# Prefixing Your Nationality?



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Concerning nationality, do you ever prefix your nationality with your ancestoral roots, or your cultural or ethnic background?  French-Canadian, Irish-American for example.  

If you do this, does it only happen under certain specific circumstances or it is how you are fundamentally self-defined in your heart and mind?  

When you do this, does this in any way imply that your cultural roots take precedent over your nationality when it comes to expressing your identity?

Thank you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 7, 2011)

I would have to name every Country north of, and including (gasp!), France; so, that would make me a whomeverlookedgoodatthetime-American.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 7, 2011)

Me father's ancestors have come over from Ireland during pre-Revoluntionary days. My mother's family from Holland were part of the original settler's or immediately afterwards. Either way... While I'm proud of the ancestrial roots I have, I have and always will call myself an American. There's been enough generations born/died in this country where there's no need for a prefix. I won't forget my roots and hope someday to actually visit those far-away lands, but I'll also won't forget where I was born-n-raised. 

I think prefixes on nationality should be used if a person is first generation in whatever country they want to settle in. In my last job, I made friends with a man who directly immigrated from the auld sod, Ireland. A delightful chap of whom I'm proud to be friends with. We've discussed this topic and agreed that he should rightly be called Irish-American, whereas I should only claim one country because of the aforementioned generations born and died here before me.  
I have a beef with the "politically correctness" of the term African American to describe native-born black people in this country. A vast majority have more than several generations born and died in this country in their family linage before tracing the roots back to that continent. To me they're just Americans... like me, they're black or even more correctly of the negroid race but still Americans by nationality. Likewise with Mexican-Americans and so on. I dated a lovely gal whose parents were first generation immigrants (legally) from Mexico. She and her siblings were born in this country. To me, they're all Americans. Her parents, Mexican Americans.  

Someone asks me where my family is from I'll proudly say Ireland & Holland. They ask me which am I? American.


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

I think you should not be allowed to call yourself after something you can't find on the map (but that would in turn mean a lot of folks could not call themselves Americans either) :lol:


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Me father's ancestors have come over from Ireland during pre-Revoluntionary days. My mother's family from Holland were part of the original settler's or immediately afterwards. Either way... While I'm proud of the ancestrial roots I have, I have and always will call myself an American. There's been enough generations born/died in this country where there's no need for a prefix. I won't forget my roots and hope someday to actually visit those far-away lands, but I'll also won't forget where I was born-n-raised.
> 
> I think prefixes on nationality should be used if a person is first generation in whatever country they want to settle in. In my last job, I made friends with a man who directly immigrated from the auld sod, Ireland. A delightful chap of whom I'm proud to be friends with. We've discussed this topic and agreed that he should rightly be called Irish-American, whereas I should only claim one country because of the aforementioned generations born and died here before me.
> I have a beef with the "politically correctness" of the term African American to describe native-born black people in this country. A vast majority have more than several generations born and died in this country in their family linage before tracing the roots back to that continent. To me they're just Americans... like me, they're black or even more correctly of the negroid race but still Americans by nationality. Likewise with Mexican-Americans and so on. I dated a lovely gal whose parents were first generation immigrants (legally) from Mexico. She and her siblings were born in this country. To me, they're all Americans. Her parents, Mexican Americans.
> ...


So MA-C, you are saying that you believe this prefixing is suitable for first generation immigrants?  Would you feel this is appropriate simply because they are not born in that nation and need time to adjust?  

Would you say it is in any way the _duty _of those first generation immigrants to allow themselves to become wholly assimilated into their new national identity as expeditiously as possible? Or should allowance be made for the possibility that they may never see themselves as wholly belonging to that national identity?


----------



## MaxiMe (Sep 7, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I would have to name every Country north of, and including (gasp!), France; so, that would make me a whomeverlookedgoodatthetime-American.


Just another one of us Heinz 57 Americans


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So MA-C, you are saying that you believe this prefixing is suitable for first generation immigrants?  Would you feel this is appropriate simply because they are not born in that nation and need time to adjust?
> 
> Would you say it is in any way the _duty _of those first generation immigrants to allow themselves to become wholly assimilated into their new national identity as expeditiously as possible? Or should allowance be made for the possibility that they may never see themselves as wholly belonging to that national identity?



Sounded to me more like after the first generation it becomes rather silly....especially when several generations before you have not seen the mother land.

franco-canadians are a bit different though, since they are in fact different and still speaking french...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

I have always referred to myself as _"American,"_ but not out of some jingoistic nationalist desire.  Part of it stems from the fact that my dad told me that our family (his side of it anyway) was from Ireland.  Turns out when I started to really dig into the family history, we're from Wales.  So although I used to answer "Irish-American" if asked my ancestry (and I've got a Celtic Knot design tattoo on my right forearm), I suppose I'm _"Welsh-American"_ in reality; or _"Welsh-German-American_" if you consider my mother's side as well.  *But who cares?*  I'm as loyal an American today as I was when I said I was calling myself _"Irish-American._"  Loyalty is not defined by what my pride in my ancestry happens to be.  Puhleeze.  I think it's a petty squabbling point, made by people who have an ax to grind against recent immigrants.

Ultimately, though I don't care if people refer to themselves as _"Polish-American"_ or _"African-American"_ or _"Mexican-American"_ if they want to.  I seldom see that as something divisive as the ultra-nationalists do.  I think their demand that Americans refer to themselves as _'unhyphenated Americans'_ is ridiculous.

_"If they were loyal Americans, they would not call themselves XYZ-Americans, but just plain Americans."_  Unalloyed BS.


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 7, 2011)

I will only prefix with the term "American-Canadian" because I'm an immigrant from the USA, but more often I refer to myself as a "Gypsy" because my ancestors were all Romani from Poland and Galician gypsies who originated in Russia, and my mother's family travelled when she was growing up, and I as well as an adult, though my parents were very stationary when I was a child.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 7, 2011)

In short, no.


----------



## MaxiMe (Sep 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> Sounded to me more like after the first generation it becomes rather silly....especially when several generations before you have not seen the mother land.
> 
> franco-canadians are a bit different though, since they are in fact different and still speaking french...


And it can get sillyer (more silly). California-American just sounds silly.


----------



## Steve (Sep 7, 2011)

I don't call myself a Norwegian-American, but I do identify with the community and will readily claim the heritage.  Usually, it's a joking thing, referring to my "viking roots."  But it's part of how I was raised.  Bunch of scandinavians on both sides of my family.  I just have an innate desire to polka, and to sail to the small islands around here and pillage a little.  

My wife's family is largely of Irish descent, and she's pretty much the same way.  She's not Irish, as I'm not Norwegian.     

Personally, I don't see any problem with it.  We all like to know where we come from, and it just happens that America is a very young country.  Most of us have relatives who moved here from elsewhere.  When I was stationed in Germany, I found myself drinking one time in a gasthaus in a small village (well, not just one time...).  Anyway, got talking to the locals.  Don't remember exactly how it came up, but at one point an older woman leaned over and patted me on the arm.  She said, "You Americans are so young.  This gasthaus is twice as old as your country."  Made an impression, and whenever a subject like this comes up, I think of that old lady.  

