Personally I do not buy that there are many ethnic Arabs in Egypt at all. Arabic-speaking people around the world did not start to identify themselves as Arabs until the rise of Arab Nationalism which began in the 1900s. This was a political movement that grew out of a combination of things including opposition to Ottoman (Turkish) rule over most Arabic-speaking people, Western Imperialism up to and immediately following World War I, and most importantly, the personal ambitions of the Sharif of Mecca and his opposition to Zionism, the growth of which encroached on his own political power interests, which by cynically and erroneously labeling as Arab and Muslim issues he successfully changed from a local issue into the cause-du-jour of the entire Arabic-speaking world and greater Muslim ulemma for the next century.
Anyway the people of Egypt are Egyptians or Copts. Historically, "Arab" only applied to the desert nomads who lived beyond the borders of civilization which stopped at Jordan, Israel, and Iraq. Before 1900 or 1850 if you had asked any Egyptian if they were Arab they would have been perplexed. As conquered subjects of 12th Century Arabs they were forced to adopt some components of Arab culture, language, and religion; but they did not become Arabs to my mind any more than the Cherokee became English. Popular political movements of the last century convinced most of them otherwise, but in my opinion the only real Arabs in the world are the people indigenous to Yemen and to a lesser extent the other countries of the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait).
Not really like that. Are Jamaicans English? Are Equatorial Guineans Spanish? If no, then why would we consider Moroccans or Lebanese to be Arabs?
On the other hand, ethnicity is whatever identity people ascribe to themselves, so even if we can see that this trend is completely recent and more to do with politics than anything else, if Egyptians, Algerians, Sudanese and Iraqis want to call themselves Arab, then I suppose they're Arab. I just won't think of them as such. No need for a debate.
Maybe because in addition to speaking English and being English in culture they also live in England, and most have family histories and genetics going back that are also thoroughly English. Their parents, grand parents, and great great great grandparents were probably all or predominantly English. The difference here is mainly that the Arabic-speaking people outside of the Arabian peninsula did not think of themselves as Arabs (and most are not, at least in terms of genetic lineage) until pretty recently. I guess that's the only reason I find it odd. But we're already at a point where most people just take this for granted and within another few generations I'm sure it will just be assumed that this is how it always was. That's how these things tend to work...
So apparently it's just a question of time before a new mix or acquired identity becomes "official", and yeah, ethnicity is mostly a matter of self-identification. The only wrong thing I see is what you mention at the end – assuming it has always been like this. But it's the same in Europe. There was also a time when many tribes/ethnic groups/populations ... were only recently considered French/German/Spanish/Italian/Russian/Turkish/... and it was all quite political of course, i.e. depending on where the borders were drawn and who conquered whom. The only significant difference with Arabs I see is that many Arab countries don't have a majority Arab origin, but even that is debatable also elsewhere.
I guess I don't understand exactly what ethnicity means. As far as a common ancestry doesn't it all depend on how far back you want to go? The English identity came into being in the early medieval times, but their ancestry includes Celts, Romans, Britons, Germanic tribes, Angles, Saxons, and later, Normans, so wouldn't those be part of their ethnicity, too? The Vikings left their mark on the British Isles, too, and we're guessing either Viking or Celt genes are responsible for our son being a ginger beard, but many of us have such mixtures in our DNA so how can we claim any ethnicity for a single group? It seems to me it has just come to mean whatever group one chooses to identify with.
ander: whatever group one chooses to identify with. Yeah you pretty much got it. It's not based on genetic lineage or DNA, though that can be among the stories that groups of people tell to try and describe why they have a shared history or identity. But it doesn't necessarily have to be. And the identification is more important than the actual DNA. Also, it's entirely possible someone can identify as having multiple ethnicities. A Mr. Peterson living in New York whose father was from Glasgow and mother was from Pakistan might identify as.. American, a New Yorker, English, British, Pakistani, Muslim, Scandinavian, Scottish, "White," "brown," a "person of color," European, Western European, Northern European, European-American, and Asian all at the same time. That would be unusual but it's entirely possible.
The Sherpa are an ethnic group living in Nepal, which is where Mt. Everest is located. Since they're acclimated to the extreme lack of oxygen up there, it's pretty valuable to take one of the indigenous people with you when you try to climb the mountain. Don't worry, you're not alone; I used to think the Sherpa guide was a position or some kind of job, too.
