[quote=“Hello_Again, post:15, topic:689276”]
Amazing.
Manda JO writes:
> I promise you, the grandchildren of my Serbian, Bosnian, Nigerian, Mexican, and
> Iraqi kids will identify with those nationalities, even if the other 3/4 of their
> backgrounds are generic “American”–because those will be the things that make
> them feel unique.
I suspect not, but now we’re making predictions rather than discussing the present situation. I’m always wary of predictions. Predictions are very difficult, especially when they’re about the future.
Most American Presidents have a heritage that is described as “Scots-Irish”. It took me until recently to realize that “Scots-Irish” is a code rather than a true descriptor. It really means is that they were Protestant. Irish were Catholics and Catholics were vilely discriminated against. Signs reading “No dogs No Irish” were real in the mid-19th century.
When you’re up against that, not much of a surprise that your group will strike back by proclaiming themselves to be “Irish-American.” Turning an insult into a badge of pride goes back a long way.
Hector_St._Clare writes:
> White people in New England and the Great Lakes areas (the only places I’ve
> lived), in my experience, tend to identify with their ethnic roots much more so
> than (I’m told) people in Appalachia or the South.
The U.S. census quit asking people to give their ethnic ancestry after 2000 because so many people (nearly all in the South) in effect refused to discuss their ancestry. A lot of white people in that area would give their ancestry only as “American.” Black people in that area would give theirs as African-American (or whatever). In effect, the white people there were saying that ethnicity was no longer important and you should deny caring about it. The Black people were saying, in effect, that that’s naïve:
Exapno Mapcase, I assume that you mean that most U.S. Presidents have an ancestry that’s part-Scots-Irish.
Really? Because I’ve heard that sort of thing a lot, all of my life. Then again, I’ve lived in very diverse urban areas.
I wouldn’t say most Presidents. Most Presidents were English in ancestry. The Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Obama, Truman, the Roosevelts, Coolidge.
Scots-Irish was a specific ethnic group in the US well before large scale Irish Catholic immigration. Mainly in the South, where the Tidewater aristocracy of the lowland plantations were English, and the hill country working class was Scots-Irish. Frontiersman were largely Scots-Irish. Andrew Jackson was the fist Scots-Irish President, and his rise to power was met with some hostility based on the Hillbilly stereotype.
This is a very remarkable statement, so much so that I have to wonder what part of the country you may be from in order not to have heard this. I’m from New York, and such descriptors are extremely common. Actually, people tend to just say “I’m Irish” or “I’m Italian,” even if their ancestors have been here for many generations, but if they’re being formal they’ll add the “American”).
Why did the Jewish bee put on a yarmulke? It didn’t want to be mistaken for a WASP.
I grew up in South Carolina and there was not a lot of this hyphenation going on besides African-American. The south has not had a lot of recent (or semi-recent) immigration compared to places like New York. Most of the people in my rural county could not reliably trace the majority of their ancestry back to a single place. Even if they could, it isn’t talked about as a source of pride or anything.
But you have heard it. Chihuahua says he’s never heard it.
Even if you’re in an area with few people who identify this way, I would still think it would be familiar enough through its common presence in the media.
Texas/Louisiana here, and I don’t hear it here either. We have completely different ethnic communities here in Houston than in the northeast. They are far more unsegregated. There are people here from everywhere, but they don’t move here and say, where are the other Italians? Where are the Irish businesses? What neighborhood are the Chinese living in? It’s all about proximity to a school, employer, or your preferred recreational activities. It’s pretty darned nice actually.
This Wikipedia page claims that:
Like many things, it depends on your definitions. The Roosevelts are often counted under Dutch ancestry, e.g.
I’d be very leery about accepting those numbers. They’re the result of the 2010 Census allowing people to self-describe themselves in ways that were different to earlier Censuses.
Look at the 2000 Census right above it. Can we really believe that the number of people with German heritage increased 20% in a decade? That the Irish increased by a sixth? That Africans increased by two-thirds! Or that Americans actually dropped in number? That we’ve done such a hatchet job (deliberate offensive pun) on Amerindians in the 21st century that we cut their numbers by almost 40%?
I’m not sure what the number of people with Mexican heritage are, although I readily admit that the number is growing. Whether it’s more or less than the number with English heritage is an artifact of self-description and a totally different outside definition is needed to make a better determination.
‘Never’ is probably an exaggeration, but I think the discussion is pointing here towards a very real difference between (say) Appalachia and the South on the one hand, and the Great Lakes/Northeast on the other. I very rarely come across anyone who doesn’t know where their roots are from, even if it’s as pedestrian as ‘three quarters English, one quarter Irish’.
The whole concept of “heritage” is problematic. How much English “heritage” does one have to have to be English? Most African Americans probably have some English heritage. Does that make them English?
Without a standard methodology, all numbers are suspect. But the 2010 census tells us that self-identified “Mexicans” outnumber self-identified “English”. That’s probably as good a standard as any. Or as bad. If I were asked to self-identify, I’d just say “American”. I’m a mutt, with a mix of who-knows-how-many European ancestors, and maybe even some Native American.
There’s a big difference in knowing where your ancestors came from, and publically identifying yourself as such. There are places so mixed that people just don’t really care.
This seems to get more to the heart of the issue. What percent of bloodline was where at some arbitrary point in the past, say 100 to 200 years ago, is not the issue. The issue is how do people choose to self-identify and how are they identified by others in society around them.
For example, Obama by heritage has little in common with those whose descendents were brought to America as slaves, a bit more with others whose background also include substantial Irish roots. He was raised in a White family. But he chooses to identify as a Black American and he is identified as such by society at large. A White politician, depending on what he was running for where, with the same amount of Irish background, might embrace the Irish hyphen American status …
My guess to the paucity of English-Americans is that it has less to do with the default status than the timing and a lack of historic discrimination against them. Those who were identified by others on the basis of their historic family origins tended to also embrace the identity and the culture of their family origin. Being of English origin was never a mark against a person in America (even if being a Torie was).
I never personally heard anyone identify with a particular ethnic group until I moved to Brooklyn (I grew up in East Tennessee). When I was asked “what are you?” all I could say was"a little of everything."
A lot of us are mutts, so it gets complicated; I would have to be English-German-Irish-Scots-Welsh-andmaybeabitofDutch-American. I’ve never understood why people cling to being xxxx-American after the first generation. There’s a guy down the street named Kelly Green. He has a green house and a green Jeep, and identifies himself as being Irish. If you don’t carry a passport that says you’re Irish, then no, you’re not.