಪುಟಗಳು 136,181
  20. ಕೋಹೆನ್‌, ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌. (1978) "ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ: ಪ್ರಾಬ್ಲಂ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಫೋಕಸ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ", ಆನ್‌. ರೆವ್‌. ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲ್‌. 1978. 7:379-403
  21. ಗ್ಲೇಜರ್‌‌, ನಾಥನ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ಡೇನಿಯಲ್‌ P. ಮೊಯ್ನಿಹಾನ್‌ (1975) ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ - ಥಿಯರಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಎಕ್ಸ್‌ಪೀರಿಯೆನ್ಸ್‌, ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌, ಮಾಸ್‌‌. ಹಾರ್ವರ್ಡ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌
  22. Oxford English Dictionary Second edition, online version as of 2008-01-12, "ethnic, a. and n."
  23. ‌ವಾಲ್‌ಮನ್, S. "ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ರಿಸರ್ಚ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌", ಕರೆಂಟ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ , ಸಂಪುಟ 18, ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 3, 1977, ಪುಟಗಳು 531–532.
  24. ಎರಿಕ್‌ಸೆನ್‌ 1993 ಪುಟ 2
  25. ‌ಮ್ಯಾಕ್ಸ್‌‌ ವೆಬೆರ್ [1922]1978 ಇಕಾನಮಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ ಸಂಪಾದಕರು ಗುಯೆತ್ನರ್‌ ರಾಥ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ಕ್ಲೌಸ್‌ ವಿಟ್ಟಿಕ್‌, ಅನುವಾದ: ‌ಎಫ್ರೈಮ್‌ ಫಿಶಾಫ್ , ಸಂಪುಟ 2 ಬರ್ಕ್‌ಲಿ: ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಆಫ್‌ ಕ್ಯಾಲಿಫೋರ್ನಿಯಾ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌, 389
  26. ‌ಬ್ಯಾಂಟನ್, ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌. (2007) "ವೆಬೆರ್‌ ಆನ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟೀಸ್‌: ಎ ಕ್ರಿಟಿಕ್‌", ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ 13 (1), 2007, 19–35.
  27. ೨೭.೦ ೨೭.೧ ೨೭.೨ ೨೭.೩ ೨೭.೪ ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ 1978 "ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ: ಪ್ರಾಬ್ಲಂ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಫೋಕಸ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ", ಆನ್ಯುಯಲ್‌ ರಿವ್ಯೂ ಆಫ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ 7: 383 ಪಾಲೋ ಆಲ್ಟೋ: ಸ್ಟಾನ್‌ಫೋರ್ಡ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "cohen" defined multiple times with different content
  28. ಹ್ಯೂಮನ್‌ ಆರ್ಗನೈಸೇಷನ್‌ 33(4): 375-379 ಇದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜೋವನ್‌ ವಿನ್ಸೆಂಟ್ 1974, "ದಿ ಸ್ಟ್ರಕ್ಚರ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ";
  29. (Smith 1999, p. 12)
  30. ೩೦.೦ ೩೦.೧ ಡಿಲ್ಯಾಂಟಿ, ಗೆರಾರ್ಡ್‌ & ಕ್ರಿಶನ್‌ ಕುಮಾರ್‌ (2006) ದಿ SAGE ಹ್ಯಾಂಡ್‌ಬುಕ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ. SAGE. ISBN 1-4129-0101-4 ಪುಟ 171
  31. ೩೧.೦ ೩೧.೧ ೩೧.೨ ೩೧.೩ (Smith 1999, p. 13)
  32. ಇಂಟ್ರಡಕ್ಷನ್‌ ಟು ಸೊಸೈಟಿ, 7ನೇ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ. ಆಂಟನಿ ಗಿಡೆನ್ಸ್‌‌, ಮಿಚೆಲ್‌ ಡನಿಯೆರ್‌, ರಿಚರ್ಡ್‌ ಅಪೆಲ್‌ಬೌಮ್‌, ಡೆಬೊರಾಹ್‌ ಕಾರ್‌
  33. ೩೩.೦ ೩೩.೧ Noel, Donald L. (1968). "A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification". Social Problems. 16 (2): 157–172. doi:10.1525/sp.1968.16.2.03a00030.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  34. ೩೪.೦ ೩೪.೧ ೩೪.೨ Bobo, Lawrence; Hutchings, Vincent L. (1996). "Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context". American Sociological Review. American Sociological Association. 61 (6): 951–972. doi:10.2307/2096302.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  35. (Smith 1999, pp. 4–7)
  36. ಬ್ಯಾಂಟನ್‌, ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌. (2007) "ವೆಬೆರ್‌ ಆನ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಟೀಸ್‌: ಎ ಕ್ರಿಟಿಕ್‌", ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ 13 (1), 2007, 19–35.
