Why isn't there an American or Australian (etc.) ethnicity?

[Wulfhere]

Or, in fact, would some say there is? In general, though, there doesn't seem to be. They certainly have a lot of civic nationalism and patriotism, but that's not the issue here. Why, in short, are ethnicities apparently so easy to form in Europe, but not in the colonial lands settled by Europeans?

[Great Dane]

Immigration is the reason there is not an American or Australian ethnicity. The populations are unable to stabilize and indergo an ethnogenesis into a common ehnicity based on blood, cultural and history because of the constant influx of newcomers of different racial backgrounds.

[Sikeliot]

Because the settlement of Australia and the United States was recent enough that you still have identifiable roots elsewhere, unlike European countries for instance where a stable base of the population has developed and homogenized.

[Efim45]

There is an American ethnicity; it is called Anglo-Saxon.

[askra]

for me the only american and australian ethnicities are these ones:

australian
http://www.internshipsdownunder.com/images/destination_information/Aboriginals.jpg

american
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/namericanimage.jpg

people with european ancestry that live in america and australia share the same languages, religions, and also traditions with Europe, so they are ethnically europeans, though there are some differences

[Raskolnikov]

Americans reject ethnicity. Anglo-Saxon is used not to say English.

[Wulfhere]

There is an American ethnicity; it is called Anglo-Saxon.

English, then?

[Wulfhere]

for me the only american and australian ethnicities are these ones:

australian
http://www.internshipsdownunder.com/images/destination_information/Aboriginals.jpg

american
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/namericanimage.jpg

people with european ancestry that live in america and australia share the same languages, religions, and also traditions with Europe, so they are ethnically europeans, though there are some differences

Yes, I agree those are certainly ethnicities.

[Magister Eckhart]

Because Americans have consistently refused to put any effort into preserving any sort of cultural identity beyond childish notions like "equality" and "rights" and meaningless catch-words like "freedom" and "democracy". If you found a nation on an ideology, all you're ever going to have is an ideology - you will never have a community, and certainly never have the culturally and spiritually bound community that is necessary for the emergence of an ethnicity.

[Wulfhere]

Because Americans have consistently refused to put any effort into preserving any sort of cultural identity beyond childish notions like "equality" and "rights" and meaningless catch-words like "freedom" and "democracy". If you found a nation on an ideology, all you're ever going to have is an ideology - you will never have a community, and certainly never have the culturally and spiritually bound community that is necessary for the emergence of an ethnicity.

It's odd really because the Boers managed to form an ethnicity, despite being colonials too. Perhaps being a minority in their new land helped. And maybe even the people of Quebec, do they see themselves as an ethnicity?

[Magister Eckhart]

It's odd really because the Boers managed to form an ethnicity, despite being colonials too. Perhaps being a minority in their new land helped. And maybe even the people of Quebec, do they see themselves as an ethnicity?

Both the Boers and the Quebecois have a very strong sense of cultural and spiritual community, though. They don't have societies founded in shallow abstractions like "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

[Grumpy Cat]

And maybe even the people of Quebec, do they see themselves as an ethnicity?

Yes.

[Wulfhere]

Both the Boers and the Quebecois have a very strong sense of cultural and spiritual community, though. They don't have societies founded in shallow abstractions like "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Do you think that might change, or is it too late now?

[Wulfhere]

Yes.

Interesting. I thought they probably did, but have never seen it specifically referenced.

[Peyrol]

The people of Quebec and the Acadians are an ethnic group, descendants of the French of Normandy, Aquitaine and Provence sent by the various "Louis " to populate North America.

[Ouistreham]

societies founded in shallow abstractions like "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

This is somewhat exagerated.

There is an American ethnicity in the U.S. of A. It consists of all the ones any race conscious Brit would accept as plausible in-laws.

In other words, this ethnicity is some kind of an inflated England. Quality isn't always there (European ethnicities aren't in any better shape now) but in terms of weight on the world scene it is still the most successful white ethnicity as of today.

It's also called The Dispossessed Majority.

Except that "relative" or "ex-" should now be added to "majority".

[Wulfhere]

This is somewhat exagerated.

There is an American ethnicity in the U.S. of A. It consists of all the ones any race conscious Brit would accept as plausible in-laws.

In other words, this ethnicity is some kind of an inflated England. Quality isn't always there (European ethnicities aren't in any better shape now) but in terms of weight on the world scene it is still the most successful white ethnicity as of today.

It's also called The Dispossessed Majority.

Except that "relative" or "ex-" should now be added to "majority".

They would probably call themselves Anglo-Saxons, to avoid using the term English. Which to English ears sounds rather strange, as the two terms are interchangeable.

[Grumpy Cat]

Interesting. I thought they probably did, but have never seen it specifically referenced.

It gets weird when you meet people in the US who have Quebecois or French-Canadian ancestors and refer to themselves as French-Canadian rather than American, even though they speak English and stuff.

[Wulfhere]

It gets weird when you meet people in the US who have Quebecois or French-Canadian ancestors and refer to themselves as French-Canadian rather than American, even though they speak English and stuff.

Maybe another reason why English colonialists have never formed a new ethnicity is because their existing one was so strong.

[Ouistreham]

The people of Quebec and the Acadians are an ethnic group, descendants of the French of Normandy, Aquitaine and Provence sent by the various "Louis " to populate North America.

Provence???

First of all, Quebecois and Acadians are two distinct ethnicities (the latter gave birth to a third one in North America, the Cajuns).

French settlements in Canada originated from mainly two regions, Normandie, and the cluster of provinces (Aunis, Saintonge, Bas-Poitou etc.) located along the Atlantic coast between the Loire and Garonne estuaries. There were also significant numbers from Picardy, Brittany, Maine, Aquitaine, as well as orphans from Paris.

As a whole, an overwhelmingly Western French mix. The contribution of Eastern France was extremely limited. Some Alsatians were recorded, as well as a few Provençals, but in very low numbers.

A large Irish input was later on added to the mix. Cause at that time religion was more important than language (New France was 100% Catholic sine Protestants were'nt allowed to emigrate there — as a consequence of that stupid rule French Protestants helped develop New England instead).

Has someone ever heard of Perche? It's a small county at the South-East corner of Normandy, that had been disputed for centuries between Normandie, Ile-de-France and Orléanais. This single little region gave a huge contribution to French Canadian population. My grand-parents retired there, in a tiny village near Tourouvre. I remember elderly locals spoke with an accent that was eerily reminiscent of typical Quebec speech.

[Ouistreham]

Maybe another reason why English colonialists have never formed a new ethnicity is because their existing one was so strong.

Strongly dominant ethnicities can afford to remain implicit.

