I will disagree with you there, assuming you mean vast swaths of the present-day community.
~Max
I would say the root of a nation is the people of that nation, not the people who interacted with it but the actual nationals themselves.
Geography and nature did and do affect the history and character of the U.S. and every other nation. My opinion is that these are not inherent elements of a national identity, not that they have no effect on the nation’s history or character.
You mean, re-define that identity.
For all of the pushback I get in this topic, surely you will not deny that my main argument - Columbus being a national symbol, part of the national identity - is traditional.
There is no danger, such a definition is literally impossible. How can you define a nation’s identity by excluding some of its people? The people wouldn’t be nationals unless the nation’s identity is defined to include them.
~Max
It’s not about construction. You necessarily identify with a person to some extent when identifying them as a figure from your own national history. But your question,
MrDibble:
Max_S: A person with an American national identity who is also Black does have an American national identity.
…and identifies with European colonizers?
in my opinion carried the connotation of identifying with the person in a moral or personal, rather than national sense. (as in “is this guy serious, to think all Black Americans approve/should approve of Native American genocide, want to loot and pillage, &etc”) If you intended no such connotation, my answer is a simple “yes, of course”.
~Max
By denying their past, you are excluding the present-day community. African-American slaves and Native Americans were part of the American experience, regardless of their status at the time.
If you were a literal slave* until 1994, then it follows, yes.
~Max
Also that sucks. 
I do, in fact, agree with most of that decision.
~Max
They were considered persons, but not nationals. The distinction between persons and property was not universal, at the time - all thirteen states that ratified the Constitution had legal slavery at the time. Northern states didn’t want to count slaves at all (or only for taxation), and southern states wanted to count them for representation but not for taxation purposes.
~Max
I consider modern day descendants of African-American slaves or Native Americans to be U.S. nationals. Do you mean something else by exclude?
~Max
That quite thoroughly rules out Columbus, who never set foot in North America, and who most certainly never even heard of the USA. (And, I suspect, would have disapproved of it if he had been able to know of it.)
How can there be a national identity that has nothing to do with that nation’s history or character? This argument makes no sense at all.
Lots of stuff is “traditional.” And some traditions are awful. The word is not a synonym for “good.”
Then the nation’s identity must be defined to include Native Americans. Among a whole lot of others. And their history needs to be seen as equally important to the history of the USA as does the history of European colonists.
No, I mean exactly what I said. The experience of their ancestors is part of their story, and part of the American story. You want to exclude that from the narrative that informs the American psyche and character. In doing so, you’re denying their experiences and excluding them from full participation in society.
You’re approaching this as if the European experience is the norm. It’s not, it’s the majority. But all the other experiences are valid and make up the totality of our nation’s character. That’s exactly what’s wrong with your entire approach. You are trying to ignore anything that didn’t happen to the majority as irrelevant. To someone who’s ancestors lived those lives outside the mainstream, it’s offensive to exclude.
No, it just follows from not being considered a full citizen of my own country.
No, there is no necessarily there.
OK, clearly you’re using “identifies with” in some weird idiosyncratic sense, because I don’t know how you can divorce “I identify with X” from “personal”. That renders any conversation with you on this topic a bit useless.
It rules out Columbus as an American national. That conclusion does not seem to contradict my argument in any way. The United States arose from colonies of England, and in doing so inherits the western tradition of civilization from the late Roman Empire and Christianity. By these relations the colonists of England and the U.S. by extension, as a community, are to be more closely identified with “Europeans” (including the Spanish) than with historical indigenous peoples of North America, especially the ones with hostile relations. Columbus (re-) “discovered” the Americas for Europeans, and his interactions with indigenous peoples influenced later conquistadores and colonists. In that sense the U.S. owes its existence to his voyages.
There can’t be a national identity without history - change history and you change the national identity. A hypothetical United States which never made the Louisiana purchase is a hypothetical nation, not to be identified as the same nation which exists today after making the Louisiana purchase. Yet, the United States before and after the purchase is easily & properly identified as the same nation. History is an inherent element of a national identity. Geography is not.
Assuming you mean historic individuals - on what basis? To me this looks like a false equivalence, I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that the history of any given tribe that used to occupy what is now the U.S., is U.S. history proper rather than lying opposite of U.S. history.
~Max
I want nothing of the sort.
The experience of mistymage, who personally identified with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe upthread, is as equally valid as mine, as a third or fourth generation American. Together, our experiences are part of “the totality of our nation’s character”. This has nothing to do with national identity, however.
~Max
The US arose from colonies of England, yes. It also rose from colonies of France and Spain. And from the societies of the indigenous people already here. And from the cultures brought across the sea by slave traders. The USA didn’t arise from one of these, but all of these, and more.
I can’t wrap my head around your side of this. These tribes existed. They were forcibly incorporated into the US polity. These tribes still exist as an integral part of the US polity. Ipso facto their history is part of the history of the US as a nation. To argue anything else seems like madness. When you have cities with NA names like Tuscaloosa how can you argue they aren’t part of American history?
Just because you weren’t a full citizen doesn’t mean people think of you as not belonging to the nation of people. Children, for example, are nationals - if that was what you had in mind.
~Max
You’re definition of national identity is morally bankrupt, and I reject it.
I disagree.
If I am, it is not on purpose.
What I was trying to communicate, perhaps poorly and as far back as post #38, is that while I identify with Columbus it is only in a national sense: he is a national symbol on account of his place in history joining people from both hemispheres. As a national symbol he is part of the national identity; I am a U.S. national so I identify with him as a symbol of my nation. I do not share his opinions on race, slavery, etc. whatever they may have been. I do not think of myself as the same kind of person as Columbus was: I am not an explorer, sailor, governor, torturer/slaver of Native Americans, conqueror of peoples, &etc (I do not personally identify with him).
~Max
I disagree. England, later the British, later yet the U.S., incorporated territory and peoples.
~Max