From the point of incorporation, their history is U.S. history. But before, no.
This applies in other contexts, too. The great famine in Ireland, for example, is properly Irish/British history and not U.S. history.
~Max
Then we’re just arguing about what means for a country to “arise” from something or other. I hold that a country, state, or nation, is more than just a legal entity and is also a collection of peoples, cultures, etc.
I cannot wrap my head around the idea that you are apparently denying that these people ARE STILL HERE.
They did not “used to occupy”. They are still occupying what is now the U.S. They are just now having to share the place with a whole lot of other people.
Of course it does. That’s what national identity is made up of.
Quoted for truth.
Nope; not if what you mean by “incorporated” was “made to disappear without having any influence on the resulting nation.” The country was massively influenced by all those people it “incorporated.” Including the ones that were “incorporated” by force. All of them changed the USA. All of them – all of us – helped render it into something that would be unrecognizable to 1700’s England.
And I hold that a nation is the collection of people who form a state. It seems to me that, for example, a historic individual such as Tecumseh was not and is not identified with the U.S., but opposite of that nation. Despite modern Shawnee tribespeople being U.S. citizens.
Celebration of Native American history is fine, but the idea that we should replace Columbus Day with a dedicated Indigenous People’s Day gives me the impression that we are re-defining the national identity; re-identifying the nation with the Native Americans that resisted colonists and European derived culture, because now we realize how horrible the colonists were.
~Max
You’re choosing to make a very narrow legalistic argument, in order to exclude any point of view other than that of white people of European heritage.
It’s a choice to look at things in that way, but perhaps it’s not the best choice?
No, nothing like children (who will eventually age into citizenship). Non-whites were treated as not fully South African (Blacks, specifically, were considered as citizens of made-up foreign countries).
That’s not much of an actual argument. Easily countered by those people who don’t identify with figures from their own national history. I don’t identify with Jan van Riebeeck or HF Verwoerd, but I damn sure identify as a South African.
You don’t identify with Columbus. You identify with the myth of Columbus. And that’s a you thing, not an intrinsic part of US national identity.
Why is some Italian, who never set foot on it, part of US history, but thousands of Irish, who very much did, are not? That’s nonsensical.
You say this like it would be a bad thing…
You are mistaken. The section you quoted was prefaced,
Assuming you mean historic individuals […]
That’s not what I mean by “incorporated”. New Netherland was incorporated into New England (a couple times) but obviously the existing people and culture had an influence on the United States.
~Max
And this history of that state is the history of the people who form it. If there are Shawnee who are American citizens, then the history of the Shawnee is part of the history of America, including the parts where the Shawnee were at war with America.
And indigenous culture didn’t?
Basically you have a very mistaken concept of indigenous American culture. You’ve bought into the myth of the ‘stupid savage’.
See the compelling arguments in the book I mentioned above, that 18th century Enlightenment values arose as a result of the Native-American critique of European culture. And arose first in France due to the engagement of Jesuit priests in debates with Native-Americans.
In fact, what we’ll see is not only that indigenous Americans – confronted with strange foreigners – gradually developed their own, surprisingly consistent critique of European institutions, but that these critiques came to be taken very seriously in Europe itself.
Nor were indigenous Americans stupid. The Jesuits debating with them were highly educated and intellectual, the carefully selected cream of European education. Yet they were surprised and impressed by the quality reasoning and arguments of indigenous Americans:
So, Father Le Jeune, Superior of the Jesuits in Canada in the 1630s: ‘There are almost none of them incapable of conversing or reasoning very well, and in good terms, on matters within their knowledge. The councils, held almost every day in the Villages, and on almost all matters, improve their capacity for talking.’
Or, in Lallemant’s words: ‘I can say in truth that, as regards intelligence, they are in no wise inferior to Europeans and to those who dwell in France. I would never have believed that, without instruction, nature could have supplied a most ready and vigorous eloquence, which I have admired in many Hurons; or more clear-sightedness in public affairs, or a more discreet management in things to which they are accustomed.’
Some Jesuits went further, remarking – not without a trace of frustration – that New World savages seemed rather cleverer overall than the people they were used to dealing with at home (e.g. ‘they nearly all show more intelligence in their business, speeches, courtesies, intercourse, tricks, and subtleties, than do the shrewdest citizens and merchants in France’).
The idea that indigenous societies and politics were simple or unsophisticated is similarly mistaken.
Early Spanish explorers spoke of Kingdoms, States, and Republics, well organised and comparable with those in Europe, except for technology.
Tell that to the multi-generational Americans of Irish descent that had landed in this country a 100 years earlier but were sending money to the Irish Republican Army in the 1960’s-1980’s in particular.
