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.
One would also be forced to assume (again, under your system) that there are also no 'true' Hawaiians, no 'true' Icelanders, or 'true' Polynesians...or 'true' Sri Lankans, or 'true' Britons, 'true' Sicilians, or 'true' Cypriots or 'true' Filipinos. In fact, a good deal of the world's population at one stage or another undoubtedly arrived where they live today, by means of sea travel. Why, in your estimation, does this make them into 'less than true' citizens of their present-day homes?
Just asking, you understand. No disrespect intended.
You make some good points, and I generally agree with you. But there is one big difference between the USA and the other countries you mentioned... (to the best of my knowledge) the "native" people of those lands were the first inhabitants, regardless of how they arrived. On the other hand, the English settlers here claimed land that was already found. I'm not saying I wish they hadn't, because I believe the US has become a great country - but let's be honest, the Native Americans have a good reason to feel robbed.
All of that being said, I think a "true American" is anyone who feels American in their heart - no matter what their ancestry or place of birth is.
While my husband and I have ancestors who arrived here from 1630 in New England to 1840 in NYC (g-g-grandparents), we consider ourselves American. The only non-English speaking ancestors were German, and our grandparents ( both sides) still spoke the language and they have passed on.
I am proud of every one of them and each one I know, I am proud of their heritage and country of origin. While a lot of white Europeans are so politically correct they ignore their heritage, that will never stop me from being proud of the strength of these people who left all to come here for religious freedom, or to have a few acres of land, or to earn a living and become a free citizen of this country, not someone's menial worker. Most became farmers, many became teachers, many became involved in the financial industry.
We celebrate our families with at least 4 reunions a year ( 2 of my hubby's and 2 of mine, different ones each year). We have big families and we try to stay true to the values of our heritage, something a lot of people forget.
We have been to the UK, to Ireland, to Germany. We have researched more genealogy there, met other distant cousins. We found they were not much different than we are.......... so, do you celebrate your heritage or do you celebrate you family? We celebrate both.
[And, for all the people who look to St. Patricks for a dinner of corned beef and cabbage, it was a US-invention. It was not made in Ireland. However, my grandmother made a fabulous tripe in a white sauce which was her grandmother's recipe. Can anyone tell me that recipe? I was too little when she died to remember how.]
I believe that started in New York. The Irish Americans subtituted Irish bacon for corned beef.
You have it in reverse. In Ireland, bacon ( kind of like peameal bacon, as my grandmother did it) was used and in the US came corned beef for the cheaper cost..
1/2 Irish, unknown when they came to the US because I never met my biological father.
I don't consider it "important" per se, but I as I am fascinated by languages and culture, it's somewhat important to me.
I also have countless friends overseas - mostly in Europe, and relatives in Norway.
Interesting note - I have had this topic come up when speaking to some of my foreign friends, and the reactions range from "Well, that's kind of silly." to "That's so cool that you preserve your heritage."
The ones who think it's silly generally seem to feel like we are trying to co-opt something that doesn't belong to us anymore.
You have it in reverse. In Ireland, bacon ( kind of like peameal bacon, as my grandmother did it) was used and in the US came corned beef for the cheaper cost..
The Irish learned from their Jewish neighbors in New York that corned beef is cheaper and tastes pretty good so they used that instead.
Back then, there were many cases of people caring about others regardless of religion or nationality. I have read stories of Irish immigrants working at Jewish bakeries during the Jewish holidays so the person can go and celebrate their holidays and not have to close shop that day. The Jewish person would help out the Irish immigrant on Christmas/Easter, etc.
You make some good points, and I generally agree with you. But there is one big difference between the USA and the other countries you mentioned... (to the best of my knowledge) the "native" people of those lands were the first inhabitants, regardless of how they arrived. On the other hand, the English settlers here claimed land that was already found. I'm not saying I wish they hadn't, because I believe the US has become a great country - but let's be honest, the Native Americans have a good reason to feel robbed.
All of that being said, I think a "true American" is anyone who feels American in their heart - no matter what their ancestry or place of birth is.
Not to discount your post...(and you do sound like a decent, thoughful person), I'll only quibble with you as a sort of 'devil's advocate' myself. My purpose here is not to minimize those atrocities that occurred in the "invasion/discovery/settlement/deveolpment" (whatever) of North America, but to simply put it into context.
Contrary to what you say, MANY of the lands I mentioned DID have 'aboriginal' populations, who WERE pushed aside by today's "true" modern inhabitants. Japan, for example, had the Ainu...a curious people showing some Caucasian traits, a FEW of whom still exist. They were there BEFORE today's Japanese. Taiwan also had an aboriginal (non-Chinese)population, a few of whom still survive on the fringes of society.
Take places like Great Britain, Sicily, Crete, and almost any other long-settled island...their entire history was one incident after another of Invaders' arriving, pushing aside the residents and settling in....only to find THEMSELVES invaded and pushed aside later, by new arrivals.
Other instances are more questionable. Take Greenland, for example. When the Vikings landed in South Greenland. the Eskimos (Inuit) hadn't yet arrived that far east. These two cultures, both on the move, "met". When Europeans first landed on the Cape of Good Hope, (South Africa) it was inhabited ONLY by the primitive Hottentots. More advanced African tribes had not yet arrived there. So again, this was a 'head-on collision' of cultures (Europeans vs Zulus)in which the Hottentot were simply overwhelmed...because neither the Dutch NOR the Zulus truly "belonged" there.
It's pretty much taken as fact today that the Navahos "invaded" the Four-Corners area (their traditional home) just a couple of centuries before the Europeans did....and in so doing, undoubtedly 'pushed aside' the resident Hopi and others (Kele, help me on this).
We know of course that a FEW places...(Hawaii, The Falklands, Iceland) were established when early-day 'settlers' arrived in lands that had NO previous occupants. But that situation is pretty rare. Almost ALL of the history of human migration is a story of "invasion" of one group by another.
Want to know what I think the whole secret is? It's 90% publicity. If your group arrived somewhere before it could get into 'the news', you were "in", and history would label you as a 'native'. But if the arrival of your group somehow made it into the history books..."bingo", you were an 'invader', as would be your descendants for all time.
One more factor in all this...(one that's uncomfortable to mention ?)...it's simple, old-fashioned racism. Just as Asians whose ancestors arrived in California 4 or 5 generations ago may grow weary of having to explain "how they speak English so well", and "how they're able to like American food"....and Hispanic Americans grow weary of being asked to "explain why the illegals act the way they do", so it is with any prejudice or 'assumption. Whites in the Bahamas are "assumed" to be new arrivals, though their ancestors arrived there during the American revolution. Why? Because whites don't "seem" like Bahamians...Bahamian natives are supposed to be black.
Ditto for the white "Redlegs" of Barbados and Saint Vincent. Their ancestors arrived in the Caribbean before most of the blacks...yet we ALL know that Caribbean Blacks are 'natives', while whites are just 'Tourists"...or expats.
Whites in Hawaii are thought of as 'haoles', while the descendants of Japanese and Chinese and Filipinos, (many of whom arrived long AFTER the whites), are assumed to be 'locals'.
Very interesting subject, human migration....and one that contains a lot of facts, a lot of speculation, a little 'hype', and a WHOLE lot of sensitive feelings. But I DON'T see the 'invasion of North America' as anything different from the invasion of anywhere else...except that it got 'written about' a little better than most.
No, I'll have to agree with Gizmo on this...the Native Americans WERE robbed, (and THEN some).....the only qualifier is that their 'robbers' got much more publicity than EARLIER groups of robbers.....
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.
