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.
Well, if you want to compare that figure with "Canadian", it's mainly because as I said that the Canadian ethnic origin was "marketed" or "publicized" in Canada by some people and media outlets with a specific objective in mind. And this was not done in the US to my knowledge.
Is there a deeper attitudinal issue beneath that though? We've never had a similar marketing exercise here, yet still have comparable numbers selecting "Australian"; almost as if they are saying "are you kidding, how is this nonsense relevant to me?"
Is the Aus data from the ABS? If so, you'd be aware they put a major caveate on it: its not reliable, and is not meant to be. People may answer that question or they may not, can use whatever definition of ethnicity they choose to apply, and may list four or three or two or one backgrounds as they see fit.
But what's interesting to me, is that so few Americans seem to see themselves as primarily "American".
Yep they are indeed from ABS. It's the closest thing I have to the statistics I hope to find though. But you can say the same about the Canadian and American census.
It is interesting to note that as well, compared to Australians and Canadians like Acejack had mentioned. But I think that has something to do with how they tabulate the results too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Still, if I would rank various countries in terms of Britishness, from most to least, I would do it this way:
NZ
Australia
Canada (outside Quebec)
USA
I would agree. Though Victoria, BC is probably one of the most British place I have been among these countries Though I have heard that in the case of Canada and to a lesser extend NZ, the Scottish presence is rather large within the British contingent.
Just look at sports for example. US and Canada (gridiron football, baseball, ice hockey...) pretty much do their own thing, wheras Australia is a huge rival to England in multiple sports (rugby league, cricket...).
Baseball is English in origin. Gridiron is based on Rugby, and Ice Hockey also owes much to the British. They may be North American sports, but they still owe their existence on this side of the Atlantic to the British.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj
Australians play cricket, speak with an unquestionably "British" accent, and are far more likely to tune into British TV and music than an American.
British music is hugely popular in this country. At least it is on West Coast.
Conversely, the British ceased to be the primary group of immigrants to the US shortly after independence.
No, but they've remained one of the largest immigrant groups all these years:
^ "They Chose Minnesota" -- Chapter 6: English, Scots, Welsh and British Canadians.
The British immigrants of the 19th Century were a pivotal part of the American Industrial Revolution.
The US not only rejected a plethora of British institutions and traditions, but fought and defeated the British Empire.
We've held onto far more than we've ever rejected.
In the southern US African-Americans compromise half the population and have been absolutely integral to the birth of traditional American cultural trappings such as country bluegrass music, rock n' roll.
Bluegrass is a mix of traditional British Isles and African American music. Just Sayin'
Is there a deeper attitudinal issue beneath that though? We've never had a similar marketing exercise here, yet still have comparable numbers selecting "Australian"; almost as if they are saying "are you kidding, how is this nonsense relevant to me?"
Well, in Canada it started in the 1990s when there was a lot of political turmoil and a rise of separatism in Quebec. A lot of talk about a balkanized Canada and hyphenated Canadians.
I think it was the Toronto Star or the Toronto Sun that started a campaign entitled "Call me Canadian!" for people to write in "Canadian" as ethnic origin on their census forum. It was not given as one of the options but there was a blank line for write-in responses. The campaign snowballed and the number of people choosing "Canadian" grew almost ten-fold from one census to the next.
Most surprising was that Canadian as an ethnic origin is highest in the separatist bastions of Quebec. Quebec has the highest percentage of people of Canadian ethnic origin. Note that on the French form it says Canadien, and in spoken French, Canadien and Canadian don't always mean the same things in people's minds, especially if they want to make a point politically.
In Quebec there are twice as many people of Canadien ethnic origin as there are of French ethnic origin.
So Quebec according to the stats is about 55% Canadien, 25% French, and the rest other origins.
But in actual fact most ethnographers would tell you that Quebec is over 80% French ethnic origin.
In a lot of ways Canada is a more comparable nation, although its still much older. The prime difference there is the French legacy; but that seems to have divided Canada into Francophone and English speaking , with separatism and language laws always present below the surface. That's a legacy most Aussies are probably glad we don't share.
There aren't only negatives associated with this. It also enriches us (culturally and in other ways) and makes us more interesting as a country.
But what's interesting to me, is that so few Americans seem to see themselves as primarily "American".