  37. A. ಮೆಟ್ರೌಕ್ಸ್‌ (1950) "ಯುನೈಟೆಡ್‌ ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಇಕನಾಮಿಕ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸೆಕ್ಯುರಿಟಿ ಕೌನ್ಸಿಲ್‌ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್‌ಮೆಂಟ್‌ ಬೈ ಎಕ್ಸ್‌ಪರ್ಟ್ಸ್‌ ಆನ್‌ ಪ್ರಾಬ್ಲಂ ಆಫ್‌ ರೇಸ್‌", ಅಮೆರಿಕನ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿಸ್ಟ್‌ 53(1): 142-145)
  38. In this regard, distinctions of race have implications rather different from ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ variations. Racial distinctions, such as "Indian" or "African Amಎರಿಕ್‌an", are the outcome of the subjugation of populations in the course of European mercantile expansion. The term "Indian", and later "Native Amಎರಿಕ್‌an", stand for the conquered populations of the New World, in disregard of any cultural or physical differences among them. "Negro", and later "African Amಎರಿಕ್‌an", similarly serve as a cover term for the culturally and physically variable African, populations that furnished slaves, as well as for the slaves themselves. Indians are conquered ಜನರು who could be forced to labor or pay tribute; Negroes are "hewers of wood and drawers of water", obtained in violence and put to work under coercion. These two terms thus singled out for primary attention, the historic fact that these populations were made to labor in servitude to support a new class of overlords. Simultaneously, the terms, like "white ಜನರು", disregard cultural and physical differences within each large category, denying any constituent ಗುಂಪು political, economic, or ideological identity of its own.
    Racial terms mirror the political process by which populations of whole continents were turned into providers of coerced surplus labor. Under capitalism, these terms did not lose their association with civil disability. They continue to invoke supposed ತಲೆಮಾರು from such subjugated populations so as to deny their putative descendants access to upper segments of the labor market. "Indians" and "Negroes" are thus confined to the lower ranks of the industrial army or depressed into the industrial reserve. The function of racial categories within capitalism is exclusionary. They stigmatize ಗುಂಪುಗಳು in order to exclude them from more highly paid jobs and from access to the information needed for their execution. They insulate the more advantaged workers against competition from below, making it difficult for employers to use stigmatized populations as cheaper substitutes or as strikebreakers. Finally, they weaken the ability of such ಗುಂಪುಗಳು to mobilize politically on their own behalf by forcing them back into casual employment and thereby intensifying competition among them for scarce and shifting resources.
    While the categories of race serve primarily to exclude ಜನರು from all but the lower echelons of the industrial army, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ categories express the ways that particular populations came to relate themselves to given segments of the labor market. Such categories emerge from two sources, one external to the ಗುಂಪು in question, the other internal. As each cohort entered the industrial process, outಸೈಡರ್‌s were able to categorize it in terms of putative provenance and supposed affinity to particular segments of the