National identity

[zaph]

I bring this topic up, because the nationality in the frustrations section. Alot of people are Americans, so far, so expected. Yet very few are just Americans, they also mention they ethnicity. Irish, German, hispanic etc. This is an aspect of American culture that, being English, has always puzzled me. The notion of coming from two places at once. I was in Paris travelling, while at uni, and an irish american started talking about Northern Ireland. Being English he kind of expected me to take responsibilty for the whole complex and troubled history of England/Ireland. He considered himself very American, yet at the same time very Irish. So what, well I have Irish relatives as well, in my family. I realised that bits of my family had arrived in England long after his family had reached America. I had a greater case for considering myself Irish than he did, but I don't.
That is what is so interesting about America, at least for an outsider. The country is seemingly very patriotic, you hold your flag in reverance, you all know the first lines of the constitution. Americans are proud to be Americans. Yet they can also hold these other identities, often from countries from which their relatives left 3 or 4 generations ago. In Europe we don't do this as well. On the one hand we find Italian/Irish/German/Scotish (take your pick) Americans a little comic. They have never set foot in the home country, can't speak the language, yet passionately identify with that place. Yet we find assimulating new immigrant groups so much harder, it is very difficult from someone from an ethic minority to feel English for example. British maybe, that is a bit of a construct. So how does America do it? Does it cause problems? Could it work in Europe?

[FishingWithLoki]

Originally Posted by zaph

That is what is so interesting about America, at least for an outsider. The country is seemingly very patriotic, you hold your flag in reverance, you all know the first lines of the constitution. Americans are proud to be Americans. Yet they can also hold these other identities, often from countries from which their relatives left 3 or 4 generations ago. In Europe we don't do this as well. On the one hand we find Italian/Irish/German/Scotish (take your pick) Americans a little comic. They have never set foot in the home country, can't speak the language, yet passionately identify with that place. Yet we find assimulating new immigrant groups so much harder, it is very difficult from someone from an ethic minority to feel English for example. British maybe, that is a bit of a construct. So how does America do it? Does it cause problems? Could it work in Europe?

Interesting thoughts.

From my point of view (and ymmv), I was born in the US, but I identify as English (and yes, I have visited England! I could tell you stories about many wonderfully ale soaked nights at the Wig and Quill in Salisbury back in the early 90s! :-) and the really bad hamburgers at the local Wimpy shop the next day.

That said, my identification is a cultural one. My identification is patently not one driven of nationalism (which I despise to the core - especially in my country of birth). I studied the culture, the folklore, the literature (especially the Anglo-Saxon). Funny thing - my interest in English heritage has manifested in a gearhead obsession with the golden age of the British auto and motorcycle industry. Up until a couple years ago I rode only 60s era Triumph motorcycles. I have driven MGs and Austin Healeys for years (my current is a MK1 Sprite)!

So, it may seem silly to you across the pond, but many of us feel a very deep-rooted connection to our homelands. Maybe it's a Jungian thing, and the archetypes speak to us. Or maybe we just yearn to return to a place where our DNA flourished and found expression after the great migrations had come to a close.

[TRENNER]

Originally Posted by zaph

So how does America do it? Does it cause problems? Could it work in Europe?

Zaph-

The official motto for the USA is E Pluribus Unum, many into one. From the start, the USA has been a haven for diverse ethnic and religious groups. Because this has occured from Day 1, different nationalities and religions are accepted as part of the national fabric. Over 180 native languages are currently spoken by residents of NYC, where I live. NYC, which has been part of the USA since its founding, has had substantial immigration from a variety of different countries since the 1600's. In Europe, by contrast, acceptance of different nationalities and religions is a relatively recent phenomenon.

There has been backlash here at times, so acceptance has not been 100%. There has been vehement anti-Catholic sentiment, including formation of an anti-Catholic party, the Know-Nothings, in the mid 19th Century. There has also been anti-Semitism and lately anti-Islamic sentiment. There are also currently staunchly anti-immigrant groups such as the Minutemen, who patrol the Mexican border.

Nevertheless, overall because the country has been open to diverse immigrants from the start, the culture welcomes and absorbs them. For instance, Muslims in the USA are much more integrated into society than Muslims in France, despite the infamous 2001 terrorist attacks.

IMO, Europe could become more like America. However, it takes time to change attitudes and many European locales were relatively homogeneous through the 1960's.

[Jnmcda0]

My question has always been how far back one goes with claiming ancestry. My ancestors have all been in the US since before it was a nation. Do I still claim to be an English-American or Scottish-American or has my family lived here long enough that I'm just American?

This also becomes tricky when race is involved. For instance, people of African ancestry living in America are called "African Americans". However, if a person of European ancestry was born in South Africa and then immigrates to the United States, would they not also be "African-American"?

