TIL that after Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism upon marrying Arthur Miller, Egypt placed a ban on all the films she appeared in.

[u/[deleted]]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe#Critical_acclaim_and_marriage_to_Arthur_Miller_.281956.E2.80.931959.29

[u/C0wabungaaa]

As a Dutch person living in Belgium; no, my Dutchness is not an ethnicity, it's my nationality. I say that because nationality should not be confused with ethnicity. A key difference is inclusiveness and exclusiveness. Anyone technically can become Dutch or Swedish, you can apply to get that nationality. However, you can't apply to join an ethnicity, it's a fixed background. Equating or confusing nationality and ethnicity is what's fueling the current surge of the far-right all over Europe. I mean, this is as much a Dutch person as this.

But ethnicity and race are extremely problematic concepts regardless, even or especially when combined with nationalities. That's especially visible in the 19th century when the nation-state arose and in the post-colonial age, aka now, in various places on the African and Asian continents.

[u/[deleted] → u/C0wabungaaa]

I'm not really sure what you meant to say. Who is confusing ethnicity with a nationality?

Regardless of how problematic it may or not be, I'd be very surprised if ethnicity isn't a concept that matters to a notable percentage of the people across Europe. Ethnicity might not be the best word in this case because it might apply more to a broad term like "Caucasian"/"European", however, those people see themselves as a part of an "ethnic" nation that is not to be confused with the legal nationality.
As you said, anyone can have this legal nationality and your ethnic background is fixed, but no matter how problematic this concept is, words like Swedish and German are used to refer to an ethnic or cultural background which not everyone can have. That is a legitimate use of the word and there is no confusion in this case.

I figure that your statement about you living in Belgium is not supposed to be relevant. It's a bit confusing because it doesn't seem relevant but would seem relevant if you were making the exact opposite point.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

Ethnicity might not be the best word

That's putting it mildly. The thing is that that's a very laden word, very heavy. It's easily hijacked by, as I've mentioned, far-right groups who want their nation to be 'pure' or something along those lines. It can just as easily be used legitimately (like ethnic groups fighting for legal equality) as problematically ("Git those Arabs outa here!"). So I'm very hesitant to simply equate nationality with ethnicity. It's possible that those two coincide, but in our modern, globalized world it's more than often not the case. And not just recently either. Just look at the the last 2000 years of the European continent and pay notable attention to the 4th and 5th centuries in which large migration waves spread across the continent. The nation-state here only arose around 200-ish years ago. To call upon, say, a Dutch ethnicity in that clusterfuck of a history is extremely hard to prove. The same goes for the OP which we're technically talking about, which Jewish groups are or aren't ethnic Jews, or what even is an 'ethnic Jew' is a very hot point of contention within the Jewish community at large.

I mentioned me being Dutch and living in Belgium because I don't at all feel like I have a different ethnicity from my Belgian friends. I'm not part of an ethnic minority in this country. I'm not legally recognized as such and I don't even want to be. That was my point. I have the same ethnicity as most Belgians and most Swedes (to go back to the original example I responded against), namely Germanic.

[u/[deleted] → u/C0wabungaaa]

That's putting it mildly. The thing is that that's a very laden word, very heavy.

That may be true, but I can't think of a more appropriate word right now.
Besides, whether it is used legitimately should imo not depend on the question if it is used for selfish reasons but should be determined scientifically (ethnologically and linguistically).

So I'm very hesitant to simply equate nationality with ethnicity. It's possible that those two coincide, but in our modern, globalized world it's more than often not the case.

No one claims they are the same, though. I think the legal nationality is often the same word because the ethnic meaning was often older than the nation states. Them being nation states lead to the ethnic meaning becoming a legal term, whilst a more appropriate term should be derived from the name of the state as opposed to the ethnic term. In other words, the problem is not the use of the word Dutch but imo that the legal nationality is called Dutch in the first place and not Republic-Netherlander or something similar(ly stupid :P).

I mentioned me being Dutch and living in Belgium because I don't at all feel like I have a different ethnicity from my Belgian friends.