Point is, there's a natural tendency to want to attach ourselves to things that are somewhat permanent.  Heritage and culture are just parts of who we are.  While some of you here might not do this with cultural or ethnicity, people do the same thing with Martial Arts.  I mean, what difference does it make if your MA has been around for thousands of years?  But it's kind of cool to think about.  Isn't it?  Gives you an attachment to something bigger than yourself, to think that you might be, in perhaps some small way, similar to shaolin monks, fearless samurai, knights or maybe even vikings.

I don't see anything wrong with it, and in fact, I think it's pretty cool.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So MA-C, you are saying that you believe this prefixing is suitable for first generation immigrants?  Would you feel this is appropriate simply because they are not born in that nation and need time to adjust?
> 
> Would you say it is in any way the _duty _of those first generation immigrants to allow themselves to become wholly assimilated into their new national identity as expeditiously as possible? Or should allowance be made for the possibility that they may never see themselves as wholly belonging to that national identity?


My Irish born friend is a good example. You listen to him talk and the accent is thick enough to cut with a knife, so obviously he ain't frum 'round hear (with us being in Chattanooga TN). So it gives a identification that he is an immigrant who is now an American citizen. If he were to ever have children born in this country then they could/would/should rightly be named Americans. It'll say so on the birth certificate wouldn't it? Even if the child moves to Ireland and settles there and claims citizenship they would more-likely be referred to as American-Irish (as odd as that may sound). Adjustment to cultural differences is more difficult for the immigrating parents than it is for the children born to them. 
Would that my parents moved to Germany, England, Australia or China and I were born there, I'd have an easier time culturally than they would. 
So yeah, it helps at least with interactions with other people if the question arises.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

If they wish it, then people can call themselves what they want I suppose.  It is a bit daft tho'.  Even if I trim off all the racial roots that I have as a resident of the UK {born to a family with a recorded 1000 year history in the same town :lol:}, I'd still have to call myself English-British if I were to follow such a convention.


----------



## Steve (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> If they wish it, then people can call themselves what they want I suppose.  It is a bit daft tho'.  Even if I trim off all the racial roots that I have as a resident of the UK {born to a family with a recorded 1000 year history in the same town :lol:}, I'd still have to call myself English-British if I were to follow such a convention.


The very fact that you have a family with a recorded 1000 year history in the same town speaks exactly to the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The very fact that you have a family with a recorded 1000 year history in the same town speaks exactly to the point I was trying to make.



:chuckles:  Aye, I reckon so .  Mind you, I have emigrated ... I live *25* (-ish) miles away from that town :lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  Aye, I reckon so .  Mind you, I have emigrated ... I live *25* (-ish) miles away from that town :lol:



It might be noted that in the USA, perhaps unlike anywhere else, it is not generally considered rude to ask someone _'where are you from'_?  There are always some wiseacres who will say _"Pittsburg,"_ but most people understand that the question refers to their ancestry.  And it's not generally because of any particular like or dislike for any given ancestry, it's just curiosity.  Here in Detroit, we have _"Mexicantown", "Corktown," Greektown,_" and other areas that are officially called that - that is their name on maps and road signs.  No one takes offense at being called _"Mexican-American"_ if their ancestry is Mexican here, it's just an interesting fact about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicantown#Mexicantown

With very few exceptions, no one in the USA is _'from' _the USA originally, so we find each other's ancestry interesting.  Some of us do, anyway.  Others get all steamed up about it, as if we stopped having an ancestry when our great-grandparents moved here.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

This is just as true of the man who puts &#8220;native&#8221; before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. 

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic. 

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. 

_-Theodore Roosevelt Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City 
_
12 October 1915


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
> 
> This is just as true of the man who puts &#8220;native&#8221; before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
> 
> ...


This is what I was wondering.  Is there in any way a _duty _upon those who immigrate to allow themselves to be assimilated quickly almost foregoing their previous affiliations?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

Aye, I've seen that before and I do reckon the man has a serious point :nods:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.



Interestingly, he was not talking about what people now claim he was talking about.  It was spoken during WWI, when there was a strong suspicion that German-Americans and some Irish-Americans had close political ties with the nations of their birth, rather than America.

Do you suppose for one moment that a person who calls themselves _"Irish-American"_ today plots with the government of Ireland against the USA, or that a _"German-American"_ is plotting the next German uprising?  Are _"African-Americans"_ against America and have some political or national interests in an invasion of America by _"Africa?"_  This was the concern that Roosevelt was speaking of.  Not people who today use the term to simply denote their heritage or to take pride in it.  Unless you suspect that I, being a _"Welsh-American,"_ am secretly indebted to Wales and seek America's destruction by Wales, I am not the person Roosevelt was talking about.

By the by, the time period was one of intense 'Nativism' and Roosevelt was speaking to Catholic placatingly, as they had recently been made subject of various violent attempts to exclude them from citizenship, politics, and land-ownership, which is where the Knights of Columbus came from - a response to armed Protestant men's groups who literally attacked Catholics on sight and burned down Catholic churches; in America and in the name of Nativism.  These same people who believed that an Irish-American was no American at all also believe that a Catholic-American took his or her marching orders from the Pope and hope to destroy our nation.

Do you really want to align yourself with those people?  That was the group that Roosevelt was attempting to explain were not so bad at all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I've seen that before and I do reckon the man has a serious point :nods:.



Read history; that's not what he was talking about.  Same term, completely different meaning at that time.  His speech has been hijacked by haters.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> Sounded to me more like after the first generation it becomes rather silly....especially when several generations before you have not seen the mother land.
> 
> franco-canadians are a bit different though, since they are in fact different and still speaking french...


Yes, French Canadians are a particularly obstinate people (in my opinion) in respect of their national identity.  I felt their French culture clashed in many ways with the national Canadian culture. I am not sure this is conducive to tolerant and cohesive national identity.  I think in many ways, the language is utilised as a cultural veto to proper assimilation. Though that is my opinion only


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> This is what I was wondering.  Is there in any way a _duty _upon those who immigrate to allow themselves to be assimilated quickly almost foregoing their previous affiliations?



One pledges their allegiance upon taking the oath of citizenship.  That is all that is required.  And unless proved otherwise, it is presume to be true.  Requiring assimilation is very much like requiring the appearance of loyalty in addition to swearing to it.  We not only have to support the government, we have to be seen saluting the flag and we must spit upon any of our own traditions that are viewed with suspicion by others.  And this proves what?  Anyone with a secret still has it.  Giving up one's culture proves nothing, but soothes the minds of idiots.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

naomisarah said:


> I will only prefix with the term "American-Canadian" because I'm an immigrant from the USA, but more often I refer to myself as a "Gypsy" because my ancestors were all Romani from Poland and Galician gypsies who originated in Russia, and my mother's family travelled when she was growing up, and I as well as an adult, though my parents were very stationary when I was a child.


Your bkg is similar to mine.  I was born in England.  I am third generation.  I consider myself English.  There are some in my community that would frown upon that.  I do not disown my heritage, rather, I am happy to be assimilated into the ways of Englishness / Britishness rather than clinging to a heritage that I never actually lived and it is all second hand to me.  This is not the same as having no respect for my cultural background, far from it, rather, I think national identity has been eroded, not just by immigration per se and but moreso because those immigrants in many cases refuse to fully adopt the ways of their adopted nationality.  Again, just my opinion, it is not meant as an offence to anyone.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> If they wish it, then people can call themselves what they want I suppose.  It is a bit daft tho'.  Even if I trim off all the racial roots that I have as a resident of the UK {born to a family with a recorded 1000 year history in the same town :lol:}, I'd still have to call myself English-British if I were to follow such a convention.