The Russians in the former Soviet Union were another instance.

[Wulfhere]

Strongly dominant ethnicities can afford to remain implicit.

The Russians in the former Soviet Union were another instance.

Indeed. Maybe even complacent.

[The Lawspeaker]

Because Americans have consistently refused to put any effort into preserving any sort of cultural identity beyond childish notions like "equality" and "rights" and meaningless catch-words like "freedom" and "democracy". If you found a nation on an ideology, all you're ever going to have is an ideology - you will never have a community, and certainly never have the culturally and spiritually bound community that is necessary for the emergence of an ethnicity.
Well.. after some 250 years of independence the Americans should realise that they are an ethnicity. Although.. it seems that a lot of people still cling to the group they once washed ashore with: Italian-Americans with Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans with Irish-Americans and still call them themselves Irish or Italian whenever they can.. and causing here people here on this side of the ocean to laugh uproariously when they do.

I think that the Australians and New Zealanders already realise (and have been doing that for some time) that they are a people in their own right. An ethnicity.

[Ouistreham]

"Strongly dominant ethnicities can afford to remain implicit."

Let's face reality: our interest four our own European ethnicities is an evidence they are becoming weak and threatened.

[Grumpy Cat]

Maybe another reason why English colonialists have never formed a new ethnicity is because their existing one was so strong.

I wouldn't say their ethnicity is strong at all, or ever was, for that matter.

They adopt from other cultures, and have very little of their own. All I see in them is consumerism, honestly.

Even among my own English-speaking relatives. They came to visit me once, and they had a lot of fun but couldn't believe how we could have fun without spending money, that seems to be a foreign concept to an English-speaking North American. "Going out" for them means going to some club and dropping tons of money on drinks, so when they're broke, they're bored.

And they're usually buying stuff made by people of other ethnicities. At the bar, they'll order Russian vodka or German beer, they'll eat Italian food, etc etc. I guess that's why they like multiculturalism so much, more foreigners to buy stuff from (well, that's EXACTLY why).

[Wulfhere]

I wouldn't say their ethnicity is strong at all, or ever was, for that matter.

They adopt from other cultures, and have very little of their own. All I see in them is consumerism, honestly.

Even among my own English-speaking relatives. They came to visit me once, and they had a lot of fun but couldn't believe how we could have fun without spending money, that seems to be a foreign concept to an English-speaking North American. "Going out" for them means going to some club and dropping tons of money on drinks, so when they're broke, they're bored.

And they're usually buying stuff made by people of other ethnicities. At the bar, they'll order Russian vodka or German beer, they'll eat Italian food, etc etc. I guess that's why they like multiculturalism so much, more foreigners to buy stuff from (well, that's EXACTLY why).

Currently, maybe, but it's their ancestors we're talking about, those who could have created a new ethnicity, had they wanted to.

[Bloodeagle]

I recognize that I am of the Heinz 57 variety of American ethnicity. :D

[Rosenrot]

There are native tribes. They're the trully ethinicy of those places. But now, most of people who born in America, or Australia ,are descendent of European (or somewhere).

In Brazil a great part of the population looks Iberian, but there are ethnic groups from all over. A few number looks like Amerindians, Brazilids, etc.

[Odoacer]

There is a very weak "white American" identity, but ethnogenesis as such is essentially stalled in the earliest stages of development. The large & steady stream of new immigrants for nearly 100 years from about 1820-1920, especially in the decades after the Civil War, is the most pertinent cause. Prior to the Civil War, Americans managed to share a fairly homogenous culture, but the regionalism that led to, & was reinforced in some ways by, the Civil War was very detrimental. Mass immigration in the decades following led to huge demographic & cultural shifts, which greatly undermined whatever homogeneity had been acheived.

There was in response some conscious attempt to forge a common national identity admist the chaos, & many American cultural elements were crystallized in this period, but there was also a recognition that continued mass immigration of people from largely alien cultural backgrounds was eroding a sense of national identity. The Immigration Act of 1924, which set ethnic quotas, was instrumental in enabling the assimilation of Southern & Eastern European immigrants. The shared experiences of the Great Depression & WWII probably helped things along futher, so that in the 1950s there was a relatively homogenous culture again.

This culture & sense of shared identity was, however, still rather shallow & heavily influenced by commercialism & political idealism. The social upheavals of the 1960s into the 1970s ended the progress that had been made, especially after the passage of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965 which greatly increased non-European immigration. Today there is only a very weak feeling of common identity amongst white Americans, but this is rapidly fading under a constant barrage of multiculturalist indoctrination.

[Grumpy Cat]

There are native tribes. They're the trully ethinicy of those places.

The Native tribes view themselves as their own ethnicities. At least in Canada, they do,

[SwordoftheVistula]

Isolation is needed to form a separate ethnicity, and by the time America was founded, lines of communication to England and continued migration kept it basically the same ethnicity. Later groups to settle in America, such as the Germans, Irish, and Italians, were able to keep communications with the home country, and also they were identified when incoming as their native ethnicity instead of being assimilated fully. Some early inhabitants of America, the Dutch and Huguenots, were small enough in number, early enough in arrival, and lacking basis with 'home' that they were basically assimilated completely into WASP/English culture.

Due to modern technology and communications of the past few centuries, the Afrikaners are the last new ethnicity to ever be created. They created their own ethnicity due to complete isolation from Europe, which was not the case for the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (these I would not consider 'ethnicity'. The only grouping in North America which could possibly make a claim to being an 'ethnicity' is the African-Americans/American Blacks due to their complete isolation for a long time from Africa and the merger and removal of any previous ethnic identities. If you've got a Jean Rousseau in Montreal, that's an identifiably French person; if you've got a Mike Sullivan in Boston, that's an identifiably Irish person; I don't know what a LaKwan Thomas from Detroit is other than 'black' or 'African-American'. The other English speaking places outside of Europe, they still have the Queen of England as their official 'head of state', so to call these places as separate ethnicities is absurd.


It gets weird when you meet people in the US who have Quebecois or French-Canadian ancestors and refer to themselves as French-Canadian rather than American, even though they speak English and stuff.

All or most people who refer to themselves here as 'French-Canadians' are patriotic Americans. I'm surprised you aren't concerned that they refer to themselves as 'French-Canadians' instead of merely 'French', which is due to the negative viewpoint Americans have of 'French' vs the positive viewpoint of 'Canadian'.


Well.. after some 250 years of independence the Americans should realise that they are an ethnicity. Although.. it seems that a lot of people still cling to the group they once washed ashore with: Italian-Americans with Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans with Irish-Americans and still call them themselves Irish or Italian whenever they can.. and causing here people here on this side of the ocean to laugh uproariously when they do.

