Prefixing Your Nationality?

[Nomad]

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]

To Bill's post #40:

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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—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.

Ireland by a political union is annexed to England and is regarded as a continuation of that country. As a part of the British Empire it forms no inconsiderable portion. The interests and government of England and Ireland are supposed to be identical; yet it is a fact that there exists a more perceptible line of demarcation between the English and the Irish, than there does between the American native born and the American naturalized citizen-of Irish birth; while the next generation of Irish American become entirely assimilated to the American character and engrafted into the common American stock.

It is a curious and philosophic study, how these elements that are native and that have been face to face for a thousand years refuse to assimilate, while in America elements that are foreign immediately lose every trace of distinctiveness and distinction. There are special causes assigned by England for these facts; others of a different nature are assigned by Ireland. Each one throws the responsibility upon the other. There is too much truth in that which both claim; but it is easy to trace one of the chief causes of the lack of this affinity and amalgamation to the fact, that we are born and educated as two distinct nationalities instead of one, and in places bearing two distinct and different names instead of one.

These distinctions are so positive in their character and so decisive in their influence, that I believe a thousand years more, with the same names and similar conditions, would fail to produce any real bond of sympathy, any real identity of interest or any uniformity of national character; while not more than twenty-five or fifty years, under the names of Great Britain and Britain Minor with one birthright claim for both, would suffice to work a revolution beyond our expectations.

Much has already been done to achieve success in these particulars, but to attempt them under the names of England and Ireland, is to attempt to hold water in a sieve, or to build a monumental tower on a quicksand.

May not inequalities in the relative standing of these two divisions of one country be fairly counted among the causes leading to such a long and uninterrupted emigration from Ireland to other countries?

These changes would invite a long and uninterrupted intercourse of other countries with her, and would compel a more reciprocal relation of the British Empire and the world towards her.

Without however going into any further detailed opinion as to the moral, social, or political bearings of giving to Ireland the name of Britain Minor, I will sum it all up by saying that I believe it would be a very judicious and most salutary measure, and would help much to facilitate any other great national movement having for its object the amelioration of Ireland.

This measure is one which could only become law by the concurrence of public opinion in Ireland.

If there should in the future, be a name assigned to our scattered Empire that shall in some degree gather up its various parts into a more homogeneous shape, and if the one selected should be Britannia—the inference I draw is, that the title of the Queen of England would by that change be also somewhat modified. The present one though dear to English people, is awkward for all except the English themselves. While the "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" is the official title, it is seldom used in speech or press. England alone monopolizes the title bestowed upon Ireland's, Scotland's, or Canada's Queen—and those who with some difficulty get at their nationality by their declaration of being British subjects, cannot any more conveniently get at the matter of who is their sovereign.

At present, and indeed as I believe it is sometimes used, it is necessary to say, The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of her colonies and dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, Empress of India; and even in this enumeration I think Australia must be omitted. "Queen of Britannia" or "Queen of Britannia and Empress of India" would fully cover the ground, and accord to every part of the Empire its just claim to equal participation in styling their sovereign by the same name as the one assigned to their country, " Britannia."

British citizenship for British people, one Queen, one title, and one country.

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]

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]

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 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…. Ask my wife she tells everyone she is Chinese. Ask my wife what I am she will tell you I’m Chinese… I just don’t look like I’m Chinese

 

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

So being American I generally say German, Scottish, and Irish…. Ask my wife she tells everyone she is Chinese. Ask my wife what I am she will tell you I’m Chinese… I just don’t look like I’m Chinese

Picture?

 

[Ken Morgan]

My Dad’s from Northern Ireland my Mum from Scotland. 95% of all my relatives still live in the UK. Originally my dad’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]

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]

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]

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— which is not the case, for they emigrate and make their contracts voluntarily; that they sometimes displace other laborers—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—• 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— which is false; and that they refuse to "assimilate " with us —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?