[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Panonski

To me "meta-ethnicities" have no meaning, especialy this Romance, Germanic, Slavic etc BS which is based on linguistics only. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity only with language.

What I would consider as my meta-ethnicity is being Catholic European, because I have some cultural and historical bond with other Catholic European nations in some broad definition

This is a reason why I propose an idea of meta-identity vs one of meta-ethinicity.

Ethnicity defines an identity. E.g. Irish or Hungarian. Thus meta-ethnicity should define an identity about the [ethnic] identity. E.g., Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Hellenic, etc. But the reality is that despite the strictly defined terms of meta-ethnicity it often fails to define such an "supra-ethnic" identity and, where it does define one, it should be carefully examined whether the elements leading to such a supra-ethnic identity arise from the idea of meta-ethnicity.

For example, how do Austrians feel identified with Icelanders? or, how do Russians feel identified with Croatians? Aren't the former both Germanic and the latter both Slavic?

In a sense, the idea of a meta-ethnicity if taken beyond the definition of a meta-linguistic groups and little more, could be argued that it forces the self-identification of peoples denying their individual evolutionary history as nations.

On the other hand, the proposal of a meta-identity does take into account the concept of a supra-ethnicity as a substratum of the identity, as well as the evolution of the core identity, as an adstratum to the identity itself. Unlike meta-ethnicity, the meta-identity respects the freedom of nations to the forged part of their identies.