European Americans

every ethnic groups who migrate to America has their race prepended then 'American' , even people who were in The americas before europeans have something that prefix then American. why not whites who migrated to America initially?

why every government form have other ethnic group with a suffix, even natives of this land....

a reply to: odzeandennz

It's like a branding technique, slap your name on everything (think of ACME, even in the cartoons the anvil was stamped with ACME).

Subtle propaganda techniques?

a reply to: odzeandennz

I've always wondered that as well, I don't think I've seen/read anyone identifying as a European American.
As a side note, these are the classifications in the UK census:

a reply to: odzeandennz

That's a great question. I've always identified as a European American. I was born in the US but grew up overseas, then returned for college. Technically, I'm an expat, or "expatriate". I really can't identify with the US American experience very well.

I'm told that the European immigrants to the US were imbued with the idea that they wanted to leave their national identities across the pond and were quite anxious to become "Americans" and to learn English so they could get jobs and participate as full citizens of their new country.

Today of course, everything's different. European Americans, categorized as "whites", are vilified as racist nationalistic xenophobes who have unfair advantage because of their "whiteness". Therefore, there's probably not much incentive to self-identify as European American.

Today, as well, we've been made to embrace multi-culturalism which teaches that all cultures are equally valuable. So, rather than conducting immigration policy aimed at assimilating newcomers into the US "uber" culture, they're encouraged to retain their cultural identity while navigating through their US experience. Thus, the US has gone from being a "melting" pot to a sort of stew of many different elements, weakening national identity, pride and loyalty.

With open borders, which I now support, the days of the US as a sovereign nation state are probably numbered.

a reply to: grainofsand

O,k, I get it. At first, I thought that list was woefully short.

What about the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Romans. But I guess if you identify as a "Dane" (Viking) you can write that in.

a reply to: TonyS

you've gone off the rails a bit.

- i wasnt sure if i missed something in history class, but have European Americans simply claimed America as theirs, as in established it as their own land. thus now became just 'Americans'. a sort of patriarch which unequivocally gave them the rights as rightful owners; did they skip to teach this part in history class due to the 'removal' of natives whom inhabited the Americas before hand?

i think natives are the ones who shouldnt have any prefixes to their 'Americaness'. i dont know why just white Europeans are considered simply 'Americans' when they migrated just like every ethnic groups today.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Maybe I did.

Yea, I think that European Americans came to identify "America" as their homeland, so back in the day, if you were "white" you were simply an "American".

That's a big part of the problem today really and it explains the roots of white supremacy.

a reply to: TonyS

Why do you seem to have a problem with the US being/remaining a "sovereign" nation?

Frankly I see a problem with being "MADE" to embrace multiculturalism (intimating, as with your support of open borders, that you support it). I don't care for being "made" to do anything, especially this in the face of obvious problems that are coming with FORCED multiculturalism when it involves those bent on destroying the US and/or any other civilized nation. Achieved in a manner that is acceptable to the indigenous population, it can be done over a certain time frame. But, FORCED as in "you're doing it NOW, like it or not" is wrong on so very many levels.

Looking at what's going on in Europe right now, I see absolutely NO positives/benefits to "open borders" with the way it's being done. At least not in this day and age with the lack of civilized evolution of those being forced on so many who have developed actual cultures and don't want to see it destroyed. Please support your premise, I'd really like to know how/why you seem to be supporting what's going on today.

What if I'm just a mutt?

I have mostly anishinaabe ancestry, (well and still living) and also French, Canadian, and some other mumbo jumbo.

No matter how brown my skin gets in the summer, or how quickly it fades in the winter, I was never sure what to put.

I just identify as Anishinaabe or Chippewa whenever possible on legal documents, because that's the side I look most like, and that's the side I'm closest to. Even though, I never registered with a tribe, or lived on a reservation. My papa can hardly even recall the language. But it felt more accurate than putting down any other thing *shrug*


-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess

yea, but based on skin color you could never be identified as jus american. its something else then American. no matter how long or how far back your ancestry goes. even if it pre dates columbus and even historical paleoanthropology making America your home.

i would like to know when or why this has been established, or am i the only person who ever saw it that way, no historian ever wondered, or scientists, or sociologist, or biologist.

i think its more 'political', which TonyS so vehemently wants to assert, but im none the wiser and i think there is more to it, and im not talking about today's racial nonsense.

i dont think i slept in history class at all, i just never saw an exact date when white europeans were the rightful owners of the Americas. when white history started, did people call themselves european americans on government forms?

a reply to: odzeandennz

My best guess here is the human instinct to classify the "other" has left us with these ridiculous and inaccurite titles. You also feel the need, as you mention the "whites." It's just that the other titles (ie black, brown, colored, Indian, red, yellow) have all been termed offensive to the recipient.. all but white I guess.. which is why we have these awkward substitutes.

a reply to: odzeandennz

I always write in "proto-european", for ethnicity.
Hispanic for culture, and american for nationality.

I dont like latino, but can add it to ethnicity after a slash.

religion is other or jedi.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: odzeandennz

Maybe I did.

Yea, I think that European Americans came to identify "America" as their homeland, so back in the day, if you were "white" you were simply an "American".

That's a big part of the problem today really and it explains the roots of white supremacy.

