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.
I'm not suggesting that it's absolutely untrue that certain aspects of the U.S.'s former connection to the British are still evident in some American cultural norms, but, as you mention, we don't really think about them; frankly, I think we should keep it that way. It may seem rather cold of me to think this way, but I honestly don't believe that Americans are doing themselves or their fellow citizens any favors by viewing their nationality as being more or less co-equal to their ancestry.
I think the value in a book like "Albion's Seed" is that it explains a lot of the social and political currents that confuse us in our own day and age. It seems that different groups are entrenched in certain beliefs and we don't understand each other. I think we pay for this in negative outcomes.
Joe Bageant's books also talk about this misunderstanding and how it plays out in our politics.
I myself had a culture shock just moving to the mountains where the locals mainly are of Scots-Irish descent. Albion's Seed, Joe Bageant's books, and other books go a long way to explaining the mystifying attitudes I have witnessed here.
The things that didn't make sense to me, now make complete sense. Anything that helps us to understand ourselves and each other is a good thing in my opinion. To me, this information could make me a better American, not less of one.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy
Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting.
Americans in the 21st century need to devote more thought to what an "American identity" might be instead of preceding such ponderings with thoughts of where their GGGG-Grandparents came from. If we believe that our country truly has a history of being a genuine "melting-pot," then why, in order to have a sense of identity, examine and celebrate any minor characteristic about this place or this group that/whom may superficially seem kind of German, Italian, Greek, Swedish, Irish, Enlgish, etc.?
And before anyone accuses me of simply espousing a bunch of right-wing, flag-waving, hyper-nationalist sentiment, rest assured that none of that is true. I'm simply a non-hyphenated American who actually embraces that fact instead of celebrating the national/cultural origins of my deceased ancestors.
Lastly, I should note that when I actually do acknowledge my immigrant ancestors, I try to acknowledge them as having been Americans--I have a feeling they would have wanted it that way, don't you think?
Am presuming you’re just talking about the idea of national identities in general, rather than that peculiar ideological sort of U.S. nationalism known as "American exceptionalism". Still, it's difficult to see how one can embrace that very "melting-pot" identity, without appreciating the different “ingredients”… especially when any of those unique "flavors" suddenly becomes a bit more pronounced than others! And what could be more appropriate for a modern global culture, than a national identity which actually integrates and acknowledges the uniqueness of its parts, rather than trying to submerge them all into some homogenous, white bread, one-size-fits-all "nationality"?
Or perhaps like foods, it's just a matter of preference. Crude analogy, but am personally fond of SE Asian cooking, precisely because it manages to combine so many different flavors and textures, while still keeping them more or less identifiable within the final dish… like the subtle taste and texture of say, shrimp, while retaining the crunchiness of peanut here, or the tang of lemongrass and spicy chiles there.
Although admittedly, there are some who may prefer other "cuisines", that to me, might seem like more of an undifferentiated "mash-up"!
Am presuming you’re just talking about the idea of national identities in general, rather than that peculiar ideological sort of U.S. nationalism known as "American exceptionalism".
American pride is great. American exceptionalism blows.
I won't go into "American" and I know what I'm saying might upset some pro-multicultural Australians, but generally, "Australian"/Aussie/Skip means British Isle descent. It means people of that descent who have roots that have been in the country for many generations. So they don't really need to hold onto their Englishness, because it goes without saying if you are "Australian".
I don't really agree with it, but really, that's how it is for many people.
I recognize people like you are the reason why so many other people outside the US think Americans are so obsessed and paranoid about whiteness and races, europe, and blondeness.
I will try to be kind and answer your question the most efficient possibly.
I have noticed several parts of north/western france people tend to look the most similar to brits/Irish in terms of physical appearance wise,(although still pretty dishtingable) the next would be the wallons from belgium.
Danes look too tall and blond as a whole to be compared with english/Irish people, also they have more robust/bigger boned builds and whole different facial features. Some western norwegians might come a bit closer, but as a whole you can tell they are a whole completly different people from Brits/irish.
Imo, many if not most brits/Irish would pass easier for australians/new zelanders, or even for white americans/canadians than they would do for any other european ethnicity, in fact when Im in the UK i can't forget but notice how many of the people walking down on the street of major or second-tier cities could easily just pass for a regular white american dude. In germany and other continental european coutries the people look different and unmistakeably non-american, even if you ignore the clothing.
Are you O.K.? Danes are not as tall as you say, the average stature of a Dane is around 182cm is only slightly taller than the average White American at 178cm. They might look very tall to you, maybe you're so short. White Americans are on average much bigger than most Europeans including Scandinavians because of their diet, so you probably don't know what you're talking about. In beginning of the 20th century the tallest Europeans were the British and Scandinavians especially those of Scotland and Americans. The Dutch were on average shorter then. The British,Irish, White Americans remained about the same, while the Dutch, Scandinavians rose and became taller due to healthier diets, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. Education is the key. Well it wouldn't be surprising to see that White Australians, New Zealanders, also many White Canadians and Americans look British because of historical ties. There also many Americans who are also of Scandinavian descent, Marilyn Monroe was of Norwegian descent, Scarlett Johansson of Danish ancestry. The single largest ethnic group in America is German for your information. There are many Germans who look Americans, there 50 million people in America who have some or full German ancestry, this is why I asked if you were O.K.? You are definitely clueless. Bruce Willis, Sandra Bullock are of even recent German ancestry. There are 4.6 million people of Norwegian ancestry in America.