If you go back far enough, we are all decended from people who lived in Africa.

[Canadian Brotha]

This is an interesting question, I think one reason both nationality & heritage are identified is to denote culture/traditions along with the pride of their nation of birth. I think once people gained more freedom to express their heritage within American society they grabbed onto it & held tight.

There's much more too this but I'll have to think on it indeed, I didn't realize that in Europe this sort of dual identity doesn't exist as much

[zaph]

Originally Posted by TRENNER

Zaph-

The official motto for the USA is E Pluribus Unum, many into one. From the start, the USA has been a haven for diverse ethnic and religious groups. Because this has occured from Day 1, different nationalities and religions are accepted as part of the national fabric. Over 180 native languages are currently spoken by residents of NYC, where I live. NYC, which has been part of the USA since its founding, has had substantial immigration from a variety of different countries since the 1600's. In Europe, by contrast, acceptance of different nationalities and religions is a relatively recent phenomenon.

There has been backlash here at times, so acceptance has not been 100%. There has been vehement anti-Catholic sentiment, including formation of an anti-Catholic party, the Know-Nothings, in the mid 19th Century. There has also been anti-Semitism and lately anti-Islamic sentiment. There are also currently staunchly anti-immigrant groups such as the Minutemen, who patrol the Mexican border.

Nevertheless, overall because the country has been open to diverse immigrants from the start, the culture welcomes and absorbs them. For instance, Muslims in the USA are much more integrated into society than Muslims in France, despite the infamous 2001 terrorist attacks.

IMO, Europe could become more like America. However, it takes time to change attitudes and many European locales were relatively homogeneous through the 1960's.

So is this a consious act of American policy, has American identity been structured so that the symbols of the nation can draw people in, without threatening their original identity? In Europe we have tried two main models to try and assimulate new arrivals. Both of which have failed. In the UK we have what is called a multi-cultural society. New cultures are accommadated, people can have seperate schools, live in seperate communities, even interact with offical bodies in their own language. There has even been attempts to allow certain communities, muslims for example, to use limited aspects of their own civil codes to deal things like marriage disputes. This has all been done under the banner of a British idenity; English, Welsh and Scotish identities seem much hard for new arrivals to take on. The result has been country that often feels divided, lots of isolated communities not really unified by anything.

France has taken the opposite approach, if you move France your expected to take on the values of the republic. Including the French language, and the secular state. The French won't hesitate to ban things like the hijab from public spaces, if they feel it is a threat to the French idenity. Has it worked? Well the regular riots in the French suburbs, the banlieue, say otherwises. Through it is interesting that when people speak to the rioters their main complaint is that they have done French state has asked, they feel that they are French. Yet they are left on edge of society, without jobs, or a stake. The French system is often used to justify racist and exclusive views.

Race is a knotty problem when it comes to discusing issues around identity. I'm white, which means in England I don't really think about race much. What I mean is that being in majority, my skin colour doesn't affect how people view me, i don't define myself as white. The old English way of absorbing new arrivals was to make them English, just like my family. Two or free generations in, most people felt English and their connection with their orginal country was vague at best. Race changes this, because it is a constant reminder of difference, of outsider status. Both to the person, and people meeting that person. We are strange species, to try define the music, food, and are behaviour by our skin tone. When rationally it should have nothing to do with it. Being black doesn't mean that someone will like rap music, being white doesn't mean your going to dislike it. Yet we make these assumptions, and people feel that they often have to live up too them. Hence black the community, the asian community, or hispanic community. We have an ideal of not judging people by their race, yet at the same time people define themselves by their race. A difficult contridiction to untangle. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is how can we make make people comfortable, including white people, moving out of their little boxes. Interacting, and living with people from all backgrounds; withour forcing something on them that feels threatening. Of all the countries in the world American seems closest to the solution.

Saying that, America does have it's problems, thanks to slavery. African Americans, at least from this side of the pond, seem to be a group that is seperate. A group that is mistreated by mainstream America, and finds fitting in the American state the hardest. It is hard to trust a country that kidnapped your ancestors.

[pyramidsong]

Meh, I'm Australian and couldn't care less about patriotism or my cultural identity. I never think about it. The again, I've never been persecuted for my ethnicity. I might feel differently if I had.

[leonardess]

As an American living in the UK, I've become very aware of this way of thinking.

It seems to me that when we Americans rub up against other countries in..whatever way, we proudly declare that we are "proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free"....

In America itself, Americans identify very much with their heritage, sometimes not always realizing that what they are saying is erroneous - "I'm Irish and German and Native American". I think this has to do with some aspects of America itself - towns and cities are becoming homogenous, a "Generica". People like to think of themselves as individuals - anything that makes them different, sets them apart from others. As there is no obvious outward "sign", the next best thing is heritage. And so I tell people about being part Cherokee, Irish, German, Jewish, etc etc etc. I think this is what's really at the root of it.

