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.
"To be honest with you I doubt there are any Russians in the US posting on here. And people born in the US to Russian forefathers are not Russian, just like people that call themselves Italian American or Irish American are not Italian or Irish."
"Well both my parents immigrated from Ukraine/Russia including my brother and all my family members, I grew learning Russian first and grew up in a neighborhood full of Russians and to this day my mom speaks limited English so I use Russian on a daily basis. Yes my lived experiences are not the same as in Russia, so I’m not “Russian” in that sense, but my experiences are different from typical Americans as well. Growing up I never felt fully “American” and had a strong “Russian” identity. I also felt like I had more in common with other immigrant groups such as Mexicans and Asians than I did with white Americans, even if technically I am one. Over the years I’ve grown to identify with my American identity, but my “Russian” upbringing will always play a big part of who I am."
And from then on we had a banter about whether immigrant groups can claim the identity of their ancestral homeland based on ethnicity.
Easthome's position was that they can't since the so called "ethnicities" i.e Russian, Italian, French etc. are nothing more than nationalities, and the moment they step outside those borders their offspring will be of the nationality of which ever country they are born into, i.e Italian-Americans are just Americans. @easthome please clarify if I missed your point.
My position was that firstly in Nation States the nationality is based on the predominant ethnicity which share the same name. So for example someone can be a citizen of Russia but not be an ethnic Russian and vice versa.
So coming up to my second point, when these people move to another country and haven't fully assimilated they do indeed hold on to their ancestral ethnicity for at least a couple generations, however after a certain amount of time the immigrant groups will either be fully assimilated and merge into the mainstream ethnicity of their new homeland, or if their community is large/conservative enough or they are being persecuted/ostracized they will slowly evolve into their own ethnicity separate from their ancestral homeland. For example German-Americans are a pretty good example of an ethnicity that assimilated into mainstream Anglo-America, whereas African-Americans never fully assimilated and formed their own unique ethnicity that has grown to be completely different from the African ethnicities they originally derived from.
So going to the original statement, I think Italian-Americans are no longer "Italians" but I think they still hold onto some unique customs that makes them their own ethnicity hence why I think Italian-American is a valid moniker, at least for those that hold onto those traditions and customs.
So which side of the debate do you fall under, or perhaps you are somewhere in between, or perhaps you think something entirely different, please discuss further.
* @mods please feel free to move posts from the Russia thread that pertains to this topic.
"To be honest with you I doubt there are any Russians in the US posting on here. And people born in the US to Russian forefathers are not Russian, just like people that call themselves Italian American or Irish American are not Italian or Irish."
"Well both my parents immigrated from Ukraine/Russia including my brother and all my family members, I grew learning Russian first and grew up in a neighborhood full of Russians and to this day my mom speaks limited English so I use Russian on a daily basis. Yes my lived experiences are not the same as in Russia, so I’m not “Russian” in that sense, but my experiences are different from typical Americans as well. Growing up I never felt fully “American” and had a strong “Russian” identity. I also felt like I had more in common with other immigrant groups such as Mexicans and Asians than I did with white Americans, even if technically I am one. Over the years I’ve grown to identify with my American identity, but my “Russian” upbringing will always play a big part of who I am."
And from then on we had a banter about whether immigrant groups can claim the identity of their ancestral homeland based on ethnicity.
Easthome's position was that they can't since the so called "ethnicities" i.e Russian, Italian, French etc. are nothing more than nationalities, and the moment they step outside those borders their offspring will be of the nationality of which ever country they are born into, i.e Italian-Americans are just Americans. @easthome please clarify if I missed your point.
My position was that firstly in Nation States the nationality is based on the predominant ethnicity which share the same name. So for example someone can be a citizen of Russia but not be an ethnic Russian and vice versa.