Those identifying solely as American are primarily southerners from the areas that received very little or no immigration. In America everyone flaunts the most exciting ethnicity in their background. So for example, someone who is almost entirely English ancestry will identify as German due to that one great-grandparent. Other ancestries are cool to have - like Irish. In the US there is a solid, national identity and culture. People are confident that they can identify as German and still be 100% American. Americans don't have to convince themselves that they are American, or that such a culture or identity exists. Americans also don't need to convince the rest of the world that they are American because the rest of the world is quite of aware of Americans. Whether defined negatively or positively, American culture, and the invasion of American culture into other foreign cultures is often a topic of debate in other countries. Anything from eating a hamburger to wearing a baseball cap or listening to hip-hop and country can be labeled as being American culture.
In Canada, the national culture, if there is such a thing, is very shaky at best and the government does it's best to encourage people to see themselves as Canadians first and foremost. Canada was recently just a part of the British Empire (like Australia), but is essentially two countries in one, and based off of the conquest of one of the countries. Additionally, English Canadians reside next to a much larger and more important English speaking country who they strikingly resemble. As a result, the government has tried to meld the two solitudes into one single nation through policies encompassing a wide spectrum of political thought. Still, when you look at the Canada's map of ancestral identification, you will see that the areas identifying as "Canadian" are overwhelmingly the French speaking areas where inhabitants can trace their ancestry back to the 1600's. The vast majority of English Canada - especially in terms of population distribution - identifies as something else on the map.
I imagine Australia is not as extreme in it's cultural insecurity as Canada since it is not based off of the conquest of a French colony, and it is not a government shared between two nations of people. However, the insecurity of the Australian identity is made public in debates over monarchy and republicanism, as well as the debate over changing the national flag. One can see arguments for changing things often boil down to simply creating an Australian identity, or to distinguish Australia as being something other than a British colony. I think this ties into a common outside perspective that Australians are little more than cooler Britons living in a warmer climate. Perhaps it is a desire to establish an identity outside of being British or a former British colony that leads Australians to identify as "Australian" rather than English/Irish/Scottish in greater numbers.
@ RMoore - I am not arguing that Americans don't listen to British music, receive British immigration, or have traditions stemming from the British. Such an argument is ridiculous. What I am arguing is that the Britishness of America pales in comparison to Australia. If you were to walk down a street in Australia you are far more likely run into a Briton, the son of a Briton, or the grandchild of a Briton than in America. You are far more likely to see British television, and the extent of British traditions impacting your life would be much more great. Also, RMoore, the British most certainly did not remain the largest immigrant group from 1820-1980. The source you provided does not say that anywhere, it only says that a raw number of 8 million Britons came to America between 1820-1980. German immigration outnumbered British immigration by about 2-1 from the early-mid 1800's until the 1920's-30's, and the British were only accounted for about half of all immigrants even before independence in 1776.
Baseball is English in origin. Gridiron is based on Rugby, and Ice Hockey also owes much to the British. They may be North American sports, but they still owe their existence on this side of the Atlantic to the British.
Is baseball and ice hockey of British origin? Had no idea! But I guess what I am trying to say is that these are the sports that aren't popular in UK/Australia. On the flip side, Rugby and cricket aren't sports that people from North American would pay attention to the same way that they do in UK/Australia.
Is baseball and ice hockey of British origin? Had no idea! .
Baseball is based on the old English game or rounders.
Hockey is not so clear, and its origins might be continental European. In the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam there are paintings by Flemish masters from hundreds of years ago that show people on frozen canals playing something that looks a lot like hockey.
Baseball is based on the old English game or rounders.
Hockey is not so clear, and its origins might be continental European. In the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam there are paintings by Flemish masters from hundreds of years ago that show people on frozen canals playing something that looks a lot like hockey.
Interesting you learn something new everyday I was thinking perhaps these North American sports were based on or evolved from one sport or another, but didn't know which and where.
Also, RMoore, the British most certainly did not remain the largest immigrant group from 1820-1980.
The source you provided does not say that anywhere, it only says that a raw number of 8 million Britons came to America between 1820-1980.
The British were over 60% of the population at the time of Independence.
^
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.
Though I have heard that in the case of Canada and to a lesser extend NZ, the Scottish presence is rather large within the British contingent.