[bezoomny]

Originally Posted by TRENNER

The official motto for the USA is E Pluribus Unum, many into one.

Kind of. It actually means "from/out of many, one."

[quietgal]

Originally Posted by zaph

France has taken the opposite approach, if you move France your expected to take on the values of the republic. Including the French language, and the secular state. The French won't hesitate to ban things like the hijab from public spaces, if they feel it is a threat to the French idenity. Has it worked? Well the regular riots in the French suburbs, the banlieue, say otherwises. Through it is interesting that when people speak to the rioters their main complaint is that they have done French state has asked, they feel that they are French. Yet they are left on edge of society, without jobs, or a stake. The French system is often used to justify racist and exclusive views.

I think that's a really good point. Words like "assimilation" and "integration" imply that something peaceful and organic is taking place, when more often than not it's basically just the obliteration of difference in favor of whatever the dominant culture is at the time.

That's why I kind of roll my eyes when I hear the "well, why don't you just call yourself just an American instead of an Asian-American or an African-American or a Muslim-American" question. In an ideal world, most "hyphenated" Americans would probably like nothing better. But the reality is historically they have been treated differently based on things like race and ethnicity, and are still being treated differently, no matter what they do. And to say "well, why can't we just all be Americans" is kind of like a slap in the face because it is basically a complete dismissal of the very real experiences of racism and difference that people deal with in their every-day lives. Being considered "just American" whatever that means, is a kind of privilege that many people simply don't have. I'm guessing France's immigrant communities don't really buy into that fantasy either.

[bezoomny]

My theory - the European immigrants reduced the native population so ridiculously that we don't really have a native culture here with any *real* historical precedent, like the Italians, Russians, etc. The native Americans are a very small minority. To deal with the fact that we're pretty much all very recent immigrants, we cling to our older ethnicities.

[Mr. Frostie]

I think its most common on the East Coast and the big cities. Immigrants tended to settle into to areas with other people of the same ethnicity. People who grew up in these places identified as members of the ethnicity even if they weren't first generation immigrants. Their cultures evolved into Americanized versions that were unique in their own right and distinct from the cultures of their homelands.

[bezoomny]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostie

I think its most common on the East Coast and the big cities. Immigrants tended to settle into to areas with other people of the same ethnicity. People who grew up in these places identified as members of the ethnicity even if they weren't first generation immigrants. Their cultures evolved into Americanized versions that were unique in their own right and distinct from the cultures of their homelands.

A big part of early southern society (especially in Virginia and North Carolina, where my mother's family has always been from) was the wealthy landowners, who could trace their descent back. And this 'pseudo-aristocracy' of the Americans of English (usually), Scottish, or even distant Irish descent was ever-present and you can still see it in the WASPs (like my maternal grandparents - complete WASPs, can trace their descent back to the 1760s when their family immigrated here from Scotland and France, they had a ****ing plantation for several generations). People of the lower class really didn't care, like my paternal grandpa. He has no idea where his family came from, he's got a German name, so it's probably Germany. But he really doesn't care, neither does my paternal grandma, who's visibly of Celtic descent but doesn't really know. It's mainly a concern for very recent immigrants, who are still in the awkward position of being not-quite-melted, and middle-to-upper class people with a nostalgic desire for "the old country" (even though none remember it, or even knew anyone in their family who did).

But I think Appalachia is different from the "Old South" (which I'm choosing to define as Virginia and the Carolinas), although they immigrated a long time ago from the British-controlled/Scotch-inhabited part of Ireland, they've still remained very insular for the opposite reason from the WASPs - they've pretty much always been disliked and powerless and left to fend for themselves. But they cling to the regional identity of Appalachia more than to being Scotch-Irish, nationality is more of a qualifier of what makes you a "real" Appalachian.

I don't really know anything about the issue of nationality in other regions, though.

[zaph]

Originally Posted by quietgal

I think that's a really good point. Words like "assimilation" and "integration" imply that something peaceful and organic is taking place, when more often than not it's basically just the obliteration of difference in favor of whatever the dominant culture is at the time.

That's why I kind of roll my eyes when I hear the "well, why don't you just call yourself just an American instead of an Asian-American or an African-American or a Muslim-American" question. In an ideal world, most "hyphenated" Americans would probably like nothing better. But the reality is historically they have been treated differently based on things like race and ethnicity, and are still being treated differently, no matter what they do. And to say "well, why can't we just all be Americans" is kind of like a slap in the face because it is basically a complete dismissal of the very real experiences of racism and difference that people deal with in their every-day lives. Being considered "just American" whatever that means, is a kind of privilege that many people simply don't have. I'm guessing France's immigrant communities don't really buy into that fantasy either.