So coming up to my second point, when these people move to another country and haven't fully assimilated they do indeed hold on to their ancestral ethnicity for at least a couple generations, however after a certain amount of time the immigrant groups will either be fully assimilated and merge into the mainstream ethnicity of their new homeland, or if their community is large/conservative enough or they are being persecuted/ostracized they will slowly evolve into their own ethnicity separate from their ancestral homeland. For example German-Americans are a pretty good example of an ethnicity that assimilated into mainstream Anglo-America, whereas African-Americans never fully assimilated and formed their own unique ethnicity that has grown to be completely different from the African ethnicities they originally derived from.
So going to the original statement, I think Italian-Americans are no longer "Italians" but I think they still hold onto some unique customs that makes them their own ethnicity hence why I think Italian-American is a valid moniker, at least for those that hold onto those traditions and customs.
So which side of the debate do you fall under, or perhaps you are somewhere in between, or perhaps you think something entirely different, please discuss further.
* @mods please feel free to move posts from the Russia thread that pertains to this topic.
Well I am an Australian and I think Black Americans are very much assimilated in American culture and way of life and are very different people from other blacks especially from Africa. They tend to have the same culture as White Americans from my encounters, yet only difference is their skin colour.
Well a black person born or lived in Italy most of her/his life is more Italian than someone calling themselves Italian in the New World, and has never been there, many cases can't speak the language in Italy. SAme with a Black English person born and raised in England, and they are more English than someone born outside of England and has never lived in England.
BTW Abram Petrovich Gannibal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibalwho was born in Africa but served in Russia during the imperial days, is more Russian than you, since you have not really lived in Russia and spent a great time there.
I too am Australian and just want to say that we use the term heritage rather than, or as well as, nationality or ethnicity, to describe a relationship with a country of origin. Whether that of the person or perhaps one of their ancestors.
When completing our census we are not asked about race, other than whether we are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, but are asked to nominate our heritage and can nominate more than one. My husband was born in Italy and he thinks he nominated that, but is not sure! Our children are thus half Italian by heritage but nominated Australian, as their links with Italy go about as far as enjoying pasta.
"To be honest with you I doubt there are any Russians in the US posting on here. And people born in the US to Russian forefathers are not Russian, just like people that call themselves Italian American or Irish American are not Italian or Irish."
"Well both my parents immigrated from Ukraine/Russia including my brother and all my family members, I grew learning Russian first and grew up in a neighborhood full of Russians and to this day my mom speaks limited English so I use Russian on a daily basis. Yes my lived experiences are not the same as in Russia, so I’m not “Russian” in that sense, but my experiences are different from typical Americans as well. Growing up I never felt fully “American” and had a strong “Russian” identity. I also felt like I had more in common with other immigrant groups such as Mexicans and Asians than I did with white Americans, even if technically I am one. Over the years I’ve grown to identify with my American identity, but my “Russian” upbringing will always play a big part of who I am."
And from then on we had a banter about whether immigrant groups can claim the identity of their ancestral homeland based on ethnicity.
Easthome's position was that they can't since the so called "ethnicities" i.e Russian, Italian, French etc. are nothing more than nationalities, and the moment they step outside those borders their offspring will be of the nationality of which ever country they are born into, i.e Italian-Americans are just Americans. @easthome please clarify if I missed your point.
My position was that firstly in Nation States the nationality is based on the predominant ethnicity which share the same name. So for example someone can be a citizen of Russia but not be an ethnic Russian and vice versa.
So coming up to my second point, when these people move to another country and haven't fully assimilated they do indeed hold on to their ancestral ethnicity for at least a couple generations, however after a certain amount of time the immigrant groups will either be fully assimilated and merge into the mainstream ethnicity of their new homeland, or if their community is large/conservative enough or they are being persecuted/ostracized they will slowly evolve into their own ethnicity separate from their ancestral homeland. For example German-Americans are a pretty good example of an ethnicity that assimilated into mainstream Anglo-America, whereas African-Americans never fully assimilated and formed their own unique ethnicity that has grown to be completely different from the African ethnicities they originally derived from.