The term "Sherpa" is often applied to porters in the Himalayas, whom are often ethnic Sherpas, but oftentimes they are from other mountain dwelling cultures such as the Tamang.
I decided that we were shooting for the 8th century BCE with Acadian and kept guessing Mesopotamian countries. I apparently know more about Akkadians than I do about Canadians. Sorry Canada!
I think Hispanics as an ethnic group is really primarily used in the United States. People living in Spanish-speaking countries don't really refer to themselves that way. You'd be more likely to find people claiming indigenous ethnicities.
Also the Portuguese are Hispanic so shouldn't Brazil be the largest one instead of Mexico?
Hispania was the Roman province of modern-day Iberian peninsula, which includes Portugal. Therefore the Portuguese-speaking parts of Latin America are Hispanic.
I'm pretty sure being Hispanic/Latin doesn't mean you're part of an ethnic group? You can find Hispanic people all over the world, there are indigenous ethnic groups among Latin population like Mapuches, etc.
I feel that hispanic means "south of Rio Grande" more than anything. I wouldn't count hispanic as an ethnic group, and it feels very strange in this collection of somewhat cohesive groups of people.
Hispanic is a misleading term developed by ignorant white Americans to suit their domestic racial needs. It has no meaning to "Hispanic" people outside the USA whatsoever and it's at least laughable for actual Spanish.
shouldn't the largest population of Hispanic people be in the USA? 'Hispanic' doesn't really exist as an ethnic group anywhere else. In Mexico people identify as Mexicans or whatever ethnic minority in Mexico they are
True. In most of the world people identify themselves by their country of origin: i.e., Jamaican, Peruvian, Barbadian, Dutch, German, Indian, etc., etc. Only the USA seems intent on "defining" us further.
According to the wikipedia page on Bedouins, the vast majority (1.8m) are in Syria, with Saudi Arabia second (680k) and Sudan doesn't even get a mention. The wikipedia page on Sudan doesn't list Bedouins in the demographics section. What is the source of the answer giving Sudan as the most populous area of Bedouins?
Hispanic isn't an ethnicity. It is a vague name for a linguistic group, the same way that I am an anglophone, yet I am certainly not ethnically anglophone.
According to the definition given as a caveat for the quiz, "Hispanic" isn't an ethnicity at all.
Sure, there's a common language, and some of the "Hispanic" countries share some degree of ancestry.
But some of the biggest component of an ethnicity simply aren't there. There are so many ancestral cultures from which current Latin American come and there are so many cultural differences between "Hispanic" countries. Those created different national experiences and also affected the language, with many perceptible regional differences (not quite as the Portuguese divide, but still).
tl;dr: Saying that "everyone south of the border belongs to the Hispanic ethnicity" is like saying "everyone west of the Caucasus belongs to the European ethnicity", something no one would ever say.
The common characteristic of Hispanic people is that they come from a Spanish-speaking culture. They almost all speak Spanish. Spanish is a language. It's something that connects them. This isn't hard to understand. And both European and European-American are also valid ethnicities. It's amazing how much confusion this one term (ethnicity) generates. I can only assume it has to do with people for so long accepting the totally BS concept of "race" as being immutable fact, and then not understanding the difference between the two. Even after reading a caveat that explains it pretty clearly.
Seems to me that ethnicity is only used in the west. In a diverse country like India, defining what ethnicity even means is very complicated. I mean, the only way I would describe myself is as an Urdu-speaking North Indian muslim. Can someone please help me find out my ethnicity?
But not any common characteristic makes an ethnicity. It has to result in the understanding that you belong to the same group in some way, and I would argue that most people who are usually classified as "hispanic" would never think of themselves that way just because they speak the required language. The only place where people identify as "hispanic" is in the US, so that's the only place where it's an ethnicity.
Ethnicity in India is weird. Most parts of the country have very distinct ethnic identities, but then you get to the northern Hindi belt (Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, etc.) where there's no well-defined term. Even within this area there's a lot of diversity in culture, and the only thing linking people is language. I've found the term "Hindustani" on the internet, but have met no Indian or Pakistani who actually uses it. So yeah, @Quincyz, I think your idea of ethnicity makes sense. I feel like in India, it's based more than anything on language (and religion, although that's more controversial).
Nice quiz, although the picture confused me a little at first. Took some time for me to get Egypt, as I was expecting the UAE to be an answer at some point due to the picture of the Sheikh
Well there aren't that many Inuit in total anywhere... though the quick search I did just now indicates that there are 65,000 in Canada and only 50,000 in Greenland. However, the same search says that there are over 16,000 in Denmark proper. I had no idea about this but I guess some Inuit from Greenland decided to move to Denmark after it became a Danish territory?