I'm not so sure, one of the striking things about the interviews that I have read of protestors involved in the riots in Banlieue; is the way their anger is directed. It is not because the state hasn't accepted their 'ethinic identities'. It is more that they have brought into the values of the French republic, they see themselves as French. Many have put themselves through the education systems, a surprising number are graduates. Then they find themselves dumped at the margins of society, we no hope of finding a job, because of their surname, or skin colour. Racism is the problem, but what they want is race not to be an issue.
As for saying that to be considered "just American" is privilege, well if you define yourself as an outsider, you will always be one. Another article was discussing somewhere in Africa that had become a kind of pillgrimage for African Americans. It was a place where slaves use to be loaded onto ships. The African Americans talked about connecting with their roots, and feeling African again. The locals sure them as a bunch of rich American tourists, welcome for their dollars, but about as African as I am. That is the trouble with identities, what was once neccessary solidarity in the face of racism, can become a trap. You end up a world were the corner kids in Baltimore are defined in the same bracket as Tiger Woods. I always thought that class and ultimately wealth was a far more important aspect of a persons identity. Race and religion can be used to devide the poor against themselves.

[quietgal]

Originally Posted by zaph

I'm not so sure, one of the striking things about the interviews that I have read of protestors involved in the riots in Banlieue; is the way their anger is directed. It is not because the state hasn't accepted their 'ethinic identities'. It is more that they have brought into the values of the French republic, they see themselves as French. Many have put themselves through the education systems, a surprising number are graduates. Then they find themselves dumped at the margins of society, we no hope of finding a job, because of their surname, or skin colour. Racism is the problem, but what they want is race not to be an issue.
As for saying that to be considered "just American" is privilege, well if you define yourself as an outsider, you will always be one. Another article was discussing somewhere in Africa that had become a kind of pillgrimage for African Americans. It was a place where slaves use to be loaded onto ships. The African Americans talked about connecting with their roots, and feeling African again. The locals sure them as a bunch of rich American tourists, welcome for their dollars, but about as African as I am. That is the trouble with identities, what was once neccessary solidarity in the face of racism, can become a trap. You end up a world were the corner kids in Baltimore are defined in the same bracket as Tiger Woods. I always thought that class and ultimately wealth was a far more important aspect of a persons identity. Race and religion can be used to devide the poor against themselves.

I'm not terribly familiar with the situation in France, but I think you're right - the problem is, many of the individuals there think of themselves as French, and in many respects they are. They may be citizens, they speak the language, they have been educated as such, etc. etc., but they are still seen as outsiders because of things like race and religion. They may be French, but they're not the right kind of French. They don't represent the "essence" of France, they're not what we want on the tourist brochures, so on and so forth.

It brings up the question, how much control over our own identities do we really have? If we think of ourselves as one thing, but other people see us differently, then there's a gap. I can be convinced that "I'm an insider," but if others don't believe that, what does it really matter that I think of myself as such? What does that really mean? You can't really be an "insider" without the consent of the other "insiders" who have control over you. Identities aren't shaped in a vacuum, they can only be formed in relation to other people. It's part "how you define yourself," and part "how others define you." Sometimes there's a lot of tension between the two parts, and that's where the problems arise.

Race is such a fundamental way Americans categorize and reduce people to, I really don't think there is going to be much getting around it anytime soon. I mean, almost every government form I have to fill out - employment forms, standardized testing forms, tax forms, census forms, all ask you about your race. And why is that? Obviously people still widely think of race as a meaningful and useful category by which they can make statements about people, manage people, construct policies and laws around this information. It's about putting people into these pure, neat little boxes for purposes of control and management.

[BlueBamboo]

Yeah I'm American and I have always found it a bit odd... people insisting that they are "14% Irish" and whatnot. I mean my mother was born in Germany, and though I didn't grow up in a German-speaking household or anything, she did: largely raised by her grandparents who never learned English and probably never adopted many American customs either. I probably have a lot more exposure to German culture than most people who'd consider themselves to be of German descent, but I certainly don't think of myself as German-American or anything. I don't think even my mother does. My dad's side is a mix of I don't know exactly what, so if you ask what my ancestry is I'm going to say 'half German and half other,' not '52% German and 4% French and 12% Irish and 3% Native American and....'

Though I think part of the problem is that saying you're "American" doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that you live there now. Maybe it means that your ancestors lived here 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, but where were they 300 years ago? Not likely here. On the other hand, if you call yourself "English" we can pretty well assume that 300 years ago your ancestors were mostly English too. There's no sort of roadblock in history, there's no reason to be saying "yes, but where were they from before that?". The country is too new for anyone to feel like a group of people can really be "from" here, so they say they're from somewhere else. I wonder if Canadians do they same thing, since they're in the same sort of situation?