AQCI #1
Lecture:
Lecturer:
Student:
Date:
AQCI:
European Policy and Practice towards Ethnic Minorities
Ph Dr. Laura Laubeová
C.S.
October 12, 2006 – winter semester 2006 / 2007
ERIKSEN (Thomas H.), “Ethnicity, Race, Class and Nation”, in HUTCHINSON (John)
and SMITH (Anthony), eds., Ethnicity, O.U.P., Oxford, 1996, p. 28 - 31
1. CENTRAL QUOTATION
“The relationship between the terms ethnicity and nationality is nearly as complex as that between
ethnicity and race. […] In both cases, their […] identity becomes an imperative status, an ascribed
aspect of their personhood from which they cannot escape entirely.” [page 30]
2. ARGUMENT
Eriksen claims that in countries, boundaries are drawn between groups of people due to their
ethnic and racial diversity. These groups of people in turn may have a high correlation with specific
social classes. Basically, ethnic and racial differences of minorities with the dominant ethnic and
racial group of the state might impede their assimilation with the majority. In a way, the presence
of ethnic and racial minorities emphasizes the cultural similarities of the dominant group, which
increases the difficulty for minorities to assimilate in the nation. Furthermore, people who belong to
certain ethnic groups normally tend to belong to specific social classes, which therefore means that
social status and mobility seem to be connected to ethnicity.
3. QUESTION
Why do certain ethnic immigrant groups climb the social status ladder faster than other immigrant
groups (in their new country)? Do ethnic immigrant groups broadly share certain characteristics
which might help explain this question? Are their any specific reasons at all? If so, is it possible to
identify them?
4. EXPERIENTAL CONNECTION
In my opinion the division of society, continents, and the world into groups of people is a basic
characteristic of human nature. People judge people and place them, depending on their
communication, in the group, which they think they belong. This process is done unconsciously. In
general, most people tend to prefer the known and not the unknown: basically, people behave
“favorable to others in proportion to their real or perceived degree of common ancestry.” 1 For
example: when I bumped into an other Dutch national on a vacation in New York, USA, I felt more
connection with this person due to the fact that we temporarily shared an “identity” (we had
something in common) with each other.
5. TEXTUAL CONNECTION
“Spurred by modernization, global politics is being reconfigured along cultural lines. Peoples and
countries with similar cultures are coming together. Peoples and countries with different cultures
are coming apart. Alignments defined by ideology and superpower relations are giving way to
alignments defined by culture and civilization. Political boundaries increasingly are redrawn to
coincide with cultural ones: ethnic, religious, and civilizational.”2 This quote from Huntington
underlines Eriksen’s conclusions because both Huntington and Eriksen state that cultural
differences and similarities explain how and why groups are formed as they are. Eriksen
emphasizes that cultural differences between the dominant ethnic group and minority ethnic
groups are the cause of the existing “boundaries” between these two groups. Huntington confirms
this in the above mentioned quote when he refers to peoples and countries with similar cultures
which reconfigure along cultural lines.
6. IMPLICATIONS
The arguments imply that the social cohesion of the country and the social mobility and status of
ethnic minorities are impeded by the existence of group boundaries which seem to be created by
cultural differences between groups. The practical implications are: 1.) the social cohesion of the
country and the social mobility can both be increased by not allowing unlimited number of
immigrants to enter the country who ethnically and culturally vary too much from the host nation.
Basically, the majority tends to treat minorities better if the quantity of one minority group does
not disrupt the equilibrium of a country. 2.) Furthermore, social mobility of ethnic minorities should
be improved by offering equal education opportunities (from kindergarten to university) to all
citizens. Education levels tend to be of lesser quality in areas where ethnic minorities are a
majority. Education improvement should create better employment opportunities for a part of the
ethnic group, which automatically increases the social mobility and status of the ethnic group. The
successful individuals of this ethnic group stimulate future generations, lay out paths for future
generations, decrease the “unsuccessful” stigma of their own group which majority ethnic groups
might have, and can help people from their own ethnic group in the future (networking).
Van de Berghe, Pierre: “Does race matter?”, text 9, in Hutchinson, J. and Smith, A., eds., (1996) Ethnicity,
Oxford- New York: Oxford University Press, p. 57
2
HUNTINGTON (Samuel P.), “The Clash of Civilizations”, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd, 1996, p. 129-131
1
EDITED BY L. H.
