If you read material on ethnology, you find listings of small groups that do not constitute nations scattered around Europe, with varying rights as ethnic groups vis-a-vis the principal nationalities of the countries in which they are located. I’m curious regarding to what degree they have been assimilated, and to what degree they maintain distinct ethnicity, in 2004 A.D.
What provoked this was a casual reference to the Ruthenians relative to Ukraine in historical background reading regarding the recent political crisis there. And that led me to think of the Wends, the Frisians, the Provencals and Catalans (mentioned recently here in GQ), and other such groups. I’m curious as to what Eurodopers and ethnic scholars have to say about such groups.
Here’s a quick shopping list of possible groups people might want to address as regards cultural identity/assimilation:
[ol][li]Norway: Lapps[/li][li]Netherlands: Frisians[/li][li]France: Bretons, Flemings, Provencals, Biscayans (Franco-Basques)[/li][li]Spain: Catalans, Gallegos, Basques, Asturians[/li][li]Italy: Italo-Albanians, Sards, Friulians[/li][li]Greece and southern Balkans: Vlachs[/li][li]Romania: Szeklers, Transylvanian Germans and Magyars[/li][li]Germany: Wends[/li][li]Poland: Kashubes[/li][li]Estonia: Livs[/li][li]Ukraine: Ruthenians[/li][li]Switzerland: Rhaetians[/li][li]Russia: dozens of groups (Karelians, Livs, Votiaks, Mari, Permians, Mordvins, Chuvash, Tatars, etc.)[/ol][/li]
Any discussion as to how any of these groups are regarded by the “majority ethnic group” and by themselves in relation to their nation would be interesting reading.
You’re much more knowledgeable than I am about any of this, but I really like this web site about nationalities within the former USSR. Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire
The Sámi, as they prefer to be called, lives in the northernmost areas of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Kola Peninsula in Russia. The treatment of the Sámi people has certainly improved over the years (there used to be forced integration, forced conversions to Christanity and so on), but there are still some issues. One of the largest issues the last year(s) has been the ownership of the “Snøhvit” gas fields in the ocean north of Norway. Since this (Northern Norway) is traditional Sámi territory, they felt they had some special right to a part of the profits, while the Norwegian government felt that the profits should be divided evenly (as in: Given directly to the state.) It appears that the Norwegian state has gotten their way so far.
There are also some (minor) grumbling between the “Norwegian” people (meaning non-sámi people living in the North) and the Sámi people. This is mainly caused by reindeers. As a friend from Finnmark told me: “The reindeers are everywhere, and you must have a fence around your garden, or they will eat everything, and with the climate, you won’t get your lawn back for several years.” If this is typical, there might be some friction between the people, and I’m sure the Sámi has at least as many complaints about the Norwegians living on what has been their land for generations.
I wouldn’t call these “ethnic groups”. They are only linguistic groups. There aren’t any major difference besides that. Well, the Bretons hold their “fest noz” and the Alsatians eat Sauerkraut, but honestly that doesn’t give them a different ethnicity. Some traditions are different, but there are also such differences between say Picardy and Burgundy (both in Oil country) or a fisher town around Bordeaux and a mountain village in the southern Alps (both in Oc country).
By the way, you can add Alsatians, Catalans, Corsicans, and Franco-Provencals (area around Lyons). And Provencals should rather be Occitans, Provence being only one of the Oc regions and Provencal one of the Oc dialects.
There’s a feeling of belonging to these groups. Bretons are somewhat proud to be Bretons, even if they don’t speak Breton, and their ancestors didn’t either (in eastern Britanny that never was a Breton-speaking area). There are independantists amongst the Basques and the Corsicans (also in Britanny, but that’s ludicrously marginal). Alsace is probably the area whre the local language is the most commonly spoken, even in the towns and cities (you don’t hear Breton in Rennes, nor Provencal in Marseille, but you hear Alsatian in Strasbourg). History also made sure they would remember their peculiar situation. Flemish is virtually extinct in France, and anyway it was only a tiny area of the country.