Anyway, if that source is correct, then there are more in Canada than in Greenland, but Denmark + Greenland beats out Canada by just a hair.
The Cherokee are one of the most well-known American Indian groups in the United States. They are one of the most populous groups today by self-identification, and were one of the groups targeted by Andrew Jackson for the Trail of Tears.
My great great grandmother was Cherokee. So am I, technically, to a lesser extent. Though I don't often identify with any ethnicity at all, preferring to think of all people as alike in their shared humanity.
Why would it matter that you're not from the U.S.? I'm not from Morocco but I've heard of the Berbers. I'm not from China but I've heard of the Uyghurs. What makes the U.S. so special that it is the only country you need to be from to know anything about it?
There are still people in Canada who call themselves Acadian; and the majority of those who went to Louisiana now call their ethnicity 'Cajun', so there's potentially a difference
If anyone enjoys ethnology (or looking at cool maps), try the quiz I made here! And I'll be making a series out of these, so be sure to check back in the future for more :)
Great quiz but hispanic is not an ethnic group. The word just means people who speak Spanish. So it's true the biggest concentration is in Mexico but it only refers to the language not ethnic background.
Punjabis have been living since so so long, and there was literally no Pakistan till 1947. Punjabis are Indian originated. This is one thing I didn't like about this quiz.
This quiz asks for the country with the most people of this ethnic group, not where the ethnic group originated. There are clearly more Punjabi-speaking people in Pakistan then India by a sizeable margin. Pakistan has about 80 million Punjabi speakers and India only 30 million. But even if you set that aside, what does it mean that Punjabis are Indian-originated? A large part of where Punjabi culture developed is in modern day Pakistan. There was no concept of India and Pakistan as separate before 1947, but there were regional and linguistic identities. If you go centuries in the past, the first Punjabi speakers would have identified as neither Indian nor Pakistani. Punjabis originated in the Punjab, and most of the Punjab is in Pakistan today, hence Pakistan having the largest Punjabi population.
Can I see what source you are using to claim that there are more Inuit in Greenland/Denmark than in Canada? Last I read, there's more in Canada, and most census data is from 4-5 years ago.
btw, isn't this quiz meant to show up minorities? Just because of the Arabs in Egypt, thought they're the majority.
Personally I do not buy that there are many ethnic Arabs in Egypt at all. Arabic-speaking people around the world did not start to identify themselves as Arabs until the rise of Arab Nationalism which began in the 1900s. This was a political movement that grew out of a combination of things including opposition to Ottoman (Turkish) rule over most Arabic-speaking people, Western Imperialism up to and immediately following World War I, and most importantly, the personal ambitions of the Sharif of Mecca and his opposition to Zionism, the growth of which encroached on his own political power interests, which by cynically and erroneously labeling as Arab and Muslim issues he successfully changed from a local issue into the cause-du-jour of the entire Arabic-speaking world and greater Muslim ulemma for the next century.
On the other hand, ethnicity is whatever identity people ascribe to themselves, so even if we can see that this trend is completely recent and more to do with politics than anything else, if Egyptians, Algerians, Sudanese and Iraqis want to call themselves Arab, then I suppose they're Arab. I just won't think of them as such. No need for a debate.
Hispania was the Roman province of modern-day Iberian peninsula, which includes Portugal. Therefore the Portuguese-speaking parts of Latin America are Hispanic.
If you come from a Spanish-speaking country, you are Hispanic.
Sure, there's a common language, and some of the "Hispanic" countries share some degree of ancestry.
But some of the biggest component of an ethnicity simply aren't there. There are so many ancestral cultures from which current Latin American come and there are so many cultural differences between "Hispanic" countries. Those created different national experiences and also affected the language, with many perceptible regional differences (not quite as the Portuguese divide, but still).
If you want to check further, here's a good starting point.
tl;dr: Saying that "everyone south of the border belongs to the Hispanic ethnicity" is like saying "everyone west of the Caucasus belongs to the European ethnicity", something no one would ever say.
Anyway, if that source is correct, then there are more in Canada than in Greenland, but Denmark + Greenland beats out Canada by just a hair.
But I'm not from US.
They originate from the Arabian Peninsula, while Egypt is in North Africa.