Mark, can I ask please, are you in your heart and mind English or British? I am just curious and I hope that is not too much of a digression. Thank you sir.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One pledges their allegiance upon taking the oath of citizenship.  That is all that is required.  And unless proved otherwise, it is presume to be true.  Requiring assimilation is very much like requiring the appearance of loyalty in addition to swearing to it.  We not only have to support the government, we have to be seen saluting the flag and we must spit upon any of our own traditions that are viewed with suspicion by others.  And this proves what?  Anyone with a secret still has it.  Giving up one's culture proves nothing, but soothes the minds of idiots.


Can I ask please Bill, is there a possibility that someone who is more loyal to their "fatherland" (and I do not mean that with connotation) than they are to their adopted nation might not be helping the _unity _of that adopted nation?  Thank you sir.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

When my Italian side of the family came here they actually changed their names to sound "more American" and refused to even teach their children Italian becaused they believed back then that they were now Americans. They were no less "Italian", Roman Catholic, Good food (and wine) eating people. They "assimilated"...assimiliation does not necessiarly mean that you entirely give up your traditions, but IMO you need to decide WHAT you are. I don't call myself "Italian-American". I don't really care if some people do, but I think the whole thing is silly.


----------



## clfsean (Sep 7, 2011)

Hyphenate me? Nah... I'm just American. 

My dad's family is Maltese & Mexican. My mom's family is all UK & Northern European ancestry. Both families had been on US soil for more than two generations. My mom's dad, my pa, his grandfather fought in the Civil War for some unit from upstate NY in the Buffalo area. Got into trouble after he got back to NY *something involving rights & not rights*, decided it was better in Ga than staying in NY, stopped in NC at the Cherokee reservation on the way down here & picked up a bride & has been here since. 

I'm nothing that can be hyphenated or would want to be. I'm just a plain ol' American Heinz 57 mutt. Makes life simple & less pretentious. I know my history & heritage. I'm just American in the end.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 7, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> And it can get sillyer (more silly). California-American just sounds silly.


Silly as that sounds, the rest of the country thinks that is a perfectly logical hyphenation.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't call myself a Norwegian-American, but I do identify with the community and will readily claim the heritage.  Usually, it's a joking thing, referring to my "viking roots."  But it's part of how I was raised.  Bunch of scandinavians on both sides of my family.  I just have an innate desire to polka, and to sail to the small islands around here and pillage a little.
> 
> My wife's family is largely of Irish descent, and she's pretty much the same way.  She's not Irish, as I'm not Norwegian.
> 
> ...


I understand entirely what you are saying Steve.  I do not think there is much if anything wrong with this as most of us perceive it.  I think it is harmless.  And but as a trivial example, in an international sporting competition say, I am sure you have encountered a situation where a person's loyalties are divided, I mean where their adopted nation competes against their ancestral homeland.  Is there any extrapolation from this facile example to a case whereby if it came to the _crunch _-whatever form that crunch might take- that that person would choose an inappropriate side or a side that they were not "supposed" to?  I do not know if that makes sense? Thank you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can I ask please Bill, is there a possibility that someone who is more loyal to their "fatherland" (and I do not mean that with connotation) than they are to their adopted nation might not be helping the _unity _of that adopted nation?  Thank you sir.



Oh absolutely. I just do not think that requiring citizens to give up the trappings of their former culture (language, dress, mannerisms, and other traditions) proves that the people who do so are more loyal to their new country than their old one.  I think it proves nothing, but it makes people with a shallow intellect think it does.  Imagine this; if I were from country ABC and I moved to country XYZ, and was actually secretly still loyal to ABC, would I insist on keeping the traditions of ABC, or would I adopt the ways of XYZ with great enthusiasm?  I would think that a person set up on treachery and disloyalty to their new nation would want to APPEAR to be the most loyal of citizens, not to stubbornly cling to the traditions of their homeland.  Yet many insist that if a person does not give up their traditions, they must secretly still be loyal to that country.  I think the reverse is true, and the logic for it pretty clear.  Spies don't do their best to arouse anger; they try to fit in by assimilation.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm of British descent, but I _am _Canadian (even if I have been hanging about in Southern California for awhile).


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh absolutely. I just do not think that requiring citizens to give up the trappings of their former culture (language, dress, mannerisms, and other traditions) proves that the people who do so are more loyal to their new country than their old one.  I think it proves nothing, but it makes people with a shallow intellect think it does.  Imagine this; if I were from country ABC and I moved to country XYZ, and was actually secretly still loyal to ABC, would I insist on keeping the traditions of ABC, or would I adopt the ways of XYZ with great enthusiasm?  I would think that a person set up on treachery and disloyalty to their new nation would want to APPEAR to be the most loyal of citizens, not to stubbornly cling to the traditions of their homeland.  Yet many insist that if a person does not give up their traditions, they must secretly still be loyal to that country.  I think the reverse is true, and the logic for it pretty clear.  Spies don't do their best to arouse anger; they try to fit in by assimilation.


Thank you for putting this so concisely.  I hope you do not mind another question?  Can I ask please what do you think then of those that would be welcomed by new nation XYZ as immigrant and but flat refuse to allow themselves to be assimilated into the cultural identity of that nation?  What if, further, they try instead to grow the cultural identity of their original nation ABC - and perhaps intentionally or not, usurp that cultural identity of their new adopted nation?  Is that a disunity that could be in any way avoided?  I am sorry if I have overcomplicated my question. Thank you.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 7, 2011)

Nomad said:


> I'm of British descent, but I _am _Canadian (even if I have been hanging about in Southern California for awhile).


Should Quebec become a separate self-governing nation state of any kind?  Or should Quebecers yield more to the cultural identity of the Canadian nation that upholds their liberties do you think?  Thank you.


----------



## Steve (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> When my Italian side of the family came here they actually changed their names to sound "more American" and refused to even teach their children Italian becaused they believed back then that they were now Americans. They were no less "Italian", Roman Catholic, Good food (and wine) eating people. They "assimilated"...assimiliation does not necessiarly mean that you entirely give up your traditions, but IMO you need to decide WHAT you are. I don't call myself "Italian-American". I don't really care if some people do, but I think the whole thing is silly.


My great grandfather Americanized his name, too.  Of course, being Norwegian, he didn't do a very good job.  Harv Harveson became Harvey Harveson.   

As for the rest, I can only speculate.  What I know about Harv is that he was a musician and loved to drink and dance.  He ran a pool hall in Fargo, ND and was known for using the weighted end of a cue when necessary to keep the peace.   I would suspect that he didn't give much thought to whether or not he was assimilating properly.


----------



## Steve (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I understand entirely what you are saying Steve.  I do not think there is much if anything wrong with this as most of us perceive it.  I think it is harmless.  And but as a trivial example, in an international sporting competition say, I am sure you have encountered a situation where a person's loyalties are divided, I mean where their adopted nation competes against their ancestral homeland.  Is there any extrapolation from this facile example to a case whereby if it came to the _crunch _-whatever form that crunch might take- that that person would choose an inappropriate side or a side that they were not "supposed" to?  I do not know if that makes sense? Thank you.


