With the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, and some other issues like the Iraqi elections and demonstrations in Spain, we’ve come to learn a lot about smaller ethnic groups like the Uzbeks, the Kurds, the Basques, etc.
I’m curious what the largest (most populous) ethnic groups that do not have their own independent nation are, and what conditions for them in the nation(s) that they are minorities in are like.
Native Americans, maybe? As individual tribes, they have reservations which are their own turf, but ethnically, they’re all descendants of the same basic stock.
Scots-Irish?
What about the gypsies?
Can we get a little clarification on your rules?
For example, if you say that the US is a “white” ruled country then there are large minority groups without a country. But with a representative democracy, that seems an unfair statement. (Not to diminish racial issues in the US, but it is different than what the Kurds are facing.)
Would it be fairer to rewrite you question as “What is the largest group denied reasonable government participation in a country on the basis of ethnicity?”
I suspect it is an ethnic group in China. (When you say largest numbers, it is almost always China.) Maybe the Tibetans? Which oppressions in China are due to ethnicity and which are due to political viewpoints are not my expertise.
If you don’t know what their conditions are, you haven’t been paying attention.
Another vote for the Kurds.
Who are the Scots-Irish ?
It is a little complicated but they were (are?) basically Scottish Protestants that moved to Northern Ireland and a great number then moved on to the U.S. and some to Canada. A very large number of people with deep roots in the American South have Scots-Irish ancestry. It is believed that Scots-Irish influence was one of the larger drivers of southern culture.
http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Scots-Irish_American#More_on_the_term_Scotch-Irish
maybe the Kurds(*) there are about ~26 million of them, about half of whom live in Turkey.
I know some have tried to kill wiki as a GQ source – I don’t disagree. But this article gives a country by country birds eye view of how they are treated that I think is valuable and certainly more user friendly than 10 lines of cites for different countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds
Burma has about 50 million people. About 34 million are ethnic Burman, ~8 million are Shan and ~+3 million are Karen. The rest are smaller mixes (some of which – Chinese have their “own” country). The Country has known almost constant ethnic tumult since its inception. There has at time been open warfare among these groups and very harsh repression by the government.
*AFRICA (Maybe this this is nitpicky Poly sorry if so)
I think this entire continent has to be excluded because the situations are so unique they make the OP much harder to answer in a GQ way. While in much of the rest of the world we can agree Predominate Culture + Ethnicity = Country, Many African Countries cross ethnic lines and really you are only a member of the country because you live within the borders – not because of cultural or ethnic reasons… e.g. Would you say 11 million Zulu have no country of their “own” even though they are important in South Africa can vote and are located mainly in Natal Province? Or how about the 9 Million Xhosa’s (Nelson Mandela’s ethnic group) – do they have their “own” country? Or would we say that in South Africa’s case, as the world media tends to do, they are all ethnically black (as crazy as that is) and so they have their own country “Black South Africa?”
Benin and Nigeria are examples of a mishmash of ethnicities, many of which number in the millions, and have no country specifically as their “own”.
If we want to try to fit that into a square peg though there are about 30 million people in the Yoruba Ethnic group. They are significant in West Africa, but there is no country of ‘Yorba’ (although they dominate Nigeria and Benin). Also in Nigeria there are 18 million Ibo whose “country” Biafra never really got off the ground - in a nasty conflict
Really though I would say the spirit of Poly’s OP does not fit Africa – if we insist it does I go Yorba most populous without thier “own” country though.
I agree.
“Native American” is not an ethnic group, but many different ethnic groups.
There might be another contender in China, but I’m not familiar with all the various ethnic groups. There are something like 5M Tibetans, which would make that group signficantly smaller than the Kurds.
OK, so they used to have their own independent nation (thanks be to Jeff Davis). And they’re (according to Wikipedia anyway) largely deracinated White Folks (although listen to mountain music and Celtic music side by side sometime and you gotta wonder). I lean against the wall with one leg, semi-corrected.
I know that the Zhuang in China number somewhere around 15 to 20 million in China.
Flipping through the CIA World Factbook, I see:
I don’t know anything whatsoever of these ethnic groups. I just flipped through a few pages and found these statistics.
Here is a list of active autonomist and secessionist movements by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements
For links to sedition movements and governments-in-exile, see: http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/exile.html
I’m not convinced ameridians can be considered as an unique ethnic group. I would assume an ethnic group would have to share at least some major cultural elements, possibly a religion, probably closely related languages, etc…
“Dravidian” is not an ethnic group, but a collection of ethnic groups speaking Dravidian languages (of which there are many). They live mostly in Southern India and Sri Lanka.
Looks like they’re pretty close to the Kurds in population. Sundanese
But Azeris have their own country, Azerbaijan.
Apparently, there would be around 25millions kurds. A quick google search gave an estimate of 50 millions Berbers (I dont know how accurate this figure is). So, I’m going to propose the Berbers, until some other poster comes up with a higher number…
There are between 7 and 9 millions gypsies in Europe, and though there are some of them in the Americas, middle east, etc… I would assume these 7-9 millions constitute the bulk of the population. Being generous, there should be less than 15 millions of them total. That would be less than both the Kurds and the Berbers.
Would someone know about ethnicities in India? There must be some large ones, there, I would assume…
Catholic Scots? 
Can Dravidiansbe considered a single ethnicity?
As I understand it, there is really no majority “ethnicity,” defined by native language, in India. There is a majority religious culture, Hindu – most nationalist troubles in India have been about minority religions such as Islam and Sikhism.