So going to the original statement, I think Italian-Americans are no longer "Italians" but I think they still hold onto some unique customs that makes them their own ethnicity hence why I think Italian-American is a valid moniker, at least for those that hold onto those traditions and customs.
So which side of the debate do you fall under, or perhaps you are somewhere in between, or perhaps you think something entirely different, please discuss further.
* @mods please feel free to move posts from the Russia thread that pertains to this topic.
I've already written a bit about this on that thread as well , but on that note I may as well briefly reiterate/expand on my previous statements here .
So in short I happen to take the view that there is no universal hard and fast answer as to what the exact difference is between nationality and ethnicity , especially when it comes to the issue of what criteria Old World and New World countries use , with the longer edition of my position being as follows :
As I've written previously nationality often tends to closely correspond to ethnicity in Old World countries partly due to them being more ethnically homogeneous than their New World counterparts and partly due to the different geopolitical history that many Old World countries have in relation to their contemporary political boundaries .
Unlike in many New World countries , borders have very much " crossed " significant populations of people who previously lived in formerly existing states , thus quite frequently making them indigenous to whatever country they happen to be residing in without consequently being part of the ethnic majority of the country in question .
That is not to even mention the fact of the many eternally stateless ethnic groups ( like f.ex the Sámi ) who have never had a country of their own , while nevertheless remaining and considering themselves to be ethnically very much distinct from the " founding " majority of their country of residence .
The only sort of rough parallel these type of dynamics have in the New World is that of the relationship indigenous groups have to the present day states they reside in , though the context is nonetheless quite different due to ( for instance ) said groups often tending to have a tribal as opposed to ethnic identity , which makes drawing an exact comparison quite difficult .
Naturally as oft mentioned virtually all people residing in New World countries who aren't of indigenous descent are of colonial or immigrant origin and thus are typically cut off from their ultimate roots , making it all the more easier ( if not essential ) for such countries to develop a non ethnic sense of nationality .
After all it makes no sense/would quite conceivably lead to serious societal disorder , for contemporary New World countries to develop an ethnic sense of nationality , when no ethnicity as such makes up the majority of the population in many if not all present day New World countries .
With regard to the issue of is it possible for the first/second generation offspring of immigrants living in New World countries to be considered as being members of whatever Old World ethnicity their relations on the other side of the world belong to , I'd have to say that there are no hard and fast answers in this case either in my humble view .
To begin with there obviously is a great degree of variety with respect to how first/second generation immigrants in New World countries are raised in relation to their ancestral culture , with some of them never being really exposed to it and others becoming totally immersed in it since infancy .
The factor of whether or not such individuals happen to be raised in close knit ethnic enclaves or not also cannot be ignored , since those types of environments obviously foster a sense of ethnic belonging that other types do not , with the same applying to whether or not overseas ethnic relations happen to see these sorts of people as being " one of them " which can vary greatly with respect to whatever specific ethnic group is in question .
To illustrate my point via means of an anecdotal example , I actually know a few Australian born and raised " Croatians " who are considered to be just as Croatian as anyone else by their old country counterparts , due to them being totally fluent in Croatian/being fully immersed in Croatian culture .
OTOH I also know a few American born and raised " Hungarians " who fit the same description and yet still aren't considered to be just as " Hungarian " as those Hungarians born and raised in the Carpathian Basin , so based off of this one could say that it's easier for someone of Croatian heritage born and raised in the New World to hold onto a sense of Croatian identity than it is for their Hungarian counterparts .
All in all the only correct conclusion one can draw from perusing this subject is that nationality/ethnicity can mean very different things depending on the context , particularly when it comes to the Old and New World conceptions of it IMHO .
P.S. On second thought it's much more accurate to refer to the conception of nationality/ethnicity as being different in the case of Old and New World societies as opposed to countries , but I'm leaving my use of the term countries stand so as to avoid the confusion I could cause were I to use both terms .
Last edited by William Blakeley; 09-19-2022 at 03:08 AM..
