U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-24-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,506 posts, read 26,116,900 times
Reputation: 26477

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
I've told you which definition I'm using. The point is that YMMV depending on what part of the family tree is looked at.

(PS to all interested parties: If you want the forum to be about genealogy, participate in the genealogy threads.)
Yes, you did. But without the first qualifying statement, the second is ambiguous. That is what I meant.

I'm not sure what you mean by the P.S. Isn't that what we are doing?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,506 posts, read 26,116,900 times
Reputation: 26477
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
I think to dismiss those immigrant parents as not being "of" their new home is doing them a great disservice. Whether they completed the naturalization process or not, they were residents of their new location. So they are the first generation.

I would differentiate the two by calling the first generation to be born in the new location, the "first native-born generation."
That brings up an interesting question. What if the first generation to reside here never considers themselves to be Americans? What if they wish to retain their original nationality and just live here?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,039,435 times
Reputation: 5779
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
That brings up an interesting question. What if the first generation to reside here never considers themselves to be Americans? What if they wish to retain their original nationality and just live here?
Wants to? I guess they can consider themselves whatever they want. But if they live in a place, they're residents of that place. No getting around that. They'll forever be natives of where they were born, though.

And my guess is, if they didn't want to be Americans (or at least, want their children to be), they wouldn't have come here. If they were coming purely for economic reasons, they'd have gone back.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,506 posts, read 26,116,900 times
Reputation: 26477
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
Wants to? I guess they can consider themselves whatever they want. But if they live in a place, they're residents of that place. No getting around that. They'll forever be natives of where they were born, though.

And my guess is, if they didn't want to be Americans (or at least, want their children to be), they wouldn't have come here. If they were coming purely for economic reasons, they'd have gone back.
No, I do not buy that. If I came here for whatever reason, had children born here, but I never considered myself American and wished to retain my original nationality, I am not an American.

In fact, whether I could even become a naturalized citizen would, in the early years of the US, hinge on my being a white male.

Naturalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are referring to generations as an American, to me first generation American implies the first person in the family to be a citizen, either by naturalization or birth.

To resolve the ambiguity, you just need to define your terms: first generation to live in America, first generation born in America, first generation American citizen (either naturalized or born here).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 03:03 AM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,039,435 times
Reputation: 5779
Yes, you don't have to "buy" what I'm saying. And that Wikipedia article is talking about modern-day naturalization. We're talking historically here. Or at least, I am.

It's not that white males were the only ones who could gain citizenship, but rather that a wife and children took the citizenship of the husband/father. But until the 1900s, legal citizenship was nothing that one had to do to become a citizen of the community.

People migrate here. They live, work, pay taxes in a community. They are citizens of that community.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 07:28 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,867 posts, read 57,900,981 times
Reputation: 29291
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
I think to dismiss those immigrant parents as not being "of" their new home is doing
them a great disservice. ... I would differentiate the two by calling the first generation to be born
in the new location the "first native-born generation."
Nope. Trying so hard to justify the position is a good sign of it being wrong.

Mom and Dad (if legal) may have become citizens but they and even the oldest sibling
born in the old country and brought in as an infant... are simply not first generation.
Naturalized is not native.

You have to actually be born in the new place to be the first generation.
Being the "first native-born generation" in the family doesn't require the naturalization step.
It's really that simple.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,039,435 times
Reputation: 5779
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Nope. Trying so hard to justify the position is a good sign of it being wrong.

Mom and Dad (if legal) may have become citizens but they and even the oldest sibling
born in the old country and brought in as an infant... are simply not first generation.
Naturalized is not native.

You have to actually be born in the new place to be the first generation.
Being the "first native-born generation" in the family doesn't require the naturalization step.
It's really that simple.
Perhaps you see it as "that simple" today. And certainly adding in the "native-born" to your "first native-born generation" does simply things. Unfortunately, that wasn't the question that was asked.

And simple, it isn't always. My foreign born step-grandfather married a Montana-born woman. In the 1930s, when he became naturalized, she had to as well. She no longer was considered a citizen. So where she was born had nothing to do with her naturalization status, did it? And even today, a child born of American citizens, in a foreign country, is still an American citizen. Even today there is not a strict birthplace/citizenship correlation.

And I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm simply stating my opinion on it. So don't "Nope" me like you're the end-all and be-all of opinions.

Nor did I say that naturalized was native. Those are two different things. And was not what anyone was discussing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 12:14 PM
 
1 posts, read 474 times
Reputation: 10
Question Generation as it pertains to a city.

My father was born in Denver, Colorado. My Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Great Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. I was not born in Denver, but I live here full time now and have no plans to live anywhere else in the future. Can I refer to myself as 6th Generation Denver while living here now, but not having been born here?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2016, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
8,223 posts, read 12,814,791 times
Reputation: 10451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverGlendinning View Post
My father was born in Denver, Colorado. My Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. My Great Great Great Grandfather was born and lived in Denver. I was not born in Denver, but I live here full time now and have no plans to live anywhere else in the future. Can I refer to myself as 6th Generation Denver while living here now, but not having been born here?
6th generation living in Denver, sure. Not the 6th generation born in Denver. This really has nothing to do with the original topic though, hopefully this doesn't drag the original topic up all over again.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 09:33 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
4,156 posts, read 2,162,700 times
Reputation: 8091
Maybe I should start a new topic about this, but does anyone know offhand approximately how many generations back to the Pilgrims? I am directly descended from a Mayflower (ship and Compact) ancestor on one side of my family.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top