Red is LH
Blue is CS
AQCI #1
Lecture:
Lecturer:
Student:
Date:
AQCI:
European Policy and Practice towards Ethnic Minorities
Ph Dr. Laura Laubeová
C.S
October 12, 2006 – winter semester 2006 / 2007
ERIKSEN (Thomas H.), “Ethnicity, Race, Class and Nation”, in HUTCHINSON (John)
and SMITH (Anthony), eds., Ethnicity, O.U.P., Oxford, 1996, p. 28 – 3
1. CENTRAL QUOTATION
“The relationship between the terms ethnicity and nationality is nearly as complex as that between
ethnicity and race. […] In both cases, their […] identity becomes an imperative status, an ascribed
aspect of their personhood from which they cannot escape entirely.” [page 30]
2. ARGUMENT
Eriksen claims that in countries, boundaries are drawn between groups of people due to their
ethnic and racial diversity. These groups of people in turn may have a high correlation with specific
social classes. Basically, ethnic and racial differences of minorities with the dominant ethnic and
racial group of the state might impede their assimilation with the majority. In a way, the presence
of ethnic and racial minorities emphasizes the cultural similarities of the dominant group, which
increases the difficulty for minorities to assimilate in the nation. Furthermore, people who belong to
certain ethnic groups normally tend to belong to specific social classes, which therefore means that
social status and mobility seem to be connected to ethnicity.
3. QUESTION
Why do certain ethnic immigrant groups climb the social status ladder faster than other immigrant
groups (in their new country)? Do ethnic immigrant groups broadly share certain characteristics
which might help explain this question? Are their any specific reasons at all? If so, is it possible to
identify them?
4. EXPERIENTAL CONNECTION
I agree with the conclusions(which particular statement?) used it, thanks of Eriksen. In my opinion
the division of society, continents, and the world into groups of people is a basic characteristic of
human nature. People judge people and place them, depending on their communication, in the
group, which they think they belong. This process is done unconsciously. In general, most people
tend to prefer the known and not the unknown: basically, the probability of a “successful”
relationship is greater with a person with whom people partly share an identity. For example: when
I bumped into an other Dutch national on a vacation in New York, USA, I felt a certain connection
with this person due to the fact that we temporarily shared an “identity”(that we had something in
common) used it, thanks with each other.
5. TEXTUAL CONNECTION
“Spurred by modernization, global politics is being reconfigured along cultural lines. Peoples and
countries with similar cultures are coming together. Peoples and countries with different cultures
are coming apart. Alignments defined by ideology and superpower relations are giving way to
alignments defined by culture and civilization. Political boundaries increasingly are redrawn to
coincide with cultural ones: ethnic, religious, and civilizational.”3
This quote confirms Eriksen’s conclusions because both Huntington (just for the reading flow might
it be better to start the sentence with ‘This quote from Huntington underlines…) used it, thanks and
Eriksen state that cultural differences and similarities explain how and why groups are formed as
they are. Eriksen emphasizes that cultural differences between the dominant ethnic group and
minority ethnic groups are the cause of the existing “boundaries” between these two groups.
Huntington confirms this in the above mentioned quote when he refers to peoples and countries
with similar cultures which reconfigure along cultural lines.
6. IMPLICATIONS
Argument implies: the arguments imply that the social cohesion of the country and the social
mobility and status of ethnic minorities are impeded by the existence of group boundaries which
seem to be created by cultural differences between groups.
Practical implications: 1.) The social cohesion of the country and the social mobility can both be
increased by not allowing unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country who ethnically and
culturally vary too much from the host nation. Basically, the majority tends to treat minorities
better if the quantity of one minority group does not disrupt the natural equilibrium of a country.
(what is a natural equilibrium and how would you measure it?)  used it, thanks, I will drop the
word “natural”. Measuring: I think this question is too complex to explain in a one page essay.