If I understand, there have been times in the past when people in America have been asked to choose which side they're on.  

Anyone here seen Band of Brothers?  In the second episode, as a few of the guys from Easy Company are finding their way to the rest of the group, they pass by a group of German soldiers.  One of them was from Bend, Oregon and he explained that his parents were German and they answered the call to return to the fatherland.

Something like that could happen again, but I think it's a slightly different issue that the one at hand.  I mean, I believe that the hyphenated citizen is a somewhat uniquely American phenomenon.  However, the issue of citizen immigrants with, in some cases, conflicting loyalties is global.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Read history; that's not what he was talking about.  Same term, completely different meaning at that time.  His speech has been hijacked by haters.



Doesn't mean it's not still a serious point that's relevant outside of its original context, Bill.  It's a point I happen to agree with.  

I don't mean it in hateful way.  It is simply that you're either American or you're Welsh; you're not Welsh-American, for example.  You can be American who traces his ancestry back to Wales but you're still American, not Welsh. 

It's the same mistake some of the third generation young people, whose grandparents came from elsewhere, are making here in Britain.  If you are born here or even if you emigrate here and choose to become a British citizen then you are British.  If you don't want to be British, are not happy living in Britain and wish to claim, erroneously, some other national identity, then the door is open, assuming that claimed country will have you.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Concerning nationality, do you ever prefix your nationality with your ancestoral roots, or your cultural or ethnic background? French-Canadian, Irish-American for example.
> 
> If you do this, does it only happen under certain specific circumstances or it is how you are fundamentally self-defined in your heart and mind?
> 
> ...



I am American. 

If I am dealing with some Europe Stock that is Blonde hair and Blue Eyed and asking me to go home or some other stupid comment I usually reply with one of the following:

1) Go home White Man. 
2) My Dad's side came across from England in 1621 to help the mayflower expidition out. My Mom's Side came across from Scotland and Ireland in the early md 1800's. One of them married a Native American Indian. I do not have enough to claim and no tribal records to prove it other than verbal stories as a kid. 
So, both sides of my family were here before there was a country you recognize. 
Go Home!

This usually stops most of these discussions for me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Doesn't mean it's not still a serious point that's relevant outside of its original context, Bill.  It's a point I happen to agree with.



You agree with the erroneous translation then; not Roosevelt's point, because that wasn't his point.



> I don't mean it in hateful way.  It is simply that you're either American or you're Welsh; you're not Welsh-American, for example.  You can be American who traces his ancestry back to Wales but you're still American, not Welsh.



*You* say I'm not Welsh-American.  If I say I am,* I am*.  It's a common-enough term in the US; people know what you mean when you say it.  I'm not suggesting I was born in Wales or can claim citizenship there.  Nor am I saying that I have any special affinity for all things Welsh (or Irish, German, or whatever).  It's simply shorthand for saying that some of my ancestors came from there.  While not common outside the USA, people in the US are quite often interested in their national heritage.  You can deny it, but it exists here just the same.  So yes, I *am* Welsh-American, because a) I do have ancestry from Wales and b) I choose to say so.



> It's the same mistake some of the third generation young people, whose grandparents came from elsewhere, are making here in Britain.  If you are born here or even if you emigrate here and choose to become a British citizen then you are British.  If you don't want to be British, are not happy living in Britain and wish to claim, erroneously, some other national identity, then the door is open, assuming that claimed country will have you.



I think the issue is simply a disagreement about the term.  I am not claiming any national identity other than American.  Nor are most, I daresay nearly all, people in the USA who hyphenate their 'Americanism'.  It is a term denoting ancestry here; it has nothing to do with what country one claims allegiance to.

If you say you're coming 'round to knock me up, it may mean you're going to come visit me, but here in the USA, it means you intend to impregnate me.  Same phrase, very different meaning.  If I say I am Welsh-American, I in no way mean my allegiance is to any country but the USA.   Seems that term has a different meaning in the UK.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Should Quebec become a separate self-governing nation state of any kind?  Or should Quebecers yield more to the cultural identity of the Canadian nation that upholds their liberties do you think?  Thank you.



I think this is a tough one, that has been an issue in Canada for many years.  I can absolutely understand the desire to remain culturally distinct, and as a very large region of Canada with a very high population of Francophones, Quebec certainly qualifies as "different" than the rest of Canada (whether to the east or west).  The fact that their underlying values and traditions also tend to be different than those present in the rest of the country certainly speaks to that.

Becoming a separate nation is another thing, in my opinion, and I have strong doubts whether an independent Quebec could be a viable nation (economically, for instance) in its own right.  It would also fracture the rest of the country, since the Maritime provinces would be physically cut off from the rest of Canada, leading at the very least to further isolationism on their part.  Quebec has now had several referendums on the issue of sovereignty, and each time the separatists have been defeated (resoundingly the last time the issue came up), which says that in spite of the political noise, the majority of Quebecois do want to remain part of Canada as a whole.

Of course, these are just my good ol' Canadian 2 cents worth... even if they are worth more than their American counterparts at the moment.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

To Bill's post #40:

:nods:  Aye, I catch your drift.  I think we were circling the same plug-hole there .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Thank you for putting this so concisely.  I hope you do not mind another question?  Can I ask please what do you think then of those that would be welcomed by new nation XYZ as immigrant and but flat refuse to allow themselves to be assimilated into the cultural identity of that nation?  What if, further, they try instead to grow the cultural identity of their original nation ABC - and perhaps intentionally or not, usurp that cultural identity of their new adopted nation?  Is that a disunity that could be in any way avoided?  I am sorry if I have overcomplicated my question. Thank you.



It's more than reasonable, but consider that *America is above all a land of liberty*.  One has a perfect right to _'disunify'_ if one pleases.  We require that our newly-minted citizens pledge their allegiance to our nation.  They are* not* required to love it, serve it, or act in ways that unify it.  Nor do we require it of those born here.  And let's think for a moment about what kind of country would require those things of all citizens.  Sounds like _"Der Fatherland"_ to me more than America.

If one is born here, one may worship as one pleases.  One may speak the language one pleases.  One may dress as one pleases; and failure to do as the 'rest of us' do will not get one tossed out of the country; in fact, a citizen born in the USA cannot have their citizenship taken away for any reason whatsoever.  Having said that, if a person comes here from another country, obtains citizenship legally, then how would it be reasonable to demand that they adhere to a different set of rules for citizenship?  That they must learn to speak English; even though it is not the official language and no citizen born here is required to speak it.  That they must dress and act like those born here, even though one born here can choose not to if they don't want to.  This sounds as if there are two classes of citizen; that those born here have a special set of rights that those who come here and obtain citizenship legally do not.

Furthermore, we have groups in the USA now who have chosen not to 'assimilate' to one degree or another.  For example, the Amish.  They keep to themselves; they speak their own language (they do speak English, but they certainly aren't required to and they don't at home).  They drive horses and buggies on the public roads, they pay in cash and refuse to have social security numbers, etc.  They are American citizens and we make allowances for the fact that their religion doesn't allow them to fully assimilate into the greater society.  We not distrust their motives or think they are not true Americans or deserving of citizenship.