labor market. At the same time, members of the cohort itself came to value membership in the ಗುಂಪು thus defined, as a qualification for establishing economic and political claims. Such ಜನಾಂಗೀಯities rarely coincided with the initial self-identification of the industrial recruits, who thought of themselves as Hanoverians or Bavarians rather than as ಜರ್ಮನ್‌s, as members of their village or their parish (okiloca ) rather than as Poles, as Tonga or Yao rather than "Nyasalanders." The more comprehensive categories emerged only as particular cohorts of workers gained access to different segments of the labor market and began to treat their access as a resource to be defended both socially and politically. Such ಜನಾಂಗೀಯities are therefore not "primordial" social relationships. They are historical products of labor market segmentation under the capitaಪಟ್ಟಿ mode. ಎರಿಕ್‌ ವೊಲ್ಫ್‌, 1982, ಯುರೋಪ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ದಿ ಪೀಪಲ್‌ ವಿಥೌಟ್‌ ಹಿಸ್ಟರಿ , ಬರ್ಕ್‌ಲಿ: ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಆಫ್‌ ಕ್ಯಾಲಿಫೋರ್ನಿಯಾ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌. 380-381
  39. ಮರಿಯಾ ರೋಸ್ಟ್‌ವೊರೊವ್ಸ್ಕಿ, "ದಿ ಇಂಕಾಸ್‌", ಪೆರು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ
  40. ಜೇಮ್ಸ್‌ ಲೊಖಾರ್ಟ್, ಮೈಕ್ರೊಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ಇನ್‌ ಫಿಲೋಲಾಜಿಕಲ್‌ ಎತ್ನೊಹಿಸ್ಟರಿ
  41. ಕ್ರಿಸ್ಟೋಫರ್‌ ಲಾರ್ಕೋಶ್‌, "ಜೆ ಮಿ ಸೌವಿಯೆನ್ಸ್‌...ಆಸ್ಸಿ: ಮೈಕ್ರೊಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ದಿ ಫ್ರಗೈಲಿಟಿ ಆಫ್‌ ಮೆಮರಿ ಇನ್‌ ಫ್ರೆಂಚ್‌-ಕೆನಡಿಯನ್‌ ನ್ಯೂ ಇಂಗ್ಲಂಡ್‌", TOPIA: ಜರ್ನಲ್‌ ಫಾರ್‌ ಕೆನಡಿಯನ್‌ ಕಲ್ಚರಲ್‌ ಸ್ಟಡೀಸ್‌ , ಸಂಚಿಕೆ 16 (ಟೊರೊಂಟೊ, 2006), ಪುಟಗಳು 91-108
  42. ಗೆಲ್ನರ್‌ 2006 ನೇಷನ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸಿಂಬಾಲಿಸಂ ಬ್ಲ್ಯಾಕ್‌ವೆಲ್‌ ಪಬ್ಲಿಷಿಂಗ್‌‌
  43. ‌ಆಂಡರ್‌ಸನ್ 2006 ಇಮ್ಯಾಜಿನ್ಡ್‌ ಕಮ್ಯನಿಟೀಸ್‌ ವರ್ಸನ್‌
  44. ವಾಲ್ಟರ್‌ ಪೊಹ್ಲ್‌, "ಕಾನ್ಸೆಪ್ಷನ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ಇನ್‌ ಅರ್ಲಿ ಮೆಡಿಈವಲ್‌ ಸ್ಟಡೀಸ್‌", ಡಿಬೇಟಿಂಗ್‌ ಮಿಡ್ಲ್‌ ಏಜಸ್‌: ಇಷ್ಯೂಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ರೀಡಿಂಗ್ಸ್‌ , ಸಂಪಾದಿತ: ಲೆಸ್ಟರ್‌ K. ಲಿಟ್ಲ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ಬಾರ್ಬರಾ H. ರೋಸೆನ್‌ವೀನ್‌, (ಬ್ಲ್ಯಾಕ್‌ವೆಲ್‌), 1998, ಪುಟಗಳು 13-24, notes that historians have projected the nineteenth-century conceptions of the ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-state backwards in time, employing biological ಉತ್ತಮ ವರ್ಗದphors of birth and growth: "that the ಜನರುs in the Migration Period had ಲಿಟ್ಲ್‌ to do with those heroic (or sometimes brutish) clichés is now generally accepted among historians," he remarked. Early medieval ಜನರುs were far less homogeneous than often thought, and Pohl follows ರೀನ್‌ಹಾರ್ಡ್‌ ವೆನ್‌ಸ್ಕಸ್‌, ಸ್ಟಾಮ್ಮೆಸ್‌ಬಿಲ್ಡಂಗ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ವೆರ್‌ಫಸ್ಸಂಗ್‌ . (ಕಲೋನ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಗ್ರಾಜ್‌) 1961, whose researches into the "ಜನಾಂಗ ಜನ್ಯತೆ" of the ಜರ್ಮನ್‌ ಜನರುs convinced him that the idea of common origin, as expressed by Isidore of Seville ಜೆನ್ಸ್‌ ಎಸ್ಟ್‌ ಮಲ್ಟಿಟ್ಯುಡೊ ಅಬ್‌ ಉನೊ ಪ್ರಿನ್ಸಿಪಿಯೊ ಓರ್ಟಾ ("a ಜನರು is a multitude stemming from one origin") which continues in the original ಎಟಿಮಾಲಜಿಯೇ IX.2.i) "ಸೈವ್‌ ಅಬ್‌ ಅಲಿಯಾ ನೇಷನೇ ಸೆಕಂಡಮ್‌ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ರಿಯಂ ಕಲೆಕ್ಷನೆಮ್‌ ಡಿಸ್ಟಿಂಕ್ಟ ("or distinguished from another ಜನರು by its proper ties") was a myth.