If they want to 'laugh uproariously', then they should throw out the peace accords and turn North Ireland back into a full part of the British Empire under the Royal Constabulary. Without money, weapons, and political pressure from Irish-Americans; Sinn Fein/IRA would not have had success in forcing the British into turning over control of the place.

[Bridie]

Maybe another reason why English colonialists have never formed a new ethnicity is because their existing one was so strong.I think that's partly the case in regards to Australia and New Zealand... but for the larger part I think it's because *fewer than 200 years is not long enough for a population isolated from their original group to form an ethnicity apart from their original.

(*Yes, the Brits started sending convicts to Australia in 1788, but they were still small numbers in the early years compared with what would come to be in the following 100 years.)




I think that the Australians and New Zealanders already realise (and have been doing that for some time) that they are a people in their own right. An ethnicity.Australians are still struggling with this. This is well recognised here (especially in academic circles).

From a personal perspective, it would seem strange, and perhaps a bit pretentious to claim to be ethnically "Australian" when about 150 years ago, all of my forebears were living in the British Isles. In fact about half of my forebears didn't leave for the new world until the 20th century. :shrug:

I often heard as a child that "the only true Australians are the aboriginals". I guess it makes sense... for now.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I often heard as a child that "the only true Australians are the aboriginals". I guess it makes sense... for now.

I don't see why you can't be 'Australian' and 'British', just the way someone can be 'French' and 'European'.

The aboriginals are their own separate thing, from what I've seen they don't have much of anything to do with the entire rest of Australian society, so in that case they probably can't even be considered proper 'Australians'.

[Barreldriver]

Or, in fact, would some say there is? In general, though, there doesn't seem to be. They certainly have a lot of civic nationalism and patriotism, but that's not the issue here. Why, in short, are ethnicities apparently so easy to form in Europe, but not in the colonial lands settled by Europeans?

The reason for the lack of an American ethnicity that I can see is the tendency for certain groups to want to retain a degree of their original identity. Look at my own folks for an example, not all of them supported revolt against the crown and even after the crown abandoned the colonies there were numbers of my own kin back when who still identified as Englishmen until they became integrated with the meta-group of Appalachian Southrons who have since been to a degree erroneously labelled as Scotch-Irish (an Americanism of Scots-Irish, erroneous description to myself considering that English ancestry predominates among many), folks like my own are hesitant to abandon their identity for the sake of a Union that manipulated them often and portrayed them so negatively in public light under the name of Hillbilly and I am glad for the resistance towards integration of this sort as it has allowed for a certain archaic English-American dialect to be preserved (a dialect that has become watered down in myself due to being displaced in Ohio for so long) alongside various noble cultural traits.

To become American would mean the loss of self.

The tendency for groups in Appalachia to list themselves as American on surveys I believe to be deceiving as many of the younger generations are becoming distanced from their original ethnicity a result of Federal engineering to a degree by suppressing said culture via negative stereotyping. Many of the more traditional mind are not represented in these surveys due to their lack of participation.

[Bridie]

I don't see why you can't be 'Australian' and 'British', just the way someone can be 'French' and 'European'.

Well, I guess it's pretty much non-existant that people only identify themselves unitarily anyway. Someone may be from England, for example, and yet identify with their town, county and region along with their country. Add to that other identifying markers like religion, social class, gender, generation etc etc.

Yes, I suppose I can be Australian. :) Certainly, it would be a falsehood to identify as ethnically English alone, since I was not born and raised in England. English, in reality, refers to my roots and my family/cultural history, (West) Australian refers to my present and who knows about the future? :D

[Electronic God-Man]

*yawn*

The Boers are an ethnicity and so are the Quebecois. I am an American. 400 years. The tides of immigrants starting in the late 1800's hurt. Yes, consumerism and multiculturalism are big problems, they also hurt.


Regardless: What is an American? (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9114)

[Sikeliot]

Without denying the existence of other groups there, in my mind the quintessential Australian is basically English.

[Bridie]

Without denying the existence of other groups there, in my mind the quintessential Australian is basically English.Those with significant Irish ancestry might not be happy to hear that! :D :p

Seriously, Irish input and influence was crucial in the creation of Australia, as was Scottish and Welsh alike. :)

[Allenson]

*yawn*

The Boers are an ethnicity and so are the Quebecois. I am an American. 400 years. The tides of immigrants starting in the late 1800's hurt. Yes, consumerism and multiculturalism are big problems, they also hurt.


And yet we persevere! Keep the faith man, keep the faith. :cool:

[Albion]

There is an Australian ethnicity, Anglo-celts (English+ any one of the Celtic nations, usually Irish or Scottish)

[Sahson]

Well, I guess it's pretty much non-existant that people only identify themselves unitarily anyway. Someone may be from England, for example, and yet identify with their town, county and region along with their country. Add to that other identifying markers like religion, social class, gender, generation etc etc.

Yes, I suppose I can be Australian. :) Certainly, it would be a falsehood to identify as ethnically English alone, since I was not born and raised in England. English, in reality, refers to my roots and my family/cultural history, (West) Australian refers to my present and who knows about the future? :D

I know a Scottish-Dutch lass she can't associate to both cultures so she sees herself as Australian.

[Anthropologique]

The reason for the lack of an American ethnicity that I can see is the tendency for certain groups to want to retain a degree of their original identity. Look at my own folks for an example, not all of them supported revolt against the crown and even after the crown abandoned the colonies there were numbers of my own kin back when who still identified as Englishmen until they became integrated with the meta-group of Appalachian Southrons who have since been to a degree erroneously labelled as Scotch-Irish (an Americanism of Scots-Irish, erroneous description to myself considering that English ancestry predominates among many), folks like my own are hesitant to abandon their identity for the sake of a Union that manipulated them often and portrayed them so negatively in public light under the name of Hillbilly and I am glad for the resistance towards integration of this sort as it has allowed for a certain archaic English-American dialect to be preserved (a dialect that has become watered down in myself due to being displaced in Ohio for so long) alongside various noble cultural traits.

To become American would mean the loss of self.

The tendency for groups in Appalachia to list themselves as American on surveys I believe to be deceiving as many of the younger generations are becoming distanced from their original ethnicity a result of Federal engineering to a degree by suppressing said culture via negative stereotyping. Many of the more traditional mind are not represented in these surveys due to their lack of participation.

Excellent post. I've learned something.:thumb001:

[Piparskeggr]

My ethnic identity is New Englander.

I am proud and amazed that a wide variety of folks chose to come here between 1622 and 1927, and become me. I am glad I can learn so much about their homelands, and people who still reside there.