Likewise, we have had many ethnic groups that came to the USA and ensconced themselves in ghettoes and cultural enclaves either by choice or because they were originally ostracized from society by the rest of our citizens, like Poles, Germans, Albanians, Irish, etc, etc.  Eventually, most or all of them assimilated; and few such enclaves still exist; but they also took generations to do so.  Many will proudly state that their family came Lower Elbonia with only 22 cents in their pocket, worked as kneecap cleaners, lived in squalor, but insisted their kids speak English and refused to speak the 'old country' language and BY GOD THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, except of course that they are liars.  I'm not saying they themselves are liars, I'm saying that the story they learned is most likely not entirely true.  Their g-g-g-g-grandparents came here, all right, and in time they gave up the 'old ways' and the 'old language' and they learned English and became fully assimilated, but it wasn't in one generation; not for most.  History does not record this miraculous one-generation uptake of hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.  It just didn't happen that fast.  It did happen; but not like the family history says it did.

So now we have newer immigrants and other groups who do not assimilate or who do not assimilate with the speed others might think they should.  And unlike previous generations, unlike those born here who refuse to act like the rest of us, some of us demand that THESE immigrants or THESE non-assimilaters get with the program, or that their motives are suspect, that they are not true Americans, that their loyalties lay elsewhere.

To those people, I simply note that if we tolerate non-assimilation in one group but not another, then there is another reason why we choose to be so selective.  The Amish can be stand-offish, but not blacks or Mexicans?  Hmmm.  I think somebody has a different agenda at work here; this is not about assimilation, it's about something else.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

Considering I knew my Great grandmother (who came over on "the boat") and my grandfather..and they both told me that english was to be spoken unless it was between family members. Ill take them at their word Bill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Considering I knew my Great grandmother (who came over on "the boat") and my grandfather..and they both told me that english was to be spoken unless it was between family members. Ill take them at their word Bill.



No doubt.

My lineage was Francis Mattocks (Wales) -> Benjamin Franklin 'Barney' Mattocks -> John Daniel 'Jack' Mattocks -> William Bryan Mattocks -> William Dean Mattocks -> Me.  I was told Francis came from Ireland, that's how wrong my family story got to be.

My wife's father's side of the family came from Poland.  Two generations in, and it was only the kids of the third generation who spoke English without an accent, and all of them still speak Polish in the home, right down to the generation before my wife's father.  Ah, but the Bronx was a place where people maintained their traditions for generations.  Not real Americans, I guess.  Probably plotting against America in their Polish neighborhoods.  Refused to assimilate, not trustworthy.  Probably even called themselves Polish-Americans, the nerve of them.  Of course, there are no Polish-American communities anymore, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_American#Polish_American_communities

Which do you think is more typical?

Most of those who proudly proclaim that their ancestors came from Lower Elbonia, set up shop here, learned the language toot sweet and abandoned all traditions of the 'old country' are wrong.  My opinion.  It's family lore, myth, and true only the sense that it did eventually come true.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

> Probably even called themselves Polish-Americans, the nerve of them. Of course, there are no Polish-American communities anymore, right?



No need to get insulting Bill. As a matter of fact I often complain that I wish that my Father HAD been taught how to speak Italian and that he would have taught it to me. I recall distinctly my great/Grandparents and other relatives talking Italian. Typically if they were discussing me.

The point is that that generation/ethnic group obviously had a different opinion on what "assimilation" meant and the right/wrongness of giving up some of their "culture" to be considered what they thought American. And back in those days...around here at least..being Italian made you the target of outright racism/violence. While things may not be perfect here, things are obviously not THAT bad anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> No need to get insulting Bill. As a matter of fact I often complain that I wish that my Father HAD been taught how to speak Italian and that he would have taught it to me. I recall distinctly my great/Grandparents and other relatives talking Italian. Typically if they were discussing me.
> 
> The point is that that generation/ethnic group obviously had a different opinion on what "assimilation" meant and the right/wrongness of giving up some of their "culture" to be considered what they thought American. And back in those days...around here at least..being Italian made you the target of outright racism/violence. While things may not be perfect here, things are obviously not THAT bad anymore.



I did not mean to be insulting, my apologies.  I meant to illustrate jingoistic nature of the _'no hyphens'_ group of people who insist that if you say you are anything but 'American', your loyalties must be to some other nation; neglecting to notice their own family histories.

In times of economic and political instability, these issues come to visit us as a nation.  Reading American history, one sees the parallels, from the anti-immigrant fervor of various ages and against various groups and down to the present day.  The only thing that seems to change is the ethnic group being hated for _'not assimilating'_.  And you are right that things are not THAT bad anymore.  Not yet.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA...MAAJ#v=onepage&q=refuse to assimilate&f=false



> We have another class of people that promise more of danger than the avowed anarchist, and this class could easily be affiliated with the anarchist and form a dangerous combination. The class referred to is that one which is composed of *people who refuse to assimilate* with those who compose our population. These are the people who came to the United States and parts of Canada because of a dislike to the laws of their native country. They sought this continent for the purpose of securing freedom of thought and action, and it would naturally be supposed that such a people would be among the first to wish to adopt the language, manners and habits of ourselves, but, with a stubbornness born in ignorance, they refuse to do anything of the kind. *They will not learn the language* nor allow it to be taught their children, and they further refuse to do anything that will cause them to depart one iota from the manners of the land of their nativity. There are colonies of such people who have a vague understanding that this is the land of the free, and misconstrue the understanding of liberty into license. Their first violation of law is punished and the old-time idea of dislike to law returns, and the people are then as ready to decry our form of government as they were to renounce that of their own parent land. Such people are an easy prey to the anarchist, and with their mistaken ideas of personal and civil liberty, they are ready for anything that comes up. There is one thing that these people never forget, ignorant though they may be, and that is to acquire the power to vote. It sounds strange, but it is true, and the danger of such a people being entrusted with a part of our law-making power is easily understood. The riots of the coal regions furnish ample proof of the foregoing statement and demonstrate the *danger of having such a class of people among us*. It is a question of great moment that confronts us as a people, and there will be much argument in the settlement of the problem, but it is a question that must be met sooner or later, and there must be but one decision; *the people who will not become assimilated with those already here must not be allowed to come at all*. The anarchist and he who will not conform to law and custom must be forced to do so, or he must not be permitted to come. All Europe fears, and we can learn wisdom from her experience.



That could have been written today, it could have appeared in a local newspaper or a right-wing blog, if one was to substitute _"Islamic Terrorist"_ for _"Anarchist."_  But it was published in *January, 1896*, in the _"Railroad Trainmen's Journal."_  The hated groups may have changed, but the nature of the fear and rhetoric have not.  All that is missing is the violence that came with the hatred of those times.  And that I fear may come in time as our economy and political situation become more unstable.

And one may well note; the fears expressed in 1896 of the immanent destruction of our nation by those who 'refused to assimilate' did not come to pass, nor have they in any of the eras in which we feared those who were not like us.  Assimilation, it seems, comes in time to most groups;  The groups hated before go on to hate in their turn, oppressed become oppressor. And the claimed danger to our nation never existed at all; not to any major extent.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Mark, can I ask please, are you in your heart and mind English or British? I am just curious and I hope that is not too much of a digression. Thank you sir.



