Prefixing Your Nationality?

[Jenna]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ax4_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=refuse+to+assimilate+china&hl=en&ei=_ARoTpCTBIn10gGkq6n4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=refuse to assimilate china&f=false


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

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?

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

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

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

Picture?

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

 

[Jenna]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a double standard you are correct, between those born here and those that are immigrant. I think, in some puerile "play the game by our rules as we were here first" sense, that does not seem unfair to me and but I would offer no argument to support that. It is just my personal view.

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

There is a double standard you are correct, between those born here and those that are immigrant. I think, in some puerile "play the game by our rules as we were here first" sense, that does not seem unfair to me and but I would offer no argument to support that. It is just my personal view.

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

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

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

 

[Judokarl]

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

 

[joshbrown]

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

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

 

[elder999]

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

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

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

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

Nor was this man.

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

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

 

[Sukerkin]

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

Aye, I do agree.

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

Aye, I do agree.

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

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

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

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

 

[Sukerkin]

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

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

 

[Monroe]

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

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

 

[ATACX GYM]

African-American.Both together. Thanks.