But, as my family has lived in New England for 14 generations (my great nieces and nephews will build that level of our tree), that is my "tribe."

[Phil75231]

In the end, "ethnicity" is in the eye of the beholder, with the possible exception of a few distinctive features. IMO, language being the most important. Phenotype can often be an indicator, but not always (i.e. a child of two chinese immigrants, child born and raised in South Dakota. Is the child Chinese or not? What if the child is raised perfectly assimilated into SD culture, Asian American or not?).

Having said that, I think White Americans are sufficiently distinct from their European cousins to constitute a separate ethnic group. I'd not be surprised if White Australians also were a separate group by most people's standards despite their strong ties and fresh blood from the UK.

However, I disagree with Safety Pin (re: her post #3) that ideology as a primary unifying force limits ethnogenesis, although I agree that it can influence the path the ethnogenesis takes.

[rhiannon]

Or, in fact, would some say there is? In general, though, there doesn't seem to be. They certainly have a lot of civic nationalism and patriotism, but that's not the issue here. Why, in short, are ethnicities apparently so easy to form in Europe, but not in the colonial lands settled by Europeans?

I don't think there is one. America is a nation of immigrants with varied histories.

I am American in the sense I am a citizen of this country....but I do not list American as my ethnicity.

[SwordoftheVistula]

a child of two chinese immigrants, child born and raised in South Dakota. Is the child Chinese or not? What if the child is raised perfectly assimilated into SD culture, Asian American or not?

I'd say Chinese, I think most people would think so as well. European ethnicities seem to be the only ones on the planet to contain some people who think that you lose/change ethnicity by moving to a different part of the globe.

[Han Cholo]

Ethnogenesis take place over long times and are a constant change. Europe is not the same as 1000 years ago. There are no Scythians, Vandals, Goths, Iberians, Celt-Iberians, Gauls, Anglo Saxon, Picts anymore; which were past ethnicities which in part formed part in the make up of new entities. Now you have Ukrainians, Poles, Spaniards, Frenchs, English, Scots etc..

I don't see why it would have to be different on an American context.

[Boudica]

Because the main inhabitants of these places are people that came from Europe, there is already a ethnicity for these people. America and Australia do have their own ethnicity I guess, the natives.

[Johnston]

What new branches of the Indo-European family have been formed in the New World? Whose surnames come from the New World, that are not of the Old? My surname and presently understood form of the family is known as far back as 11th century England. They took the name here to America and gave it to places they lived, like how Boston and New York were transported here from Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. These aren't new. It is only like Americans on the Moon--they are not "Luna-tics"!

There is a similarity of Hengist and Horsa landing in Britain to form England as with Sir Walter Raleigh founding Virginia (oldest state in the union) and Sir Francis Drake founding New England (New Albion, before John Smith revived the name). On the other hand, we do not yet constitute a separate ethnicity from the English to qualify, political sentiments notwithstanding. There is a greater difference between Berlin and London than there is between London and Washington.

We simply have more ties to the Cromwell family than we do the Stuarts. Canada has a greater Scottish basis, which is why the Restoration Loyalism was favorable there. We are still Puritan holdouts harboring unexhumed regicides in New England. The Jacobites could never reach our shores without us knowing. The Commonwealth agrees in the whole with the Crown over Parliament, and America agrees with Parliament over the Crown.

These things I have come to accept with pride, although I am sure my particular family hated Cromwell at one time. It is just that the Stuarts were Scots who had no business telling us English what the fuck to do.

The lineage of our heritage is not in question except by the same people who claim the Anglo-Saxons left no descendents in Britain, that England is a sham. These same people say that Englishness is irrelevant to America. Fuck the lot of their deluded and perniciously deceitful, untrustworthy and consummately wrong selves.

Fuck Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is the enemy of the "dead white male" that is the Yankee WASP. MY ENEMY! You cannot simply write us out of the history books, okay?

My ancestors fought in the French and Indian Wars, and at Lexington and Concord! They also fought on the other side of the latter (oops, lol). Don't tell me we're no good English. Our so-called "jet set" was the de jure and de facto English Establishment 1649-1660. We left a bad taste in Ireland's belly. Poor potato heads! LMAO!

[Turkey]

There is an Australian ethnicity. While America has always been a nation of extreme levels of immigration, this has not been the case in Australia. We had many many years of welsh, english, scottish and irish homogenisation with the only adding in of germanic types. This super british mix became an ethnicity of it's own.

Unfortuanately after the war we imported a heap of italians, greek polish etc.

Though the true Australian ethnicity is a homogeny of british isles.

America started the mass immration towards the end of the 19th century and hasn't stopped. Also America was colonised by many differnt nations such as france and spain. They also have had chicanos(mexican) in them for a long time.

Australia is the one true british colony in the world. Our true ethnicity is an homogenous mix of the british isles ethnicities.


Excuse the lack of capitals. I just don't think they are necessary in a web forum.:D

[Curtis24]

America and Australia are too young and unformed. It took each European country 500+ years to develop their respective ethnicities.

Furthermore, the growth of ethnicities in the New Worlds have been stunted by modern individualism and communication technology.

[Johnston]

Hey Turkey! Canada is the most Loyal of all the Queen's Dominions, and that's a fucking fact you jackass. Just check the Queen's coat of arms.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg/200px-Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg.png

They are almost the same as those of King James, of the King James Version Bible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Coat_of_Arms_of_England_%281603-1649%29.svg/200px-Coat_of_Arms_of_England_%281603-1649%29.svg.png

You have some fucking monotremes or whatever on your coat of arms. Who seriously gives a shit?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png/250px-Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png

[Boudica]

America and Australia are too young and unformed. It took each European country 500+ years to develop their respective ethnicities.

.

Haha, by the time America is formed the "American ethnicity" will look something like this:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYv0DWQu4r29kuSdbBr1gx4nARFwbBp VWJ33gcHHfCnrdX6HjH
O'h well, hopefully by this time I'll be living in some sort of bio-dome on the moon :D

[Han Cholo]

Haha, by the time America is formed the "American ethnicity" will look something like this:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYv0DWQu4r29kuSdbBr1gx4nARFwbBp VWJ33gcHHfCnrdX6HjH
O'h well, hopefully by this time I'll be living in some sort of bio-dome on the moon :D

I hope not.

The darkest or most foreign you could look like, is like this; considering the minorities and demographic trends:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLzFs1MHaCFLc8YCsElXF4epKfrlD7c oIuiRKX27qRbMwOwIeS

http://www.archivoddf.com/images/argentinos.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L_8axGxwPp0/TC93bu4fbkI/AAAAAAAAADM/36LHaGth25E/s1600/Hinchas_argentinos_II_1.jpg

http://urielchueco.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/foto_biografia.jpg

http://media.muyblog.com/muypatagonia/files/2009/06/logos.jpg

According to genetic tests; Argentineans are on average 20% Amerindian, and a considerable number are less than that too, obviously. Some are direct immigrants.