In my inner-thoughts, I am English.  That is mostly because, whilst we are all British, we are also English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.  I prefer to be called English rather than British even by 'foreigners' {not counting the aforementioned other parts of the UK as 'foreign' } but I usually won't make a big deal out of it.  After all, I take the abusive term of "Limey" from American's without batting an eyelid, so I'm not going to be too bent out of shape if someone calls me "British" ... because, well, I *am* .


----------



## MaxiMe (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> In my inner-thoughts, I am English. That is mostly because, whilst we are all British, we are also English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. I prefer to be called English rather than British even by 'foreigners' {not counting the aforementioned other parts of the UK as 'foreign' } but I usually won't make a big deal out of it. After all, I take the abusive term of "Limey" from American's without batting an eyelid, so I'm not going to be too bent out of shape if someone calls me "British" ... because, well, I *am* .


And us colonials thank you


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That could have been written today, it could have appeared in a local newspaper or a right-wing blog, if one was to substitute _"Islamic Terrorist"_ for _"Anarchist."_  But it was published in *January, 1896*, in the _"Railroad Trainmen's Journal."_



Fascinating find, Bill.  What really struck me about that passage was the author's immediate switch from describing the freedom and liberty of the US to demanding particular behavior of those who came here to partake in that freedom.  That's a theme I definitely see in today's nativists.  They loudly proclaim the great and bountiful freedom we possess, and then proceed to demarcate the bounds of that freedom.  At least this 19th century author did not ignore that contradiction; he made a (false) distinction between liberty and license for these immigrants.  Today's nativists don't even bother with that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> In my inner-thoughts, I am English.  That is mostly because, whilst we are all British, we are also English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.  I prefer to be called English rather than British even by 'foreigners' {not counting the aforementioned other parts of the UK as 'foreign' } but I usually won't make a big deal out of it.  After all, I take the abusive term of "Limey" from American's without batting an eyelid, so I'm not going to be too bent out of shape if someone calls me "British" ... because, well, I *am* .



Thought you might enjoy this...

http://books.google.com/books?id=IJ...AzgK#v=onepage&q=refuse to assimilate&f=false



> It has been already hinted in the suggestion of the name "Britain Minor House of Commons," that it would be proposed to *change the name of Ireland to Britain Minor*.
> 
> This change may appear to some to be needless, and may be objected to by others. The name of the island has already been changed more than once, as have also the names of England and Great Britain&#8212;indeed the names of all the countries of the world have undergone change more or less, according to the age, circumstances, and the races inhabiting them. The name of Britain Minor would harmonize with Britannia, as that would make both the Mother Islands Britain proper; for Britannia at large would, and does now, as much pertain or belong to Ireland as to England.
> 
> ...



From "Victoria Brittania," 1879.

I found it interesting in that it spoke to your statement about your national identity, while at the same time, it makes the statement that in America, the Irish Americans (the author's term, not mine) assimilate instantly into the American culture, leaving no trace.  Perhaps this author had not seen a _"No Irish Need Apply"_ sign in a shop or boardinghouse window in the USA.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Fascinating find, Bill.  What really struck me about that passage was the author's immediate switch from describing the freedom and liberty of the US to demanding particular behavior of those who came here to partake in that freedom.  That's a theme I definitely see in today's nativists.  They loudly proclaim the great and bountiful freedom we possess, and then proceed to demarcate the bounds of that freedom.  At least this 19th century author did not ignore that contradiction; he made a (false) distinction between liberty and license for these immigrants.  Today's nativists don't even bother with that.



Thanks, that was precisely the term I seized upon myself.  The lie:_ "..they misconstrue the understanding of liberty into license."_  Liberty **is** license.  That which is not prohibited is permitted.  By redefining what liberty means (or more precisely, what it does not mean), the author is then free to take liberty, as it were, with the concept of liberty.

The term one most often hears today is of Constitutional liberties being _'abused'_.  This is heard from both the political right and the left, I draw no distinction between them (the difference is only in what they take umbrage at).  As if one could *abuse a right* by exercising it in a way distasteful or rude.  The very notion is absurd.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 7, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Concerning nationality, do you ever prefix your nationality with your ancestoral roots, or your cultural or ethnic background?  French-Canadian, Irish-American for example.
> 
> If you do this, does it only happen under certain specific circumstances or it is how you are fundamentally self-defined in your heart and mind?
> 
> ...



I once worked with a woman from Germany and I mentioned that I am over 50% German by heritage and she laughed and said "only in America". Then explained that every other country she was in the people said they were from that county but in America they give you a lineage.

But you know... my wife prefixes her nationality based on ancestry too.... they just happen to all be Han Chinese... at least since the Han dynasty... which ended around 220AD 

So being American I generally say German, Scottish, and Irish&#8230;. Ask my wife she tells everyone she is Chinese. Ask my wife what I am she will tell you I&#8217;m Chinese&#8230; I just don&#8217;t look like I&#8217;m Chinese


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2011)

I suppose the "melting pot" metaphor is a good one. The bottom of every pot has some ingredients that don't "melt". Over time more will, but not all....


----------



## elder999 (Sep 7, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> And us colonials thank you



"Colonials,"indeed. _Invaders_ and kidnappers, more like. 

*I* should be thankful, really? :lfao:







Y'all can just  kiss my _African-Polynesian-Scottish-Dutch-Native_ *American* ***! :lfao:


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> So being American I generally say German, Scottish, and Irish&#8230;. Ask my wife she tells everyone she is Chinese. Ask my wife what I am she will tell you I&#8217;m Chinese&#8230; I just don&#8217;t look like I&#8217;m Chinese



Picture?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 7, 2011)

My Dad&#8217;s from Northern Ireland my Mum from Scotland. 95% of all my relatives still live in the UK. Originally my dad&#8217;s family moved to N. Ireland during the plantation period 400 years ago. Part of that family came from Scotland and part from England. The part from England came from France circa 13[SUP]th[/SUP] Century. I hold both British and Canadian citizenships. I feel a strong family connection to the UK part of my life, but in the end, I am an unhyphenated Canadian.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 8, 2011)

Thank you for such interesting and well-considered replies.  

I think the hyphenation is understood, particularly in the context of the USA as a relatively new nation.  I do think that this hyphenation - whether explicit or implied in an immigrant's demeanour - is a thoroughly global notion.  Wherever there are immigrants this is likely.  

My question though is not "why prefix" and but rather does prefixing in some cases reflect the usurpation of the cultural sovereignty of the immigrant's adopted nation in the default heart and mindset of the immigrant?  Perhaps more succinctly, I wonder is there a potential issue not about prefixing and but rather the *order of prefixing*?

I think I am referring to more than just a superficial notions of nationality or heritage.  I mean which national culture does an immigrant identify most with and seek to uphold the most from their set of possibilities.

I appreciate that no immigrant into a free nation can, or should, be coerced into allowing the prevailing cultural norms, freedoms, laws and liberties, religions and customs of their new nation to wash away all their old ones.  I do however imagine that it is a national _duty _of the immigrant to give precedence to those cultural norms of their new nation over those of their old, _especially_ when the two are *non-intersecting*.