I wouldn't say one continental ethnicity as such. The British and Irish resemble most the Dutch, Belgians and northwestern Germans morphologically. Although some look like Scandinavians from Norway and Denmark and others also like the northern French. However most French are round-skulled(brachycephals), most British and Irish are not. So the British and Irish are just typical northwestern
Europeans. They vary from "Celtic" to "Germanic" looks, dark hair as expected somewhat more common in the known "Celtic" areas than in "Germanic" areas. Northern Europe particularly Scandinavia is almost exclusively "Germanic", therefore would have a higher frequency of blonde hair. Anyway, Scandinavia also has the highest frequency of light hair among Europeans. In terms of hair color, the British vary somewhat more than Northern Europeans and at the same time have a much higher frequency of red hair than any other Europeans. The Dutch who are predominantly Germanic with some Celtic admixtures more visible in the south, show blond more common in the north than the south. The Dutch as a whole would have a higher frequency of blond hair than the British and Irish as a whole are Celtic with Germanic admixture more visible in England, parts of Scotland. However the difference is as clear cut as between brunet and blond. There are plenty of other Northern Europeans with dark hair , in northern Sweden too. All in all, The Dutch seem to be the closest to the British and Irish, morphologically they're similar, the difference are slight but consistent. The British and Irish have slightly narrower, longer noses, slightly darker/rather "browner" hair, slightly paler skin tones, ruddier as well, thinner lips while the Dutch are slightly blonder, broader-nosed, slightly stockier in build, poutier lips.
for examples these are actual statistics pulled out of medical journals comparing European groups.
Dutch Women
Hair colour: Red/Reddish(3.3%), Blonde(19.7%), Dark blonde/Light brown(50.2%), Dark brown/Black
I recognize people like you are the reason why so many other people outside the US think Americans are so obsessed and paranoid about whiteness and races, europe, and blondeness.
I will try to be kind and answer your question the most efficient possibly.
I have noticed several parts of north/western france people tend to look the most similar to brits/Irish in terms of physical appearance wise,(although still pretty dishtingable) the next would be the wallons from belgium.
Danes look too tall and blond as a whole to be compared with english/Irish people, also they have more robust/bigger boned builds and whole different facial features. Some western norwegians might come a bit closer, but as a whole you can tell they are a whole completly different people from Brits/irish.
Imo, many if not most brits/Irish would pass easier for australians/new zelanders, or even for white americans/canadians than they would do for any other european ethnicity, in fact when Im in the UK i can't forget but notice how many of the people walking down on the street of major or second-tier cities could easily just pass for a regular white american dude. In germany and other continental european coutries the people look different and unmistakeably non-american, even if you ignore the clothing.
The British are short, right? The tallest basketball player in the world is of English descent, he stands about 7 feet and 8 inches(237.7cm). The tallest rugby player Brian Metcalfe of Scotland stands at 7 feet(213cm). The tallest man ever recorded was Robert Wadlow, an American (most likely of English/Anglo-Saxon descent) stood 8 feet and 11 inches(272cm)!!
Is it common for a person of pure British Isles descent not to have a single blue eyed extended family member?
It actually very uncommon for a person of pure British Isles not to have a single blue-eyed extended family. It's actually impossible, because pure British Islanders are well among Europe's lightest and bluest-eyed people. For example if you take a look at the Faces of Ireland project, you'll will find out actually the most common eye color is blue, irrespective of hair color! Another example out of the 43 American presidents, 88% had ancestry from the British Isles(mostly English to my own surprise) and 88% had blue and other light eyes.
I would probably say Danes and Norwegians look the most similar, I think the Dutch kinda have a unique look going on and Germans look pretty different from the people of the Isles. Genetic charts show that Danes and Norwegians fall somewhere in between Celtic and English people and Swedes.
Also the fairer looking Spanish and Portuguese people definitely resemble the Welsh quite a bit. And would you say due to the Roman occupation, some Britons look somewhat Italian especially in the south, I have seen quite a few Brits with 'Roman' noses. Though I've heard the occupation had very little genetic imprint, it's kinda hard to imagine it having none whatsoever.
I'd say british just look british, atlantic european. In terms of features they are obviously closer to Irish than Anyone else. Now If we should have to find someone closer in continental europe.
Id say people from north western france (britanny) and followed by belgian wallons. They have pretty much the same statures on average and similar distribution of hair and eye colors. I have lived in the UK and visited many times belgium/northern france.
Last edited by Traveler86; 05-25-2013 at 08:22 PM..
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 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.