[Johnston]

I hope not.

The darkest or most foreign you could look like, is like this; considering the minorities and demographic trends:


http://urielchueco.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/foto_biografia.jpg

What about this?

http://www.moviesonline.ca/AdvHTML_Upload/twilight-2.jpg

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/true-blood-logo2.jpg

[Han Cholo]

What about this?

http://www.moviesonline.ca/AdvHTML_Upload/twilight-2.jpg

http://urielchueco.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/foto_biografia.jpg

http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af332/arbin_420/e3411771.jpg
?

[Kataphraktoi]

American is not an ethnicity; it's a citizenship.

European-American, African-American and other hyphenated-Americans are new "meta-ethnicities".

[Phil75231]

I'd say Chinese, I think most people would think so as well. European ethnicities seem to be the only ones on the planet to contain some people who think that you lose/change ethnicity by moving to a different part of the globe.

Actually, I agree with this. The child is Asian-American, and knowing "middle America" as a life-long resident, the child would probably accept the designation. Still, it's quite possible to be racially one thing but culturally another. Culturally, the said Chinese South Dakotan is extremely likely to be the most like White America, and likely accepted as such by the majority of South Dakotans. This is where the "nationality based on ideology, as opposed to ethnicity" comes into play.

To continue with the South Dakota scenario, I say even African Americans could be accepted as Middle American culturally (though still undeniably African American racially), if their primary non-family day-to-day social influences are South Dakotans (an overwhelmingly White state) - though if they look to African American culture as much as to mainstream SD'ian, they'd probably not be seen as "authentic" Middle America. They may still be accepted by the community, and even have a good and active social life in the community..even being genuinely welcomed in the said community but the still won't be seen as White under any circumstances. This would only bother the racist segment of Whites, though.

My point is that ethnicity remains a semi-subjective concept - undeniably characteristics everyone agrees are those that separate one group from the other, though once beyond the obvious issues of language and racial phenotype (for reasons of the SD example, phenotype is one of them, though IMO not the primary marker) , the lines become really blurry.

*I define "middle America" as "anything between Harrisburg, PA and Las Vegas and Reno, plus the Atlantic coast south of DC's southern suburbs and north of central Florida".

[Johnston]

American is not an ethnicity; it's a citizenship.

European-American, African-American and other hyphenated-Americans are new "meta-ethnicities".American, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealander, are all regional citizenship affiliations of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It is much more practical than being English, or even British citizens. Political reality is not genetic reality, so separate establishments do not mean blood differences, except that there are more Scots in Canada than there are in America, because of Nova Scotia. Republican Irish preferred not to remain part of the Empire, so they went to Boston, New York, and Chicago. This type of variation is to be expected.

[SwordoftheVistula]

There is an Australian ethnicity. While America has always been a nation of extreme levels of immigration, this has not been the case in Australia. We had many many years of welsh, english, scottish and irish homogenisation with the only adding in of germanic types. This super british mix became an ethnicity of it's own.

Unfortuanately after the war we imported a heap of italians, greek polish etc.

Though the true Australian ethnicity is a homogeny of british isles.

That's pretty similar to the US, actually. British came in steadily through the 1800s.

Irish and Germans a bit in the 1700s and then mass waves in the 1800s.

Southern and eastern Europeans came in starting at the very end of the 1800s, until immigration came to a near complete halt in 1924. They stayed mainly in a few major coastal and industrial cities, moving out to suburbs in the 1960s & 70s after black riots & civil rights laws.

Immigration was opened up again in 1965, and most immigration since then has been from Latin America, with east Asia and the Indian subcontinent the next largest sources. Prior to this, there was almost no persons of these ethnicities in the US: a small Mexican contingent in Los Angeles and Texas, a large Chinatown in San Francisco and smaller ones in New York and Boston, a Puerto Rican community in New York since the 50s or so, but statistically insignificant for the country as a whole.

The blacks were also geographically isolated, to the 'black belt' of the deep south (originally named so for the soil the plantation growers sought), and since the early-mid 20th century, in large urban centers of northern cities.

[Neanderthal]

Well some people tend to see Mexican as an ethnicity rather than a nationality, or worse, they see Mexican as a race, so I don't see why there can't be an American, Asutralian, Canadian ethnicity as well.

[Han Cholo]

Well some people tend to see Mexican as an ethnicity rather than a nationality, or worse, they see Mexican as a race, so I don't see why there can't be an American, Asutralian, Canadian ethnicity as well.

What are the "Mexican ethnicities" according to you? What is your definition of ethnicity to start with?

[Johnston]

What are the "Mexican ethnicities" according to you? What is your definition of ethnicity to start with?Mexican is Hispanic (Spaniard) with deviations. The same as American is Anglo (Anglo-Saxon) with deviations.
Some of the deviations are major, but I would not let them obscure the general sense.

[BeerBaron]

There very well could be, in a century or so it would be a native/euro/negroid/mongoloid. That could become the "american" race or sub-race whatever you want to call it, breed, ect.

[Neanderthal]

What are the "Mexican ethnicities" according to you? What is your definition of ethnicity to start with?

Hispanic, should be the ethnicity of any Mexican (not counting Natives) because they don't speak Spanish. So any Spanish speaker should be Hispanic regardless of their race, so does any English speaker should be considered American and so forth. Not rocket science.

[Neanderthal]

There very well could be, in a century or so it would be a native/euro/negroid/mongoloid. That could become the "american" race or sub-race whatever you want to call it, breed, ect.

We are not talking about races but ethnicities, big difference. There could be a African American, a White Hispanic, etc.

[Johnston]

Hispanic, should be the ethnicity of any Mexican (not counting Natives) because they don't speak Spanish. So any Spanish speaker should be Hispanic regardless of their race, so does any English speaker should be considered American and so forth. Not rocket science.
Why the double standard, you wonder? With the way globalism works, this is apparent in every country now. I would hope that the Caucasian element dominates though, even in facade, like Jamaica. It is Black, but obviously Anglo, inasmuch as Haiti is Black, but obviously French. I would not disown a Jamaican over a Haitian, and it has nothing to do with the standard of living or degenerate behaviors at all. It has to do with pride of empire. American Blacks are still MY Blacks, unlike the Brazilian Blacks, for instance. The Portuguese can have their Blacks and should not send them here.:thumb001:

Also, look at it this way. I hope someday all non-Anglo Whites (Poles, for instance) will be assimilated into Anglo families someday in Anglo countries. This means we take their daughters and make sons in our names, and the same goes for Blacks in Anglo countries. If the foreign Blacks come here, have the Anglo Blacks impregnate their daughters, so no more Brazilian Black identity is continued, and their surname is Freeman ;) or something.

