ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು

An ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು  is a ಗುಂಪು of ಜನರು whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. 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.

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." 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.

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.

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. 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. This debate is still an important point of reference in Political science, although most scholars' approaches fall between the two poles.

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. Essentiaಪಟ್ಟಿs view such identities as ontological categories defining social actors, and not the result of social action.

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.

Defining ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ 
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 — with the first usage of the term ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು in 1935, and entering the ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ English Dictionary in 1972.ಗ್ಲೇಜರ್‌‌, ನಾಥನ್‌ ಮತ್ತು ಡೇನಿಯಲ್‌ P. ಮೊಯ್ನಿಹಾನ್‌ (1975) ಎತ್ನಿಸಿಟಿ - ಥಿಯರಿ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಎಕ್ಸ್‌ಪೀರಿಯೆನ್ಸ್‌, ಕೇಂಬ್ರಿಜ್‌, ಮಾಸ್‌‌.  ಹಾರ್ವರ್ಡ್‌ ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಪ್ರೆಸ್‌

The modern usage definition of the ಆಕ್ಸ್‌ಫರ್ಡ್‌ English Dictionary is:  

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'.
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. 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.

Conceptual history of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ 
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".

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. 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. 
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.

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. ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ concluded that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness". 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. 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 categories 
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".<ref 

 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.
 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.
 A "Situational ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ " is an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity that is chosen for the moment based on the social setting or situation.

Approaches to understanding ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ 
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.
 "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.
 "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.
 "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". 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. 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". 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.

 "Constructivism " sees both primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ and perenniaಪಟ್ಟಿ views as basically flawed, 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. 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 race 
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. 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'."

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.

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 . This distinguishes them from smaller, more subjective ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ features, often termed microಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ .

ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ 
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 and Benedict ಆಂಡರ್‌ಸನ್‌ 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. Under these conditions—when ಜನರು moved from one state to another, 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 conflict 

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 countries 
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. 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.

The term "White" generally describes ಜನರು whose ಮನೆತನ can be traced to Europe (including other European-settled countries such as Argentina, Australia, ಬ್ರೆಜಿಲ್, 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 ಫ್ರಾನ್ಸ್, 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. [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.

ಇವನ್ನೂ ನೋಡಿ

ಟಿಪ್ಪಣಿಗಳು

ಆಕರಗಳು 
 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).
 
 
  U.S. ಸೆನ್ಸಸ್‌ ಬ್ಯೂರೋ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್‌ & ಕೌಂಟಿ ಕ್ವಿಕ್‌ಫ್ಯಾಕ್ಟ್ಸ್‌: ರೇಸ್‌ .

ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಕೊಂಡಿಗಳು 

 ಡೌನ್‌ಲೋಡ್‌ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾದ ಲೇಖನ: "ಎವಿಡೆನ್ಸ್‌ ದಟ್‌ ಎ ವೆಸ್ಟ್‌-ಈಸ್ಟ್‌ ಆಡ್‌ಮಿಕ್ಸ್‌ಡ್‌ ಪಾಪ್ಯುಲೇಷನ್‌ ಲಿವ್‌ಡ್‌ ಇನ್‌ ದಿ ಟರಿಮ್‌ ಬೇಸಿನ್‌ ಆಸ್‌ ಅರ್ಲಿ ಆಸ್‌ ಬ್ರಾಂಜ್‌ ಏಜ್‌" ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು. BMC ಬಯಾಲಜಿ 2010, 8:15. Biomedcentral.com
 Rian.ru
 ಅಮೆರಿಕನ್‌ ಸೈಕಲಾಜಿಕಲ್‌ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್‌'ಸ್‌ ಆಫೀಸ್‌ ಆಫ್‌ ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಮೈನಾರಿಟಿ ಅಫೇರ್ಸ್‌

ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು
ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ
ಬಹುಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳು
ಗ್ರೀಕ್‌ನ ಎರವಲು ಪದಗಳು
ಸಮಾಜ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