  45. ಕರೆಂಟ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ 37(5) ಇದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಐಹ್‌ವೇ ಓಂಗ್‌‌ 1996 "ಕಲ್ಚರಲ್‌ ಸಿಟಿಜನ್‌ಷಿಪ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ದಿ ಮೇಕಿಂಗ್‌"
  46. ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಆಫ್‌ ಪಬ್ಲಿಕ್‌ ಹೆಲ್ತ್‌‌, -ದಿ ಗೇಲ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್‌, ಇಂಕ್‌
  47. ‌‌ಹೆನ್ರಿ ಲೂಯಿಸ್‌ ಗೇಟ್ಸ್‌, ಜೂನಿಯರ್, ಇನ್‌ ಸರ್ಚ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಅವರ್‌ ರೂಟ್ಸ್‌: ಹೌ 19 ಎಕ್ಸ್ಟ್ರಾಆರ್ಡಿನರಿ ಅಮೆರಿಕನ್ಸ್‌ ರೀಕ್ಲೇಮ್ಡ್‌ ದೆರ್‌ ಪಾಸ್ಟ್‌ , ನ್ಯೂಯಾರ್ಕ್‌: ಕ್ರೌನ್‌ ಪಬ್ಲಿಷರ್ಸ್‌, 2009, ಪುಟಗಳು 20-21
  48. (French) article 8 de la loi Informatique et libertés, 1978: "Il est interdit de collecter ou de traiter des données à caractère personnel qui font apparaître, directement ou indirectement, les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses ou l'appartenance syndicale des personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à la vie sexuelle de celles-ci."


  • ಅಬಿಝಡೆಹ್‌, ಅರಾಶ್‌‌, "ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ, ರೇಸ್‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಎ ಪಾಸಿಬಲ್‌ ಹ್ಯುಮಾನಿಟಿ" ವರ್ಲ್ಡ್‌ ಆರ್ಡರ್‌ , 33.1 (2001): 23-34. (Article that explores the social construction of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and race.)
  • ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌, ಫ್ರೆಡ್ರಿಕ್‌. ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌. ದಿ ಸೋಷಿಯಲ್‌ ಆರ್ಗನೈಸೇಷನ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಕಲ್ಚರ್‌ ಡಿಫರೆನ್ಸ್ , ಓಸ್ಲೋ: ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟೆಟ್‌ಸ್ಫೋರ್ಲಾಗೆಟ್‌, 1969
  • ಬಿಲಿಂಗರ್‌‌, ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ S. (2007), "ಅನದರ್‌ ಲುಕ್‌ ಅಟ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ಆಸ್‌ ಎ ಬಯಲಾಜಿಕಲ್‌ ಕಾನ್ಸೆಪ್ಟ್‌: ಮೂವಿಂಗ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ ಬಿಯಾಂಡ್‌ ರೇಸ್‌ ಕಾನ್ಸೆಪ್ಟ್‌", ಕ್ರಿಟಿಕ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಜಿ 27 ,1:5–35.
  • ಕೋಲ್‌, C.L. "ನೈಕ್‌‌'ಸ್‌ ಅಮೆರಿಕಾ/ ಅಮೆರಿಕಾ'ಸ್‌ ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ಜೋರ್ಡಾನ್‌", ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ಜೋರ್ಡಾನ್‌, ಇಂಕ್‌.: ಕಾರ್ಪೊರೇಟ್‌ ಸ್ಪೋರ್ಟ್‌, ಮೀಡಿಯಾ ಕಲ್ಚರ್‌‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಲೇಟ್‌ ಮಾಡರ್ನ್‌ ಅಮೆರಿಕಾ . (ನ್ಯೂಯಾರ್ಕ್‌: ಸನಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌, 2001).
  • ಡೂನ್‌ಹೌಪ್ಟ್‌, ಗೆರ್ಹಾರ್ಡ್‌, "ದಿ ಬಿವೈಲ್ಡರಿಂಗ್‌ ಜರ್ಮನ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌", ಇನ್‌: ಫೆಸ್ಟ್ಸ್‌‌ಕ್ರಿಫ್ಟ್‌ ಫಾರ್‌ P. M. ಮಿಚೆಲ್‌ (ಹೈಡೆಲ್‌ಬರ್ಗ್‌: ವಿಂಟರ್‌‌ 1989).
  • ಐಸೆಂಕ್‌, H.J., ರೇಸ್‌, ಎಜುಕೇಷನ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಇಂಟಲಿಜೆನ್ಸ್‌ (ಲಂಡನ್‌: ಟೆಂಪಲ್‌ ಸ್ಮಿತ್‌, 1971) (ISBN 0-85117-009-9)
  • ಹಾರ್ಟ್‌ಮನ್‌, ಡೊಗ್ಲಸ್‌. "ನೋಟ್ಸ್‌ ಆನ್‌ ಮಿಡ್‌ನೈಟ್‌ ಬ್ಯಾಸ್ಕೆಟ್‌ಬಾಲ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ದಿ ಕಲ್ಚರಲ್‌ ಪಾಲಿಟಿಕ್ಸ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ರಿಕ್ರಿಯೇಷನ್‌, ರೇಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಅಟ್‌-ರಿಸ್ಕ್‌ ಅರ್ಬನ್‌ ಯೂತ್‌‌", ಜರ್ನಲ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಸ್ಪೋರ್ಟ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಸೋಷಿಯಲ್‌ ಇಷ್ಯೂಸ್‌ . 25 (2001): 339-366.