I do not believe that always happens. Thing is, I do not quite understand why.  Why does the immigrant in many cases not just not accept cultural sovereignty of their new nation and but actively rails against it and moreover attempts to allow their old culture to infiltrate that of their new adopted nation as though in some way trying to homogenise the two. The point of emigrating and immigration at all is surely lost then? This issue to me is the crack in the dam of fundamental national identity of many of the most open and accepting nations.


----------



## Carol (Sep 8, 2011)

Nomad said:


> I'm of British descent, but I _am _Canadian (even if I have been hanging about in Southern California for awhile).



Couldn't resist 

[yt]BRI-A3vakVg[/yt]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I do not believe that always happens. Thing is, I do not quite understand why.  *Why does the immigrant in many cases not just not accept cultural sovereignty of their new nation* and but actively rails against it and moreover attempts to allow their old culture to infiltrate that of their new adopted nation as though in some way trying to homogenise the two. The point of emigrating and immigration at all is surely lost then? This issue to me is the crack in the dam of fundamental national identity of many of the most open and accepting nations.



http://books.google.com/books?id=ax...=onepage&q=refuse to assimilate china&f=false


> Mr. Seward takes up, third, the popular charges against the Chinese : as, among others, that their labor is servile&#8212; which is not the case, for they emigrate and make their contracts voluntarily; that they sometimes displace other laborers&#8212;which is true, and fortunately so, for they thus develop industries that would otherwise be impossible; that they send a great deal of money out of the country&#8212;&#8226; which is untrue, most of what they do not lose by robbery and plunder being consumed by the expenses of living in California; that they are a more vicious people than we are&#8212; which is false; *and that they refuse to "assimilate " with us &#8212;a charge about which we cannot say much until we shall have left off maltreating and murdering them.*



"The Chinaman in America," from "The Critic," December 1881.

What was true then has been true in the history of America for all sorts of immigrants, right up to the present day.  Oh, we don't murder them anymore (thankfully), but there is no doubt that recent immigrants are shunned and shifted to one side in our society (perhaps in any society).  Look at American ex-pats living and working in other nations, especially those that are not English-speaking nations.  They tend to live with or near each other, and to hang out with each other, and although they have to learn to function in their new society, they also cling to their American friends and traditions and speak English with each other, etc.  It's human nature.

The less a given immigrant group looked or spoke like the typical Anglo-Saxon Protestant American, the more they tended to group together in ghettos and keep their own language and tradition.  Why did they not just accept that they lived in a new country and reject their old ways?  In many cases because they were not ALLOWED to, even while being criticized for not doing so.  Even Irish Catholics, who looked like and spoke like Anglo-Saxon Protestants, were denied work, housing, and public office at certain times in our US history - how could you ask them to _'join in'_ a society that hated them and tried to kill them?


----------



## Jenna (Sep 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://books.google.com/books?id=ax4_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=refuse+to+assimilate+china&hl=en&ei=_ARoTpCTBIn10gGkq6n4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=refuse to assimilate china&f=false
> 
> 
> "The Chinaman in America," from "The Critic," December 1881.
> ...


This is a truly pertinent point you have raised.  And I understand this situation entirely and it concludes exactly that in many cases where immigrants are marginalised, the only society to them is to be found from creating a resurgence in their former society only within new borders.

Nevertheless, personally, I would not ask that they (and I count myself as immigrant being mere 3rd gen to the UK) "join in", rather I would question why, having chosen to emigrate do they subsequently refuse to fully take on a task (immigration) what they themselves have begun.

This is just an honest question.  I do not mean to be antagonistic.  I am sorry if it comes over that way to anyone.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Picture?



OK but this is before I shaved off my beard and dyed my hair blonde


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Nevertheless, personally, I would not ask that they (and I count myself as immigrant being mere 3rd gen to the UK) "join in", rather I would question why, having chosen to emigrate do they subsequently refuse to fully take on a task (immigration) what they themselves have begun.



Let me give two possible answers.  The first is in the form of a question.

1) Why should they?  As I've mentioned before, a person born here is not required to speak English, to dress, think, or act like the mainstream, and none may refuse him citizenship or his place in the larger society.  And yet, a person who moves here from elsewhere (legally, let's say) has to change their behavior, language, mannerisms, and customs to suit the mainstream or they cannot take their place at the table of society?  That makes is seem as if there are two citizenships.  One for people who are born here and one for people who come here from somewhere else.  Last I heard, about the only thing a citizen not born here could not do was become President.  So why should they have to change to suit YOU (or me)?

2) Again, people seek comfort and familiarity.  It's perfectly natural.  When people emigrate, they may do so for any number of reasons, and _'wanting to be an American'_ might not be one of their highest priorities.  It could be they come here for work.  Or they come here for a higher standard of medical care.  Or they come here seeking better conditions for themselves and their progeny.  That does not mean that they hate America, they just don't have 'wanting to be an American' as a high priority on their list.  And should they?  We have a variety of legal requirements for immigrants, whether they are resident aliens or intend to become citizens; but none of them are _'love this place like it was your own.'_  Our people may have a tendency to be nationalist about our country, but our laws are not.  Immigrants to become citizens are required to swear an oath of allegiance to our Constitution.  They're not required to love us, our language, our customs, or the country itself.

I realize it's not a huge deal, but I have a few friends who have moved to Canada from the USA, and taken up citizenship there.  They celebrate the Fourth of July, they have US flags in the window (along with Canadian flags) and some of their sports team favorites are US teams.  They will tell me that yes, their allegiance is to Canada now, and they consider themselves Canadian; but they still love the USA and miss some parts of it (except for the beer, apparently).  Is there some law that says they should stop standing up when the US National Anthem is played or stop celebrating US Independence Day, or otherwise reject all things American?  And assuming it is not a law, should they do it anyway?  Are they less than true Canadian citizens because they still have some love for the USA and still celebrate some US traditions?  Traitors, are they?  Plotting against Canada, with secret loyalties to the USA, perhaps?  As funny as that sounds, that's the kind of accusation that is leveled at recent immigrants to the USA who don't immediately give up the traditions of their homelands.

I do not understand the notion that when a person moves from one country to another, they must not just be loyal to that country, but love it in all ways, utterly reject all aspects of where they came from, and basically pretend they never heard of the land of their birth - or they're not fit to be among us.  That's just a load of crap, IMHO.  The law doesn't require it; and I don't understand why some people do.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's just a load of crap, IMHO. The law doesn't require it; and I don't understand why some people do.



Because we are free to. And unless someone breaks a law I guess you have to live with it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Because we are free to. And unless someone breaks a law I guess you have to live with it.



Fair enough.  I still think it's bullpucky.  And I guess you have to live with that, eh?  :bangahead:


----------



## Jenna (Sep 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let me give two possible answers.  The first is in the form of a question.
> 
> 1) Why should they?  As I've mentioned before, a person born here is not required to speak English, to dress, think, or act like the mainstream, and none may refuse him citizenship or his place in the larger society.  And yet, a person who moves here from elsewhere (legally, let's say) has to change their behavior, language, mannerisms, and customs to suit the mainstream or they cannot take their place at the table of society?  That makes is seem as if there are two citizenships.  One for people who are born here and one for people who come here from somewhere else.  Last I heard, about the only thing a citizen not born here could not do was become President.  So why should they have to change to suit YOU (or me)?
> 
> ...