But then, there’s also a feeling of belonging to any region, be it Auvergne or Picardy. Everybody except the native Parisians feel they belong to someplace.
Centralization and assimilation began very early in France, and it significantly reduced the importance of the local cultural feelings. Standart french was spoken in towns way early than in the neighboring countries. It was the official language used in all courts and official documents since the early 16th century. The revolution administratively dismembered deliberatly the former regions, by creating “departements” organized in such a way that they crossed the former boundaries, to promote unity (different regions could have different customs, courts, and in some case laws before that). Both the monarchy and the republic have been very strong on centralism. When primary education became mandatory, the primary school teachers (the “black hussars of the Republic”, as they were nicknamed) made every effort to eradicate the “patois” in the countryside (along with promote republicanism and oppose religion), and succeded quite well. So, there’s a long tradition of making France only one country.
Apart from immigrants, the only group you could call ethnically specific in France, are the gypsies.
Your question is a bit confusing. Can you please define “distinct ethnic group” a bit better?
Some of the names you mentioned don’t constitute “ethnic groups” as I would define it, but rather regional classifications or languages. Frisian and Catalan are examples of that.
Visiting Austria as a kid, I remember people would make jokes about the “Ost-Friesen” (eastern Frisians) - these jokes were exactly equivalent to the American “Polish Joke”. I have no idea why they picked Frisians. Ost-Friesland is an area in northern Germany.
Never? The dividing line between Breton-speaking and Gallo-speaking has moved west over the centuries. Perhaps Rennes was never Breton-speaking, but in the 12th century the dividing line ran from Cancale to Mordelles to Couëron, taking in all but say the easternmost fifth of Brittany.
There’s also the various travelling groups, whether they be Roma, Sinti, Irish Travellers, or whatever. Besides the Ruthenians, central Europe also has the Carpatho-Rusyns and Lemko-Rusyns. Russia and Ukraine have the Old Believers, who are definitely an ethnic group, not just a religious one. And Istria in Croatia has the Istro-Italians.
I’ve never heard anyone attempt to describe Irish travellers as an ethnic grouping. It’s a cultural one. (A very strong and divisive one, sure, but it’s not ethnic.)
One group which I would volunteer to the general spirit of the thread is the Cornish - with a Celtic language which reaced oblivion yet has somehow staged an almost-revivial.
Hey, I’m just going by the dictionary definition of “ethnic.” Irish Travellers have their own history, folkways, and language (Sheolta, now classified as one of the Goidelic languages), an obviously different way of life from the larger Irish ethnic group, don’t tend to marry non-Travellers, and have been consistently marginalized from mainstream Irish society. What are the Travellers lacking that groups like the Sinti have, so that they are not an ethnic group?
Oooh, I have a ton of links for you on the FSU, if I can ever figure out how to copy my IE Favorites from a floppy disk copied from my old computer on Win 98 to the new one running XP…or if you’d like, I’d be glad to e-mail my M.A. thesis on bilingual education policy in the North Caucasus…
In the meantime, this ought to keep you busy with more North Caucasians than you can shake a stick at:
If Catalans and Gallegos can count as “ethnic groups” in Spain, you might as well call the French, German and Italian speaking Swiss “ethnic groups”. You might want to differentiate between purely linguistic “ethnic groups” like the Catalan the true ethnic groups like the Lapps (or Saami). A good place to start for a list of such groups would be Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.
In the Netherlands my experience with Frisians is that they are mixing with the rest, as does everyone. Bear in mind, though, that most people I meet have already left Friesland, hence are not so permanently attached to it. I’ve met people who do have a strong dual sense of identity: both Dutch and Frisian. The language is still used in Friesland. However, I don’t think there is a serious separatist feeling. I think the ‘dual’ sense of identity is the strongest you will encounter.
I should mention that this is not exclusive to Frisians. People who are from other provinces on the countryside (in particuler Zeeland, Groningen, Overijssel/Twente/Salland, Gelderland and Limburg) may well have a similar strong sense of local identity: the local dialect/language is quite distinct from official Dutch.