It’s all part of American history. The hoary old ‘nation of immigrants’ is substantially the truth (and to which we might append ‘and the conquered and enslaved’ to be all inclusive). Both wings of my father’s side of the family immigrated to the U.S. from Austrian Croatia just prior to WW I. They didn’t have shit to with the dominant Anglocentric culture when they arrived and they still proudly tell stories from family history about the old country. The immigrant (and conquered and enslaved) experience is part of the fabric of Americana. It is true the USA IS a predominantly Anglocentric-derived culture. But that’s just the dominant cultural current, not the only one.
It’s my conception of a nation, which informs my opinion on whether Columbus Day is appropriate as a national holiday and my thoughts about replacing it with Indigenous People’s Day. The idea of national identity being fractured into three hundred million individual variants - as MrDibble suggested - is antithetical to my concept of nationalism, which requires a single shared national identity. In my mind it would be impossible to identify the United States today with the United States past, unless the national identity included a shared history. But it is a fact that descendants and successors on both sides of conflicts, such as the various Indian wars, are presently citizens of the United States. And it is also a fact that the Indian wars were not civil wars - at least not all of them.
If a shared history is required for a national identity, but not all history is shared by the individuals who comprise the nation, it follows that some history is excluded. It makes the most sense to me to exclude from the national identity the history of people before they joined the nation. Furthermore people joining the nation adopt the history of that nation (without necessarily abandoning their other heritage or history). Events such as the Irish famine, or people like Tecumseh, still affect U.S. history, of course.
Telemark accuses me of being morally bankrupt in my treatment of nationhood, but I think my approach is morally preferable to practical alternatives. One might define a nation as an ethnic group, territory, culture, etcetera. I think that can lead to exclusion of people on the basis of bloodlines / genocide, irredentism, and cultural genocide, respectively. See also the ongoing discussion Kimstu and I have had on this.
~Max
Then yes.
It was an assertion, not an argument. I think you’re wrong, is all - obviously you disagree, strongly. For my part I do identify HF Verwoerd with South Africa, and I identify you with South Africa, so although I do not accuse you of sharing any moral opinions or thinking of your person as like his, I do think you both belong to the same nation and identify you together in that sense.
You could say the same of me and any despicable American.
But-for Columbus, no U.S.
~Max
WTF does “opposite of U.S. history” even mean?
Seriously.
This is a feature, not a bug.
Are we ignoring that Max_S is OK with the Dred Scott decision? Not that this is surprising at this point.
Would you care to argue why it would be a good thing? I think I’m open minded on that front, moreso than debate over what is or isn’t the national identity of my country (I don’t expect, or even try to convince you about what the South African identity is).
~Max
And the history of the United States is the history of all of us.
No. It does not follow. What follows is that the shared history needs to include the history of all of us.
Attempting to include the history only of Europeans in the case of the United States is absurd.
Columbus was long before anyone joined the nation.
I think your approach is white supremacist, and the reverse of morally preferable.
But for one hell of a lot of other people, also no U.S.
And if Columbus hadn’t made that voyage, other people in Europe would have soon figured out there was a continent there – some of them already had found some of the actual continent, which is more than Columbus did.
What happened was that Europe at that point had developed the technology to make long ocean voyages that were out of sight of land for significant periods; and that Europe at that point had multiple nations with competitive expansionists natures.
We do seem to have been, don’t we?
I didn’t even know where to start, on that one.
I was born in the USA and have lived here all my life and Max, you do not get to declare what the national identity of the USA is. We did not hold a vote and put anybody in charge of the issue; and if we did hold such a vote, there’d be plenty of other candidates.
Almost certainly not true. I mean butterfly wings and all, but really Columbus was just lucky to be the discoverer of record. Others probably preceded him in the north searching for fishing grounds and the Portuguese hit Brazil just a few years later. As noted above it is likely an inevitability the New World have been “discovered” in a matter of a few decades at the most, if not in just a few years (it is uncertain whether Cabral’s was an accidental discovery, but it is quite plausible - given their activity off Africa it was an easy reach). It wouldn’t have remained isolated until 1768 or whatever.
This is an assertion of yours, but it’s not supported by anything. Our national identity isn’t some uniform story that everyone must incorporate into their narrative. There’s no reason that everyone must identify with every aspect of our history. All you achieve is reducing some parts of society to second class citizens.
Requiring a “single shared national identity” creates a contradiction. Our national identity isn’t singular, and if you remove parts of it that you don’t recognize as pure enough then it isn’t shared. Pick one, and try to defend it.
Sophistry
Same-same for the Irish.
Like, say, excluding from US identity any Caribbean, Italian and Spanish history circa 1492? Be consistent, man.
If you don’t see the self-evident moral value in basing your identity around resisters to oppression rather than oppressors, I don’t think any amount of argument is going to help you. You either have empathy, or you don’t, it can’t be argued into you.