Well I am an Australian and I think Black Americans are very much assimilated in American culture and way of life and are very different people from other blacks especially from Africa. They tend to have the same culture as White Americans from my encounters, yet only difference is their skin colour.
It may seem that way superficially. However, it is commonplace in the United States for people to consider demographics when they are choosing a place to live.
People will use terms like "too much crime" or "sketchy neighborhood" or "dangerous area" or even "ghetto" to describe places they want to avoid. Or they may say they are looking for a "better school district." You will hear that one quite often.
But this is all code language that masks what people really want to say but can't say because it isn't politically correct to do so. The devil is always in the details.
It may seem that way superficially. However, it is commonplace in the United States for people to consider demographics when they are choosing a place to live.
People will use terms like "too much crime" or "sketchy neighborhood" or "dangerous area" or even "ghetto" to describe places they want to avoid. Or they may say they are looking for a "better school district." You will hear that one quite often.
But this is all code language that masks what people really want to say but can't say because it isn't politically correct to do so. The devil is always in the details.
Well there are plenty of Black American tourists and those working here in Australia as I have encountered them, and they are just like White American tourists and workers here. People here just identify a person from America as American. Here in Australia I have even encountered Asian Americans and Indian Americans here, and when I hear their accent all I think is they are American, not from Asia or India. I don't think people are obsessed with race as much as many Americans do. Even so Australia is an very expensive place to go, and I am very sure the Blacks that come and visit Australia and live here too could afford to live in better off neighbourhoods back in the USA.
Well there are plenty of Black American tourists and those working here in Australia as I have encountered them, and they are just like White American tourists and workers here. People here just identify a person from America as American. Here in Australia I have even encountered Asian Americans and Indian Americans here, and when I hear their accent all I think is they are American, not from Asia or India. I don't think people are obsessed with race as much as many Americans do. Even so Australia is an very expensive place to go, and I am very sure the Blacks that come and visit Australia and live here too could afford to live in better off neighbourhoods back in the USA.
I have a different perspective as someone who grew up in an immigrant community in the US, I think many Americans conflate Race with Ethnicity. As someone who was white skinned, I never though of my self as being "white" when I was a kid because at the time I subconsciously understood white to mean Anglo-American, which I wasn't. Other kids would to try to convince me that I was "white", but I never fully accepted that since I never identified with my race, it seemed like a foreign concept to me. And so I think in the new world when you have all these mixed ethnicities, that heritage/identity gets lost and so race becomes proxy for ethnicity. So I think "White" isn't so much as a "Race" but actually an "ethnicity" same as any of the other ethnicities in the old world. Like wise I think "Black" is it's own ethnicity as well. I think this video below proves the point why it's actually not really about skin color when it comes to self identity. But self identity is also influenced by how society identifies you as well. So in the case of the daughter although the family was raising her as "black", she ended up becoming "white" because of how she was treated in school.
Russians have ~20% slanted eyes even evident if you look at Putin, what's their obsession with whiteness no one knows. If you want the whitest people it's the ethnic swedes and around, some places in central and west-eastern europe, northern Italy etc.
Yes you are right there is no French ethnicity. They are a mix of people, mostly mixed with other European populations, and a minority from peoples especially from French colonial empires of North Africa. A person that identifies as French is due to their culture. The only thing French speaking Quebecs have in common with France is the language is very much alike, but Quebec has for over 250 years seperated from France and little in common with France.
A somewhat bad take.
I am not saying we are exactly like the French, but there are many things where Quebec differs from the rest of North America such as attitudes towards sex and alcohol, work-life balance, state intervention in the economy and society, religion and secularism, taxation, etc.
Basically everything that is either mystifying or annoying about Quebec for Anglo-Canadians likely has something to do with this place's mainly French roots.
It's extremely simplistic to say that Quebec is exactly like the rest of North America except that we simply use French rather than English as the primary code to communicate.
I believe natio & ethnus are latin & hellenic terms, respectively, for a if not similar then at least a related concept.
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.