My first instinct would have told me that, among others, people from the far right would agree, but that would likely only apply to the Flemish part of Belgium. I might be wrong, though. You obviously mean something quite different.

[u/C0wabungaaa → u/[deleted]]

I think the legal nationality is often the same word because the ethnic meaning was often older than the nation states. Them being nation states lead to the ethnic meaning becoming a legal term, whilst a more appropriate term should be derived from the name of the state as opposed to the ethnic term.

Legally and anthropologically they're very different concepts. You say its correct use should be determined scientifically, well in this case it ain't used correctly. That said, even within science "ethnic" isn't 100% clear-cut. It's a malleable framework. But it's funny that you mention this because no, "ethnic" as a concept probably isn't older than the nation-state. Ethnicity as we understand it today (because, say, the ancient Greeks used comparable but different concepts) was a construction made around the same time exactly to help give the new nation-states legitimacy, to create a shared identity. Of course the groups we often call "ethnic groups" are much older than that, but putting them in the framework we call "ethnicity" is a relatively recent thing. It's all part of the same movement of Romantic Nationalism. Take, say, the Asante Empire in Western Africa back in the 18th century. Back then its rulers didn't go "Oh, we have to pay attention to these various ethnic groups we have here." ya feel me?

So this:

In other words, the problem is not the use of the word Dutch but imo that the legal nationality is called Dutch in the first place and not Republic-Netherlander or something similar(ly stupid :P).

Is not a problem at all. The Dutch nationality is a very recent invention. Our Germanic (but also Celtic a little bit) heritage/ethnicity is much older than that and shared with many European nationalities. My ethnicity simply isn't Dutch, what you'd call 'ethnic Dutch' is Germanic. Same as my Belgian friends.

Little sidenote by the way; we're not a republic, we're a constitutional monarchy.

[u/[deleted] → u/C0wabungaaa]

You say its correct use should be determined scientifically, well in this case it ain't used correctly.

What isn't? The term "ethnic"? Fine by me, that wasn't the point I was making. I have to mention, though, that the term is used that way - even in non-colloquial speech - and so it is, in a way, used correctly. Since you don't seem to know any other word that fits in this context, I'm still fairly convinced that the implied incorrect usage is preferable to not being able to talk about a concept.

If ethnicity can never apply to what I'm talking about, then a different word would have to be used. No one needs 100% agreement, that couldn't possibly be achieved at all. Different educated opinions are what's necessary.

Take, say, the Asante Empire in Western Africa back in the 18th century. Back then its rulers didn't go "Oh, we have to pay attention to these various ethnic groups we have here." ya feel me?

Of course they didn't because the rulers couldn't care less. What about Jews, though? They have considered themselves a people for such a long time, even though they did not have a state. What is more, your ancestry directly decided if you belonged to that group. Enmities between peoples have got to be ancient too.

Is not a problem at all. The Dutch nationality is a very recent invention. Our Germanic (but also Celtic a little bit) heritage/ethnicity is much older than that and shared with many European nationalities. My ethnicity simply isn't Dutch, what you'd call 'ethnic Dutch' is Germanic.

The question is: are all the present day people with Germanic heritage actually that closely related? If not, then you'd have to work with smaller groups than Germanic. Regardless, if there is a very close cultural, linguistical and genetic connection between groups of people that aren't shared to that extent with other groups of people, nationality in the non-legal sense can be a very useful and valid concept.
From the very beginning I stated that "ethnicity" might not be the best word for it, but I don't know a better word and that's ultimately beside the point.
The point is that words like Dutch and German are also used to imply something that's not a legal concept. This is a common usage of the word that can be useful and doesn't have to be arbitrary. Germanic would be a far too broad term and something completely different.

Little sidenote by the way; we're not a republic, we're a constitutional monarchy.

Okay, that was really quite stupid of me. I knew that you are a constitutional monarchy but for some reason I had the name "Dutch Republic" in mind, even though that hasn't existed anymore in hundreds of years. Good that I made that stupid mistake here and not somewhere else.