Thank you.  Your replies make a lot of sense and have given me much to think on and much that I was not aware of.

I would attempt no rebuttal as your view makes perfect sense. I think then it is just that my view of my own national status is more yielding than others.  

There is a double standard you are correct, between those born here and those that are immigrant. I think, in some puerile "play the game by our rules as we were here first" sense, that does _not _seem unfair to me and but I would offer no argument to support that.  It is just my personal view.

My father came here as a boy with nanna.  They let go barely any of the old country.  I feel that had they done so, life in London may have been easier.  For them.  Not for anyone else.  I know their difficulties too well yet I feel their reluctance to relinquish the old culture did them no favours.  Nanna when she died spoke no English at all. I feel that I am dealing with the fallout of their intransigence.  Because of their reluctance to allow theirselves to be assimilated wholly, they unintentionally set theirselves apart.  Growing up here, I was singled out because of that, as I still am, as are most of my community here.  My point is only, had there been more of an anglicising then our differences may not have been so apparent.  Perhaps there would have been fewer reasons to be singled out.  Again, I have no way of knowing.  Nor do I want to digress.  I would only thank you again for the points you raised which have made me think.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Thank you.  Your replies make a lot of sense and have given me much to think on and much that I was not aware of.
> 
> I would attempt no rebuttal as your view makes perfect sense. I think then it is just that my view of my own national status is more yielding than others.
> 
> ...



No problem, thanks for the kind words.  And to your point, I absolutely agree that it makes life easier for those who emigrate if they do their best to adopt the ways of their new home.  Even as a traveler in the past, I found people treated me with much more kindness and patience if I did my best to learn a few words of the local language, paid in their currency, tried to do things the way they did.  I bought "Lonely Planet" books for every country I visited and tried to remember what the local customs and taboos were.  And most of the time, people recognized that I was trying - even if my attempt was pathetically inadequate - and they would help me.

But saying that it's a very good idea and making it a requirement for new citizens is, as you said, not the same thing.  I absolutely agree that it is generally in the best interest of new immigrants to assimilate to the extent they can as quickly as they can, for their own success and happiness.


----------



## Judokarl (Sep 8, 2011)

I just address myself as American. If someone asks about my name or for a deeper I simply state that I am related from german immigrants.


----------



## joshbrown (Sep 9, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Concerning nationality, do you ever prefix your nationality with your ancestoral roots, or your cultural or ethnic background?  French-Canadian, Irish-American for example.
> 
> If you do this, does it only happen under certain specific circumstances or it is how you are fundamentally self-defined in your heart and mind?
> 
> ...



I think prefixing your nationality with ancestral roots is something only mainly first or second generation immigrants would do. At this point, most of the population in America are a mixed bag (my generation, at least). 

By saying you are "American" I think it's pretty well understood that that means you have various cultural/ethnic background within your family.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 9, 2011)

Growing up in New York, there were quite a few "nationalities" on the street. My good friends, the van den Bergs, were Dutch-mom and dad had been in the Dutch resistance as teen agers in WWII (lots of good funny van den Berg stories... My friends the Webbers were "Irish" as in, a Webber had come over to the U.S. from Ireland sometime back, just as the Donellan, O'Reillys and O'Neills-other people I grew up with-had. My closest neighbors on one side, the Depotos, and across the street, the Commeratas-were Italian.

That's pretty much how everybody said it too, _"I'm Italian,"_ or _"I'm Irish,"_-without the hyphen, and whether you or your parents were born here or not. No one thought that any of them were any less "American" for it. 

I think its still that way-I've had many "Chinese-American" friends who are, pretty clearly....well, *Chinese* dammit. It's easy to get confused about _ethnicity_ and _nationality_, and what it is we're denoting with these things. 

This man  is no less American for being Chinese, or for hyphenation.

Nor was this man. 

And, though Americans, they were undeniably "Chinese." I chose that example specifically because, like me-like everyone but full-blooded American Indians-it's physically impossible for them to deny that at least one of their antecedents came from someplace else. And, well, when the Indians first got here, it wasn't "America" _yet_, so I think I'll just arbitrarily draw the line there, since the whole thing is pretty damned silly either way.

People should be able to call themselves what they want, and that should really be the end of it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2011)

elder999 said:


> People should be able to call themselves what they want, and that should really be the end of it.



Aye, I do agree.

For me, saying I'm "Saxon-Roman-Norman/Viking-Celtic-English-British" might be of interest to genealogists but just plain "English" will do.  

To me it tastes a bit like the kid who insists that they are 9 and 3/4 years old rather than just nine.  Essentially harmless and, in just the same way as when we age we start to 'round down' {:lol:} I'm guessing that this, apparently, largely American affectation will die down as the age of the country/number of generations accumulates.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 9, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I do agree.
> 
> For me, saying I'm "Saxon-Roman-Norman/Viking-Celtic-English-British" might be of interest to genealogists but just plain "English" will do.
> 
> To me it tastes a bit like the kid who insists that they are 9 and 3/4 years old rather than just nine.  Essentially harmless and, in just the same way as when we age we start to 'round down' {:lol:} I'm guessing that this, apparently, largely American affectation will die down as the age of the country/number of generations accumulates.


 Well you're a mixed breed ain't cha? Imagine, that all of those ancestors at one time or another tried to kill each other off. 
Now are you're saying English-British as one or as the two separate?

Agreed on the 9yr. old attitude or how it sounds like. Yet there is and rightly should be a sense of pride. A Jewish man I heard once said, "You can't know where you're going, if you don't remember where you've been".


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2011)

:chuckles:  Aye, those of us from these small isles are a right mongrel breed - I have ever said that that is what made us so strong on the world stage.  That and having been bullied so much (as a collection of peoples) when we were little.  Those 'bullies' joined the gene pool along the way via the route of the Three Esses {slaughter, slavery, shagging :lol:} and the Three Cees {conflict, commerce, commitment}.

As I said to Jenna earlier, English and British are separate.  Britain is the name for the collection of countries, England is the country of my birth.  I am English but I don't take offence at being called British, for both titles are accurate.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 14, 2011)

I was born in Germany, my father was in the British military and we lived there for a good chunk of my childhood but then went to live in London. I immigrated to Canada, married and now I have dual citizenship. My husband is American-Canadian (Hold's passports for both, grew up in both.) My kid's have passports for all 3 countries. We spend time in Canada, the UK and the US. We have close family living in all 3 three countries and travel to see them frequently. I don't feel right calling myself English or Canadian. 
I don't know how far we trace back. I remember the surnames Bloodworth and Sykes and Jeffreys. It's all west country and Wales. Whereas my husband's ancestry is all over the place. His father is Scottish-Canadian with a little English thrown in and his mother is French-Canadian with a bit of Irish.

I think it makes sense to hyphenate countries as long as you actually hold citizenship in these countries. I'm guessing my Grandkids or Great-grandkids (assuming that they would exist) wouldn't still be Canadian-American-British. A couple of these countries wouldn't extend their citizenship so far.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Sep 15, 2011)

African-American.Both together. Thanks.


----------