Understand?

Hey Decimator, are you paying attention?

It is the same as hoping the Indians here assimilate all of the Chinatowns out of existence. Let Pocahontas's people breed out the Japanese immigrants, so they have American Indian Anglo names, like Dances With Wolves. ;)

[Han Cholo]

Mexican is Hispanic (Spaniard) with deviations. The same as American is Anglo (Anglo-Saxon) with deviations.
Some of the deviations are major, but I would not let them obscure the general sense.

I don't feel my ethnicity is "Spaniard" and I'm sure most people here feel the same way as me, and so do Spaniards. I think since we have not had much immigration our ethnogenesis process has been a little easier. I could expand more but I don't want to deviate from the original topic :thumbs .

[Johnston]

I don't feel my ethnicity is "Spaniard" and I'm sure most people here feel the same way as me, and so do Spaniards. I think since we have not had much immigration our ethnogenesis process has been a little easier. I could expand more but I don't want to deviate from the original topic :thumbs .Not even bastardized Hispanic?:rolleyes:

[Han Cholo]

Not even bastardized Hispanic?:rolleyes:

Why not just what I really am instead? My Spanish ancestors arrived here over 300 years ago. I think it's quite a stretch to really call myself as Spaniard. Calling myself an "Spaniard" or bastardized "Hispanic" would equate me to Argentines, Chileans, Colombians and I'm not.

These people are foreigners to me, we speak the same language but it's almost like we spoke different tongues. They have their different history and costumes.

[Han Cholo]

Why the double standard, you wonder? With the way globalism works, this is apparent in every country now. I would hope that the Caucasian element dominates though, even in facade, like Jamaica. It is Black, but obviously Anglo, inasmuch as Haiti is Black, but obviously French. I would not disown a Jamaican over a Haitian, and it has nothing to do with the standard of living or degenerate behaviors at all. It has to do with pride of empire. American Blacks are still MY Blacks, unlike the Brazilian Blacks, for instance. The Portuguese can have their Blacks and should not send them here.:thumb001:

Also, look at it this way. I hope someday all non-Anglo Whites (Poles, for instance) will be assimilated into Anglo families someday in Anglo countries. This means we take their daughters and make sons in our names, and the same goes for Blacks in Anglo countries. If the foreign Blacks come here, have the Anglo Blacks impregnate their daughters, so no more Brazilian Black identity is continued, and their surname is Freeman ;) or something.

Understand?

Hey Decimator, are you paying attention?

It is the same as hoping the Indians here assimilate all of the Chinatowns out of existence. Let Pocahontas's people breed out the Japanese immigrants, so they have American Indian Anglo names, like Dances With Wolves. ;)

That's an interesting view but I don't share it. A nigger called Obongo Rodriguez is just as a nigger as Tyrone Freeman. I don't feel more compassion just because he had a slave master who spoke the same language as me.

[Johnston]

Why not just what I really am instead? My Spanish ancestors arrived here over 300 years ago. I think it's quite a stretch to really call myself as Spaniard. Calling myself an "Spaniard" or bastardized "Hispanic" would equate me to Argentines, Chileans, Colombians and I'm not.

These people are foreigners to me, we speak the same language but it's almost like we spoke different tongues. They have their different history and costumes.You are splitting hairs to an unreasonable proportion. You are idealizing a fantasy in which you have no coalescent biological relation to fellow Mexicans and other Hispanics, whose political confines were determined more by feasibility of governance than anything genetic. Geography and natural resources determined the schisms between the various colonizing Spaniards who settled, whether or not they miscegenated. You are on your own pedestal, and nobody else's. Have fun with your fantasy.


That's an interesting view but I don't share it. A nigger called Obongo Rodriguez is just as a nigger as Tyrone Freeman. I don't feel more compassion just because he had a slave master who spoke the same language as me.Whites already use non-Whites against one another, so why not understand the potential for this view? When I see Anglo Blacks in California protesting the illegal alien Hispanic Blacks' own protests, on account of their loyalty to my nation, it makes me happy and feel appreciated. It is better than being called a cracker ass honky. It means that I still own them.:)

[Han Cholo]

You are splitting hairs to an unreasonable proportion. You are idealizing a fantasy in which you have no coalescent biological relation to fellow Mexicans and other Hispanics, whose political confines were determined more by feasibility of governance than anything genetic. Geography and natural resources determined the schisms between the various colonizing Spaniards who settled, whether or not they miscegenated. You are on your own pedestal, and nobody else's. Have fun with your fantasy.

It is not a fantasy and not the whole identity revolves about the Spaniards who settled long time ago. I don't see why you're implying that I have no biological relationship with Mexicans when I am one but I've been in other Latin American nations and I certainly don't feel like I am in mine. Of course there's a biological relationship but what I'm trying to tell you is the panorama is distinct. I don't feel a close relationship to them. A lot of them have also different Native admixtures and in many cases other European admixture and Negroid admixture. A great deal of them have distinct looks I can distinguish.

We have 3 factors, at least. A different appareance. Then comes the different history and finally divergences in culture. Is this not enough?




Whites already use non-Whites against one another, so why not understand the potential for this view? When I see Anglo Blacks in California protesting the illegal alien Hispanic Blacks' own protests, on account of their loyalty to my nation, it makes me happy and feel appreciated. It is better than being called a cracker ass honky. It means that I still own them.:)

Well it's still like a Planet of the Apes war to me. I don't really know how Blacks in the USA feel towards the white population but from my experience in other forums they tend to be very patriotic despite they were lynched and and treated like shit 50 years ago. Great puppets or really forgetful persons? You decide.

[Johnston]

It is not a fantasy and not the whole identity revolves about the Spaniards who settled long time ago. I don't see why you're implying that I have no biological relationship with Mexicans when I am one but I've been in other Latin American nations and I certainly don't feel like I am in mine. Of course there's a biological relationship but what I'm trying to tell you is the panorama is distinct. I don't feel a close relationship to them. A lot of them have also different Native admixtures and in many cases other European admixture and Negroid admixture. A great deal of them have distinct looks I can distinguish.

We have 3 factors, at least. A different appareance. Then comes the different history and finally divergences in culture. Is this not enough?



