Prefixing Your Nationality?

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Jenna]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.