  • ಹಾಬ್ಸ್‌ಬಾಮ್, ಎರಿಕ್‌, ಮತ್ತು ಟೆರೆನ್ಸ್‌ ರೇಂಜರ್‌‌, ಸಂಪಾದಕರು, ದಿ ಇನ್ವೆನ್ಷನ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಟ್ರೆಡಿಷನ್‌ . (ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌: ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌, 1983).
  • ಥಾಮಸ್‌ ಹೈಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್‌ ಎರಿಕ್ಸೆನ್‌ (1993) ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ನ್ಯಾಷನಲಿಸಂ: ಆಂತ್ರೊಪಾಲಾಜಿಕಲ್‌ ಪರ್‌ಸ್ಪೆಕ್ಟಿವ್ಸ್‌ , ಲಂಡನ್‌: ಪ್ಲೂಟೋ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌
  • ಲೆವಿನ್‌ಸನ್‌, ಡೇವಿಡ್‌, ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ವರ್ಲ್ಡ್‌ವೈಡ್‌: ಎ ರೆಡಿ ರೆಫರೆನ್ಸ್‌ ಹ್ಯಾಂಡ್‌ಬುಕ್‌ , ಗ್ರೀನ್‌ವುಡ್‌ ಪಬ್ಲಿಷಿಂಗ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್‌ (1998), ISBN 978-1-57356-019-1.
  • ಮೊರೇಲ್ಸ್‌-ಡಿಯಾಜ್‌, ಎನ್ರಿಕ್‌; ಗೇಬ್ರಿಯಲ್‌ ಅಕ್ವಿನೊ; & ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ಸ್ಲೆಚರ್‌, "ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ"; ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ಸ್ಲೆಚರ್‌, ಸಂಪಾದಿತ ನ್ಯೂ ಇಂಗ್ಲಂಡ್‌‌‌ ನಲ್ಲಿರುವಂಥದು, (ವೆಸ್ಟ್‌ಪೋರ್ಟ್‌, CT, 2004).
  • ಆಮ್ನಿ, ಮೈಕೇಲ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ಹೋವರ್ಡ್‌ ವಿನಾಂಟ್‌. ರೇಷಿಯಲ್‌ ಫಾರ್ಮೇಷನ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ದಿ ಯುನೈಟೆಡ್‌ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ಸ್‌ ಫ್ರಂ ದಿ 1960ಸ್‌ ಟು ದಿ 1980ಸ್‌ . (ನ್ಯೂಯಾರ್ಕ್‌: ರೂಲೆಟ್ಜ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಕೆಗನ್‌ ಪಾಲ್‌, ಇಂಕ್‌., 1986).
  • ಸೀಡ್ನರ್‌, ಸ್ಟಾನ್ಲೆ S. ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ, ಲಾಂಗ್ವೇಜ್‌, ಅಂಡ್‌ ಪವರ್‌ ಫ್ರಂ ಎ ಸೈಕೋಲಿಂಗ್ವಿಸ್ಟಿಕ್‌ ಪರ್‌ಸ್ಪೆಕ್ಟಿವ್‌ . (ಬ್ರಕ್ಸೆಲ್ಲೆಸ್‌: ಸೆಂಟ್ರೆ ಡಿ ರಿಚೆರ್ಷೆ ಸುರ್‌ ಲೆ ಪ್ಲೂರಲಿಂಗಿಸ್ಮೆ1982).
  • ಸೈಡರ್‌, ಜೆರಾಲ್ಡ್‌, ಲುಂಬೀ ಇಂಡಿಯನ್‌ ಹಿಸ್ಟರೀಸ್‌ (ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌: ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌, 1993).
  • Smith, Anthony D. (1987). "The Ethnic Origins of Nations". Blackwell. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Smith, Anthony D. (1999). "Myths and memories of the Nation". Oxford University Press. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • ^ U.S. ಸೆನ್ಸಸ್‌ ಬ್ಯೂರೋ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್‌ & ಕೌಂಟಿ ಕ್ವಿಕ್‌ಫ್ಯಾಕ್ಟ್ಸ್‌: ರೇಸ್‌.

ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಕೊಂಡಿಗಳುಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