Well it's still like a Planet of the Apes war to me. I don't really know how Blacks in the USA feel towards the white population but from my experience in other forums they tend to be very patriotic despite they were lynched and and treated like shit 50 years ago. Great puppets or really forgetful persons? You decide.
I understand. The same can be said for differences between Canadians and Americans. There are distinct creolizations because of the particular blood infusion, and different proportions. I already noted on the predominant strain of Scots in Canada, and southern Irish in America. These are obvious differences to people who know such populations.

I love the fact that Blacks are controlled by Whites even through such a basic thing as propaganda against Whites. It comes from Whites, and yet, they have a hard time loosening from the puppeteer. The only option for American Negroes is Liberia, and they are not going back, LMAO!:cool:

[Electronic God-Man]

Political reality is not genetic reality.

Neither politics nor genetics solely define ethnicity.

Furthermore, there are innumerable instances of two ethnic groups living side-by-side and overlapping genetically in their border regions. ex. Western Germans are not Eastern French, Austrians are not Northern Italians, Welsh are not English...even though their genetics may not differentiate them.


------------------------------------------------------

PS. Do people hear consider the "Ulster Scots" to be a legitimate ethnic group?

[Neanderthal]

Why not just what I really am instead? My Spanish ancestors arrived here over 300 years ago. I think it's quite a stretch to really call myself as Spaniard. Calling myself an "Spaniard" or bastardized "Hispanic" would equate me to Argentines, Chileans, Colombians and I'm not.

These people are foreigners to me, we speak the same language but it's almost like we spoke different tongues. They have their different history and costumes.

So what do consider to be yout ethnicity then? remember we are talking about ethnicities no metha-ethnicities.

[Neanderthal]

Regarding the Hispanic topic Decimator, Skandinavian who is 100% of German ancestry is as Hispanic as you as me, because he was raised as such, and I know a bunch of more cases like his, I don't too understand how you fail to feel indentified with your other Spanish speaking Latin American/Iberian brothers.

[Han Cholo]

Regarding the Hispanic topic Decimator, Skandinavian who is 100% of German ancestry is as Hispanic as you as me, because he was raised as such, and I know a bunch of more cases like his, I don't too understand how you fail to feel indentified with your other Spanish speaking Latin American/Iberian brothers.

Nope. He isn't. He is just that, a Scandinavian that speaks Spanish. Just like I won't be a Norse if I learn some Norwegian dialect or have a passport. I find ridiculous you think that way. I do not care about Hispanism, I care about real nationalism. And well if you ask me how I fail to feel identified....

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/218056_1818681718646_1588252697_1768873_1664554_n. jpg

I'm glad you feel identified. Are you going to move to Chile.

[Neanderthal]

Nope. He isn't. He is just that, a Scandinavian that speak Spanish. I find ridiculous you think that way. I do not care about Hispanism, I care about real nationalism. And well if you ask me how I fail to feel identified....

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/218056_1818681718646_1588252697_1768873_1664554_n. jpg

I'm glad you feel identified. Are you going to move to Chile.

So what's you're ethnicity then? Mexica-noid?:coffee:

[Han Cholo]

So what's you're ethnicity then? Mexica-noid?:coffee:

Should not that be obvious? Some Guatemalan or Jujuman is not more Mexican than me who has been forever here just because you and other politically correct idiots think an ethnicity is just a passport. And everyone in every nation will feels the same way. I feel like vomiting when they advertise Turks born in Sweden like if they really were Swedish persons. I mean what the hell?

[Neanderthal]

Should not that be obvious? Some Guatemalan or Jujuman is not more Mexican than me who has been forever here just because you and other politically correct idiots think an ethnicity is just a passport. And everyone in every nation will feels the same way. I feel like vomiting when they advertise Turks born in Sweden like if they really were Swedish persons. I mean what the hell?

I don't believe ethnicity is just a passport, but I do think any Spanish speaker has the right to consider himself Hispanic for the sake of it. If you fail to understand the correlation between culture, traditions and language of the Hispanic people is your fault, not mine. You're making fun about Chilotes and you think just alike, what an Irony.

[Han Cholo]

I don't believe ethnicity is just a passport, but I do think any Spanish speaker has the right to consider himself Hispanic for the sake of it. If you fail to understand the correlation between culture, traditions and language of the Hispanic people is your fault, not mine. You're making fun about Chilotes and you think just alike, what an Irony.

I never disagreed with that in bold. Hispanic is not an ethnic group. And Argentines, Chileans are not the same ethnic group and me. It's not very complicated.

[Neanderthal]

I never disagreed with that in bold. Hispanic is not an ethnic group. And Argentines, Chileans are not the same ethnic group and me. It's not very complicated.

Dude, i'll just stop. I won't argue with someone who thinks ' Norteño ' is an ethnicity.

[Han Cholo]

Dude, i'll just stop. I won't argue with someone who thinks ' Norteño ' is an ethnicity.

What is my ethnic group then? "Norteño" is just a specific, regional subdivison.

[Neanderthal]

What is my ethnic group then? "Norteño" is just a specific, regional subdivison.

Ethnicity: Rio-grandense.
Taken from your user info.

[Han Cholo]

Ethnicity: Rio-grandense.
Taken from your user info.

And yours:

Ethnicity: Hispanic. :coffee:

I'd like to know what do you mean by that then? Where do the Hispanics live? Where did the Hispanic ethnicity form itself? What is the country that is home of the "Hispanics"?

[Mordid]

It's neither a race or an ethnicity. Hispanic means you are from a Spanish speaking country.

[Edelmann]

American is not an ethnicity; it's a citizenship.

European-American, African-American and other hyphenated-Americans are new "meta-ethnicities".

I take this view. These groups may mix together in the future, but as yet I'm not the same ethnicity as an Afro-American, and it's a little absurd that we're forced to share the same government and pretend that it represents both of our interests, which are sometimes diametrically opposed.

[Neanderthal]

And yours:

Ethnicity: Hispanic. :coffee:

I'd like to know what do you mean by that then? Where do the Hispanics live? Where did the Hispanic ethnicity form itself? What is the country that is home of the "Hispanics"?

They live in any Latin American country who speak Spanish as is prime language. You can go to the US and get a reality check if you please. :)

[Han Cholo]

They live in any Latin American country who speak Spanish as is prime language. You can go to the US and get a reality check if you please. :)

OK so the USA census defined your ethnicity? In any Latin American countries live their respective ethnicities; Argentineans, Peruvians, Paraguayans; etc.

[Neanderthal]

I take this view. These groups may mix together in the future, but as yet I'm not the same ethnicity as an Afro-American, and it's a little absurd that we're forced to share the same government and pretend that it represents both of our interests, which are sometimes diametrically opposed.

How can you be the same ethnicity as someone who is clearly stated as ' African-American '? that is his ethnicity, yours is White-American, so, they are different ethnicities after all.