If you were born in America, you're American. Period. If you have moved to America and embraced the (multi-cultural) culture, then you are American.
Race is a seperate issue. Not one of my non-white friends would describe my race as American (white and American are not synonomous) but rather they would say I'm a white girl. As I posted above, no other race wishes to be classified by the color of their skin, hence we have come up with the PC version of "black"=African American, etc etc. All those terms were created to avoid insulting anyone rather than as an insult.

It will be a fine day when none of us feels the need to classify each other according to their race, but unfortunately we are not there yet.

I saw a great vid of a blind man talking about what race means to him (hint: nothing at all). Wish the rest of us were so enlightened, but until then I will console myself in knowing that every human has an equal chance to keep my respect regardless of any classifications, if I can see the good in them and enjoy their company.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: odzeandennz

Maybe I did.

Yea, I think that European Americans came to identify "America" as their homeland, so back in the day, if you were "white" you were simply an "American".

That's a big part of the problem today really and it explains the roots of white supremacy.

If you were born in America, you're American. Period. If you have moved to America and embraced the (multi-cultural) culture, then you are American. As I posted above, no other race wishes to be classified by the color of their skin, hence we have come up with the PC version of "black"=African American, etc etc. All those terms were created to avoid insulting anyone rather than as an insult:

well, you contradicted yourself there. if people born in America were simply 'Americans" we would have saved on so much paper and bandwidth and hours of coding and database management by not adding 'Latino, or African or Asian' etc to every government forms and job employment forms... . if you're born in America then you're 'American" why is it there's only one race that has the 'American' title with nothing else prefixed, even though migrated like every other race.

i find it odd that even people who didnt migrate to America, arent considered 'Americans' but 'Native-Americans' [which is a double quadruple entendre, since being a native means its your indigenous land...]

-as for the race not wishing to be classified by the color of their skins, im not sure where you got that from, or why would you even classify people as such. what would you classify and asian person, what color would that be, or a latino, or arab. 'black' is not a race, nor is 'white'

-at some point when European moved to America, they became simply Americans, forget those who were here first. they were labeled as 'Native Americans' which today is in the same sub class of Americans as other ethnicities living in America.

when did this become accepted, there is no mention of this in history books.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Nope, I didn't. If anything, I'm guilty of obfuscation, but I did not contradict myself.

Here's my point as plainly as I can put it. When we say African American, Native American, Asian American, Mexican American, etc.. we are referring to race.. NOT nationality.

If we were asked the nationality of any person of any of the above lineage, we would say he/she is American. Try it. Q:"What country is Kevin Hart from?"
A: "He's from America. He's American." (We obviously wouldn't say he's from Africa-America).

You and Tony S referred to "whites" several times in your posts. You were referring to a race, a skin color, not a nationality. Whites (as far as I know) are not offended by being called "white." (Although my skin has a variety of shade--not straight white--but I don't care as long as you don't call me anything obscene). So you can do that.. you can paint us all with the broad brush stroke of "white." Imagine trying to make your post without saying "white" and you would have the same dilemna we have about trying to describe any other race. You would have to refer to "European Americans" if you were not comfortable using the word "white."

When anyone (white or not) is referring to a race other than "white" they are stuck with not having an easy way of putting it. So they are forced into the PC (or so they think) way of describing race by ethnicity. But we are ethnic Americans so therefore they add the ethnicity of a person's ancestors in order to describe that.

I don't see how you could be upset if you use the word white yourself. You are also guilty of categorizing people by race.

I think it's good to talk about these issues, but hey we have a long way to go before we can eradicate the need to identify a person according to their differences to us (white guy, Muslim lady, etc) We all do it.


I'll add that forms require us to put "Caucasion" not "American"-it's an easy and broad reaching term that I suppose works for census sake.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Wait ... why is "skin color" the determinant?

Are you saying that someone with a skin color other than lily white can never be American? Isn't that a bit racist and also a bit insulting to the many who do have other skin tones and very much do identify as proud Americans?

a reply to: zosimov

Good for you.

For my part, Americans are simply to be avoided, regardless of their skin color.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: zosimov

Good for you.

For my part, Americans are simply to be avoided, regardless of their skin color.

Well that's funny, but a bit sad. A lot of good people here.

a reply to: ketsuko

wtf are you talking about??

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: odzeandennz

Nope, I didn't. If anything, I'm guilty of obfuscation, but I did not contradict myself.

Here's my point as plainly as I can put it. When we say African American, Native American, Asian American, Mexican American, etc.. we are referring to race.. NOT nationality.

If we were asked the nationality of any person of any of the above lineage, we would say he/she is American. Try it. Q:"What country is Kevin Hart from?"
A: "He's from America. He's American." (We obviously wouldn't say he's from Africa-America).
.

im glad you say this. so Kevin heart is African American.

Q. 'what country is bruce willis from?
A America. he's American.
Kevin heart is African American, Bruce Willis is American.
if you were to measure Bruce willis and kevin hart's lineage and they both have great great great grand parents whom emigrated from different countries; say bruce's lineage goes to Europe and Kevin Eastern Africa. Bruce is just American still, while Kevin Hart is African-American.

why isnt Bruce say European-American?

Q. What country is Chief 'Wiggins' from [who is 'native american']
A. America

Chief wiggins lineage dates back as far as history knows to America.
Chief wiggins is Native-American. Bruce Willis, still just American

why wouldnt the people who were natives to America, known as just Americans.
what year did the U.S. establish this? who claimed this? founding fathers?

i dont know any other countries which does this? do you?