Non-territorial minorities that subsequently became territorial minorities?

May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#1
Which minorities (ethnic groups, religious groups, and/or et cetera) were initially non-territorial (as in, they didn't have any significant territories or even any territories at all where they were a majority of the total population) and subsequently became territorial minorities (as in, acquired a sizable territory where they became a majority of the total population)? So far, I could think of the Jews, the Sikhs, and the Mormons. The Jews historically (over the last millennium or two) weren't a majority in any large piece of territory (though they were a majority in some Eastern European cities--though, again, these cities are too small to be considered viable territories) but subsequently became a majority in (most of) Israel as a result of mass Jewish immigration there over the last century. Likewise, the Sikhs historically were only a majority in tiny, non-contiguous parts of the Punjab but this changed after the partition of India where most of the Sikhs in western Punjab moved to eastern Punjab and thus acquired a much more solid and contiguous territory where they (Sikhs) became a majority:







As for Mormons, they were initially a religious, non-territorial minority, but subsequently became a territorial minority when they moved en masse to Utah (and to some nearby areas, such as some parts of southeastern Idaho) and became a majority of the total population there:



Anyway, what other examples have there been throughout history of non-territorial minorities becoming territorial minorities?
 
#5
I will list ones from the last three hundred years for simplicity. I will also only list areas that had a presence of said minority group that eventually developed into a majority.

The Serbs in the Banat/Vojvodina.
Poles in lost parts of eastern Germany.
French in regional provinces.
Russians across their empire.
Romanians in Dobruja.
Muslims in Lebanon.
Europeans in America west of the missisppi (including Canada and Alaska).
Germans in various enclaves in south America.
Filipinos in Hawaii.
Various European peoples in various formerly jewish majority cities.
Kazaks in Kazakhstan.
Christians in much of colonial Africa.
Europeans in Australia.
Christians in eastern Indonesia.
Chinese in Singapore.
Chinese in Taiwan.
Chinese in Manchuria.
Japanese in Hawaii (before the Filipinos).
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#6
I will list ones from the last three hundred years for simplicity. I will also only list areas that had a presence of said minority group that eventually developed into a majority.

The Serbs in the Banat/Vojvodina.
They were already a majority in other parts of Serbia even before they settled there en masse, no? I was talking about groups that didn't form of a majority anywhere (other than perhaps in very small areas, such as cities) and then formed a majority in much larger and much more viable territories as a result of mass migration there.

Poles in lost parts of eastern Germany.
The other parts of Poland were Polish-majority for over a millennium, no? In other words, before 1945, Poles did have a huge amount of territories where they were a majority; they simply weren't a majority in the Recovered Territories until after 1945.

French in regional provinces.
Russians across their empire.
Romanians in Dobruja.
Muslims in Lebanon.
Europeans in America west of the missisppi (including Canada and Alaska).
Germans in various enclaves in south America.
Filipinos in Hawaii.
Various European peoples in various formerly jewish majority cities.
Kazaks in Kazakhstan.
Christians in much of colonial Africa.
Europeans in Australia.
Christians in eastern Indonesia.
Chinese in Singapore.
Chinese in Taiwan.
Chinese in Manchuria.
Japanese in Hawaii (before the Filipinos).
For the record, I want groups that didn't form a majority anywhere (or almost anywhere) beforehand--not groups that formed a majority somewhere but also acquired a majority somewhere else as a result of mass migration. For instance, Asians in Hawaii did form a majority in their homelands for millenniums before they actually moved to Hawaii; they simply didn't form a majority in Hawaii until the late 1800s.

Kazakhs, of course, were a majority in Kazakhstan then lost their majority due to mass Slavic immigration and then regained their majority due to their much higher birth rates as well as due to mass Slavic emigration.
 
Apr 2017
1,485
U.S.A.
#7
They were already a majority in other parts of Serbia even before they settled there en masse, no? I was talking about groups that didn't form of a majority anywhere (other than perhaps in very small areas, such as cities) and then formed a majority in much larger and much more viable territories as a result of mass migration there.

The other parts of Poland were Polish-majority for over a millennium, no? In other words, before 1945, Poles did have a huge amount of territories where they were a majority; they simply weren't a majority in the Recovered Territories until after 1945.

For the record, I want groups that didn't form a majority anywhere (or almost anywhere) beforehand--not groups that formed a majority somewhere but also acquired a majority somewhere else as a result of mass migration. For instance, Asians in Hawaii did form a majority in their homelands for millenniums before they actually moved to Hawaii; they simply didn't form a majority in Hawaii until the late 1800s.

Kazakhs, of course, were a majority in Kazakhstan then lost their majority due to mass Slavic immigration and then regained their majority due to their much higher birth rates as well as due to mass Slavic emigration.
You did not clearly state that in the op.
The parts of Germany I was referring to was the german majority areas, including Silesia, east Prussia and Pomerania. They had polish minorities before they became a majority.
Your new premise doesn't apply well to anyone, Jews were a majority in Israel thousands of years ago. Generally your concept as defined would only apply to new religious groups.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#8
You did not clearly state that in the op.
Actually, I did--or at least tried to:

Which minorities (ethnic groups, religious groups, and/or et cetera) were initially non-territorial (as in, they didn't have any significant territories or even any territories at all where they were a majority of the total population)
The parts of Germany I was referring to was the german majority areas, including Silesia, east Prussia and Pomerania. They had polish minorities before they became a majority.
Yes, but even though Poles were a minority there, they were a majority in the territories further east.

Your new premise doesn't apply well to anyone, Jews were a majority in Israel thousands of years ago. Generally your concept as defined would only apply to new religious groups.
Yes, thousands of years ago. However, that was so long ago that it doesn't really count for the purposes of my question here.
 
Apr 2017
1,485
U.S.A.
#9
Actually, I did--or at least tried to:





Yes, but even though Poles were a minority there, they were a majority in the territories further east.



Yes, thousands of years ago. However, that was so long ago that it doesn't really count for the purposes of my question here.
You have poorly defined this premise, so groups that haven't had a majority in any significant areas for thousands of years are okay?
Aside from religious groups the only group I can think of your premise applies to is Coloreds in the western cape province of south Africa.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
20,960
SoCal
#10
You have poorly defined this premise, so groups that haven't had a majority in any significant areas for thousands of years are okay?
Yes, Yes, they are. :)

Aside from religious groups the only group I can think of your premise applies to is Coloreds in the western cape province of south Africa.
They previously lived as a minority elsewhere in South Africa?
 

Similar History Discussions