[Han Cholo]

How can you be the same ethnicity as someone who is clearly stated as ' African-American '? that is his ethnicity, yours is White-American, so, they are different ethnicities after all.

Yet you think all "Hispanics" are the same ethnic group. :eek: Wouldn't by your logic they both would just be Anglo because they speak English?

[Neanderthal]

OK so the USA census defined your ethnicity? In any Latin American countries live their respective ethnicities; Argentineans, Peruvians, Paraguayans; etc.

I think any Latin American country is more miss-informed regarding it's racial/ethnic status that the Federal Bureau of Information for that matter. :ranger:

[Neanderthal]

Yet you think all "Hispanics" are the same ethnic group. :eek: Wouldn't by your logic they both would just be Anglo because they speak English?

Yes, they could be referred as Anglo-Caribbeans, Black-Anglophones, Asian-Anglophones, etc, but African-American, Asian-American is much more practical.

[Neanderthal]

dj3I943icw8:rolleyes:

[Electronic God-Man]

I take this view. These groups may mix together in the future, but as yet I'm not the same ethnicity as an Afro-American, and it's a little absurd that we're forced to share the same government and pretend that it represents both of our interests, which are sometimes diametrically opposed.

Of course, you wouldn't be African-American. African-Americans are their own ethnic group.

...certainly no one would deny that Afro-Americans are a separate ethnic group? I see that Wikipedia has this to say of African-Americans:


African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.

But this is bullshit. Case in point, the controversy in the Black community over whether or not Obama is really "black"...

Wiki does go on to include this:


Some black scholars have argued that the term "African-American" should refer strictly to the descendents of West or Central African slaves and free people of color who survived the slavery-era, and not the sons and daughters of black immigrants who lack that ancestry. The argument being that grouping all blacks together regardless of their unique ancestral circumstances would inevitably deny the lingering effects of slavery with in the American slave descendent community, in addition to denying black immigrants recognition of their own unique ancestral backgrounds.

In the book The End of Blackness published by author Debra Dickerson, she warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from upwardly mobile black immigrants who are not the sons and daughters of American slavery and racial segregation. She used the political rise of President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, a result of "Lumping us all together," Dickerson claimed it, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress." On the liberal website Salon Dickerson wrote, "African-American", in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves". Similar statements have been echoed by Stanley Crouch in a New York Daily News piece, Charles Kenzie Steele, Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and African-American columnist David Ehrenstein of the LA Times who accused white liberals of flocking to blacks who were "Magic Negros", a term that refers to a black person with no past who simply appears to assist the mainstream white (as cultural protagonists/drivers) agenda. Ehrenstein went on to say "He's there to assuage white 'guilt' they feel over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history."

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was famously mistaken for a "recent American immigrant" by French President Nicholas Sarkozy), said "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that." She has also rejected an immigrant designation for African-Americans and instead prefers the term "black" or "white" to denote the African and European U.S. founding populations.

Which is simply saying everything short of "We are a fucking ethnicity." It boggles the mind that no one even mentions the word, even after practically defining it in their attempt to explain why blacks who are descendants of slaves are not at all like African immigrants.

At least Condi Rice uses "black" and "white" to denote the "U.S. founding populations."

[Johnston]

Neither politics nor genetics solely define ethnicity.

Furthermore, there are innumerable instances of two ethnic groups living side-by-side and overlapping genetically in their border regions. ex. Western Germans are not Eastern French, Austrians are not Northern Italians, Welsh are not English...even though their genetics may not differentiate them.


------------------------------------------------------

PS. Do people hear consider the "Ulster Scots" to be a legitimate ethnic group?Ulster Scots are a true social group, most of them being Scots who have lived in Ireland, and often moved elsewhere. It is kind of like Afrikaaners, who are merely Dutchmen for the most part. The same could be said of Pennsylvania Dutch as being distinct.

[Edelmann]

Which is simply saying everything short of "We are a fucking ethnicity." It boggles the mind that no one even mentions the word, even after practically defining it in their attempt to explain why blacks who are descendants of slaves are not at all like African immigrants.

I wonder if the same logic might be applied to recent European immigrants; i.e., whether they would be able to be accepted into the Euro-American ethnicity (if such a thing exists) by established members of the Euro-American group?

The culture tends to present a very broad, open-armed view of what it means to "be American", and this I think has probably done more than anything to prevent the concept of an American ethnicity from gaining currency. It's not so easy to become Serbian, I imagine, as it is to become "American".

[Johnston]

I wonder if the same logic might be applied to recent European immigrants; i.e., whether they would be able to be accepted into the Euro-American ethnicity (if such a thing exists) by established members of the Euro-American group?

The culture tends to present a very broad, open-armed view of what it means to "be American", and this I think has probably done more than anything to prevent the concept of an American ethnicity from gaining currency. It's not so easy to become Serbian, I imagine, as it is to become "American".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American

[Electronic God-Man]

I wonder if the same logic might be applied to recent European immigrants; i.e., whether they would be able to be accepted into the Euro-American ethnicity (if such a thing exists) by established members of the Euro-American group?

Of course it would apply. I wouldn't have said it if it didn't. ;)

African-Americans can basically just be called African-Americans still because there is such a low African immigrant population.

The European-American counterpart would be the "old stock" American, which is essentially Anglo-American since any other runners-up (PA Dutch, Acadian) have largely been assimilated to the "Anglo-core." I know that only Amish and Mennonites still speak Deitsch, for instance, and I am sure that there are very few remaining francophone descendants of Acadians.


The culture tends to present a very broad, open-armed view of what it means to "be American", and this I think has probably done more than anything to prevent the concept of an American ethnicity from gaining currency. It's not so easy to become Serbian, I imagine, as it is to become "American".

It does, nowadays. It wasn't always that way. Case in point, the old posters that used to say "America for Americans!" What could such a phrase possibly be taken to mean if "Americans" simply meant someone with a US citizenship. It would be pointless. Until at least the 1920's "American" meant something fairly specific.

Americans who are descendants of the "founding population" don't even know what to call themselves half of the time. It doesn't help that this has been made the epitome of "non-ethnic." I recall having recently seen a description of Selena Gomez's ancestry: "Her father is Mexican American and her mother is of half Italian descent." LOL. Her maternal grandfather was surnamed Cornett and he was from Texas...she's only 3/4 interesting!

[The Ripper]

Or, in fact, would some say there is? In general, though, there doesn't seem to be. They certainly have a lot of civic nationalism and patriotism, but that's not the issue here. Why, in short, are ethnicities apparently so easy to form in Europe, but not in the colonial lands settled by Europeans?

I think there are several American ethnicities.