3
HUNTINGTON (Samuel P.), “The Clash of Civilizations”, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd, 1996, p. 129-131
2.) Furthermore, social mobility of ethnic minorities should be improved by offering equal education
opportunities (from kindergarten to university) to all citizens. Education levels tend to be of lesser
quality in areas where ethnic minorities are a majority. Education improvement should create
better employment opportunities for a part of the ethnic group, which automatically increases the
social mobility and status of the ethnic group. The successful individuals of this ethnic group
stimulate future generations, lay out paths for future generations, decrease the “unsuccessful”
stigma of their own group which majority ethnic groups might have, and can help people from their
own ethnic group in the future (networking)(very good argument). thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITED BY TM
Red is TM
Blue is CS
AQCI #1
Lecture:
Lecturer:
Student:
Date:
AQCI:
European Policy and Practice towards Ethnic Minorities
Ph Dr. Laura Laubeová
CS
October 12, 2006 – winter semester 2006 / 2007
ERIKSEN (Thomas H.), “Ethnicity, Race, Class and Nation”, in HUTCHINSON (John)
and SMITH (Anthony), eds., Ethnicity, O.U.P., Oxford, 1996, p. 28 - 31
2. CENTRAL QUOTATION
“The relationship between the terms ethnicity and nationality is nearly as complex as that between
ethnicity and race. […] In both cases, their […] identity becomes an imperative status, an ascribed
aspect of their personhood from which they cannot escape entirely.” [page 30]
2. ARGUMENT
Eriksen claims that in countries, boundaries are drawn between groups of people due to their
ethnic and racial diversity. These groups of people in turn may have a high correlation with specific
social classes. Basically, ethnic and racial differences of minorities with the dominant ethnic and
racial group of the state might impede their assimilation with the majority. In a way, the presence
of ethnic and racial minorities emphasizes the cultural similarities of the dominant group, which
increases the difficulty for minorities to assimilate in the nation. Furthermore, people who belong to
certain ethnic groups normally tend to belong to specific social classes, which therefore means that
social status and mobility seem to be connected to ethnicity.
3. QUESTION
Why is it so that certain ethnic immigrant groups tend to climb the social status ladder faster than
other immigrant groups do (in their new country)? Are their certain characteristics, which an ethnic
immigrant group broadly shares which might help explain this question? Are their any specific
reasons at all? If so, is it possible to identify them?
4. EXPERIENTAL CONNECTION
I agree with the conclusions of Eriksen. In my opinion however, the division of society, continents
and the world into groups of people is a basic characteristic of basic human nature. People judge
people and place them, depending on their communication, in the group, which they think they
belong. This process is done unconsciously. In general, most people tend to prefer the known and
not the unknown: basically, the probability of a “successful” relationship is greater with a person
with whom people partly share an identity. For example: a person from Milan who meets someone
from Milan in London temporarily share an identity with each other which increases their
relationship with each other. This example tries to explain that relationships are increased when
identities are shared in certain contexts.
5. TEXTUAL CONNECTION
“Spurred by modernization, global politics is being reconfigured along cultural lines. Peoples and
countries with similar cultures are coming together. Peoples and countries with different cultures
are coming apart. Alignments defined by ideology and superpower relations are giving way to
alignments defined by culture and civilization. Political boundaries increasingly are redrawn to
coincide with cultural ones: ethnic, religious, and civilizational.”4
This quote confirms Eriksen’s conclusions because both Huntington and Eriksen state that cultural
differences and similarities explain how and why groups are formed as they are.
6. IMPLICATIONS
4
HUNTINGTON (Samuel P.), “The Clash of Civilizations”, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd, 1996, p. 129-131
Argument implies: the arguments imply that the social cohesion of the country and the social
mobility and status of ethnic minorities are impeded by the existence of group boundaries which
seem to be created by socialsocio cultural differences within groups of the nation state.
Practical implications: 1.) The social cohesion of the country and the social mobility can both be
increased by not allowing an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country who ethnically
and culturally vary too much from the host nation. Basically, the majority tends to treat minorities
better if the quantity of one minority group does not disrupt the natural equilibrium of a country.
2.) Furthermore, social mobility of ethnic minorities should be improved by offering equal education
opportunities (from kindergarten to university) to all citizens. Education levels tend to be of lesser
quality in areas where ethnic minorities are a majority. Education improvement should create
better employment opportunities for a part of the ethnic group, which automatically increases the
social mobility and status of the ethnic group. Furthermore, the successful ones individuals of this
ethnic group stimulate future generations, lay out paths for future generations, decrease the
“unsuccessful” stigma of their own group which majority ethnic groups might have, and can help
people from their own ethnic group in the future (networking).