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.
You're completely wrong. France has since the dawn of time been a nation of immigrants and multiple ethnicities even inside their own borders. People from overseas territories have been French for centuries. Even Algeria became a part of France when the US was 40 years old.
Most Europeans have at least one immigrant great-grandfather/mother. Some right-wing nativists in the US romanticise the idea that the European nations are somehow racially "pure", which isn't even remotely true. People and borders have moved in Europe since forever.
We have a saying in Europe that half of us are descended from Charlemagne. And technically it's true.
In demographics a generation is usually set at 25 years. A century of ancestors means that every person has 16 great-great-grandparents. A century more and you have 256 ancestors. Since 1776 there has been 10 generations. 1024 ancestors. That all of them would be ethnically "French", "Swedish", "Italian", "Polish" or whatever is close to impossible.
20 generations (500 years) and you have over 1 million ancestors.
Nobility in Europe have a bit fewer ancestors, as they married their cousins, sisters, whatever for centuries. But it only reinforces the point. The last king of France - Louis-Napoleon III - was French-Italian-Breton-English-Martiniquais Creole-German. And probably more. If not the king of French is "ethnically" French, hmm...
Henceforth an ethnicity is simply a social construct, as there cannot be any racially "pure" ethnicities. So therefore it quite makes sense that you're that nationality what your passport says.
Oh, and if you're unlucky and not an descendant of Charlemagne, you can say you're related to Alexander the Great. Or Caesar. One of those must be a hit.
Great post, I can't wait to hear the "counter argument"
Great post, I can't wait to hear the "counter argument"
In her very post Ariete mixes up "nationality" with "ethnicity".... the two concepts are demonstrably distinct.
You guys aren't even trying anymore.
Even if ethnicity is a social construct it is one built upon a racial, cultural, geographical, historical and complex set of social factors, and explains why the assimilation process I outlined is EXACTLY how one becomes something they are not.
And NONE of you have provided a good explanation as to whether the kids of Swedes born in Japan who live there will be considered to have "Japanese" ethnicity.... or Swedish? Would you refer to them as Japanese? And if not, ask yourself why the double standard?
Perhaps you could explain what a "multicultural person" looks like.
Anyone who's not white. We all know what this nonsense is about.
Just remember that the same right-wingers who post partisan nonsense like this around here were also the same ones defending the violent protests of the KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and other such places. Violence is OK with them if you're white. Bigots.
In her very post Ariete mixes up "nationality" with "ethnicity".... the two concepts are demonstrably distinct.
You guys aren't even trying anymore.
Even if ethnicity is a social construct it is one built upon a racial, cultural and complex set of social factors, and explains why the assimilation process I outlined is EXACTLY how one becomes something they are not.
And NONE of you have provided a good explanation as to whether the kids of Swedes born in Japan who live there will be considered to have "Japanese" ethnicity.... or Swedish? Would you refer to them as Japanese? And if not, ask yourself why the double standard?
this is just xenophobic nonsense. Why keep talking about Japan which has an entirely different culture? The Japanese even have a word for non ethnic Japanese person "gaijin" and for a racially mixed Japanese "hafu". There is no skin color or religious test in the US or any European country. The last European Country that tried that was Germany in the 30's and 40's and we saw how well that worked out for them.
Anyone who's not white. We all know what this nonsense is about.
Just remember that the same right-wingers who post partisan nonsense like this around here were also the same ones defending the violent protests of the KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and other such places. Violence is OK with them if you're white. Bigots.
Deranged blather like this is what will keep the Democratic party marginalized for a long time.
this is just xenophobic nonsense. Why keep talking about Japan which has an entirely different culture? The Japanese even have a word for non ethnic Japanese person "gaijin" and for a racially mixed Japanese "hafu". There is no skin color or religious test in the US or any European country. The last European Country that tried that was Germany in the 30's and 40's and we saw how well that worked out for them.
You don't want to talk about Japan because it shoots down your attempt to conflate nationality with ethnicity. Even in Britain they know you may be able to be British and Pakistani.... but you're not an Englishman unless you're an Englishman.... and the same process of time, ancestry, history, assimilation and culture dictates who gets to be a proper Englishman.
You are engaging in cultural and historical erasure. There IS a cultural, historical and contextual test to be considered a European ethnicity. NATIONALITY IS DIFFERENT THAN ETHNICITY.
The problem is revealed in your final sentence. You're still fighting WW2 and clinging to cliches about Nazi Germany.
You don't want to talk about Japan because it shoots down your attempt to conflate nationality with ethnicity. Even in Britain they know you may be able to be British and Pakistani.... but you're not an Englishman unless you're an Englishman.... and the same process of time, ancestry, history, assimilation and culture dictates who gets to be a proper Englishman.
You are engaging in cultural and historical erasure. There IS a cultural, historical and contextual test to be considered a European ethnicity. NATIONALITY IS DIFFERENT THAN ETHNICITY.
The problem is revealed in your final sentence. You're still fighting WW2 and clinging to cliches about Nazi Germany.
According to your 'theory' if a white South African becomes a citizen in GB and lives in England you would call them English, but if it were a black South African they could never be called English.
That is the sum total of your argument, it's really about skin color and religion. My mention of Germany was completely appropriate because that is a perfect historical example of what you are trying to sell, that there is an ethnic, racial or religious test for nationality.
All of the above is a real romantic notion. You are also again mis-reading and not comprehending what I am saying. You CAN become accepted and ethnically _______ in Europe, despite your ancestors coming from elsewhere. However, you cannot claim French ethnicity just "because" without adopting the cultural aspects of France and French living.
But this doesn't any sense, does it? You "become" French when you "behave" French? Who sets the standard what "behaving" French is? If you don't like red wine you're not French?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
The average French person does not accept a Ghanian as a Frenchman just because they are born in France. They do not accept a Moroccan as a French man just because he lives there. If you believe they do, then you are wrong, or you travel in very liberal circles who probably consider themselves "post-nationalist" anyway. The types popping up who consider themselves "pan-European" now, attempting to create a continental ethnicity.
Do you speak for the French people? I think not.
I consider myself a nationalist, and if an Albanian thinks he's Finnish, I embrace him/her as Finnish, because it's good for the country. Nationalism in it's pure form is not shutting out people who are not ethnically "pure" or "behave" as "pure".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
In her very post Ariete mixes up "nationality" with "ethnicity".... the two concepts are demonstrably distinct.
First of all, I have a dick. Secondly, as I said, ethnicities are largely a social construct. The French were Normans, Gauls, Goths, Franks, Occitans, Aquitanians, Basques, Alsatians, Provencalians and so on at first. Then they become French, because the French nationality was made up by people.
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.
