In that case my apologies for taking my beef with the OP out on you.
But … I think that there are many ethnic communities in the US who’s members would have no problem fitting right in if they visited “the old country” (the fact that “the old country” has often been “Americianized” helps too). Second and greater generation Completelyfuckeduplandians being a probably clear exception.
Perhaps pulykamell could give some incite here? If we teleported you to Poland ya think you’d fit right in or be the obviously American tourist trying to pass? (Ignoring any possible language barriers to whatever extent we can successfully separate language from culture.)
CMC fnord!
I also guess that he’s adopting the opposite of the reclaiming of one’s identity that was used by African-Americans in the 60’s. I.E. We’re keeping our “slave names” until we’re free as opposed to we’re rejecting our “slave names” because we’re free.
The struggle for African-Americans was more about being recognized as fully equal human beings with all of the rights that come with that. While there are those issues for “Indians” a larger concern (AIUI) is the recognition of, and reclamation of, the fact that they ain’t a monolithic group, just “Indians”.
By best guess is that Russell would like to see a time when he could self-identify as a Oglala Lakota Sioux and folks would understand that with the same clarity that they understand that Germans and Italians aren’t just “Europeans”.
My accent would give me away as an American or German (when I hitchhiked in Poland, those were the two nationalities people would peg me as.) I’m not up on current slang, and some of my vocabulary will be dated or contain some Polish-ized English words(given that I learned from my parents who emigrated in the 60s). But I would definitely fit in with much of the culture and ways of life (I visited Poland many times as a kid, and I lived in Eastern Europe for over five years, so I can navigate the people fairly well, or at least that’s what I like to think.) One amusing anecdote (well, it made me chuckle) I had was crossing the Polish-Slovak border into Poland, and the border guard just had it with dealing with the Slovak in front of me. I slap down my American passport, speak to him in Polish, and he says, relieved (in Polish): “Finally, one of us.” So the border guard, at least, was happy enough to claim me as one of his people. As for me, frankly, I don’t really care as I like to vacillate between cultures. I feel as completely comfortable in Poland as I do in America.
If I meet someone from Germany at a party and they ask me what I am, I’d say “American.”
If an American asked me the same, I’d say “My family came from Germany.”
Each person is asking for different information with the same question.
Context, it’s important. It’s almost as important as spelling and punctuation.
I’m not exactly sure my folks would say that. My mom left because that’s where dad lived. Dad left because his father and brother moved here. They didn’t have it particularly bad in Poland. In fact, they did quite well. I believe my father’s family believed there was more opportunity in America when they moved here, in the 60s, and I do believe they were right. But I really doubt they would have said things sucked for them. I moved to and lived in Hungary for five years before moving back to the US. If I had settled there (which I was perfectly happy to do, but didn’t because life brought me back here), it wouldn’t have been because America “fucking sucked.”
I have enough trouble with Michigan summer as 1/4 inuit. One of my ancestors came down here as a full blood. Sometimes people move from areas they like for social reasons. I almost moved to England with my ex, because that’s where she and her kids are from.
When at university I roomed with all foreign students.
I totally understand what ‘Indian Indians’ are.
One roommate was Chinese and curious about our Indians. She couldn’t just call them Indians as Indians, for all of Asia, meant peoples from India. So she referred to them, as Red Indians.
Which caused me to howl with laughter. Red Indians, it still makes me giggle. And once back in Asia, her friends did indeed want to know, “Had she met any red Indians?”
We quickly taught her the politically correct (for Canada) lingo, First Nations peoples.
This is interesting. I’m Asian American (specifically Taiwanese/Chinese American), and I would love nothing more than be able to integrate into both worlds. However, I find myself only being able to do so half way in both places - never feeling completely comfortable in either - and so I end up “floating”.
I was born and raised in America, and though I feel very Western in my thinking, other Americans don’t necessarily see me as American. The outer appearance can really matter sometimes. This is not really a problem where I live, but I’ve found that traveling through some parts of the country, you get some people who automatically assume that you’re “from China”, can’t speak the English language, somewhat inferior to them, and can’t possibly be American because you aren’t white. It was a real shock the first time I ventured out into a certain part of the country where people basically regarded me as some sort of alien because they’ve never encountered an Asian looking person in real life. And for me, I never knew I could feel so foreign in a place that I called home.
Whenever I visit Taiwan, where some of my relatives and friends live, I can pass off as a local until I open my mouth. I speak the language well but not at the level of the natives. I only have a vague knowledge of the politics, social problems, history, pop culture there. Living there in the long term would definitely present some challenges, though it’s something I want to do at one point in my life. Ideally, though, I would love to be able to truly vacillate amongst numerous cultures.
No, “African” comes first because it’s an adjective that describes the noun “American”.
American is what someone is, African is what type of American.
Also, your rule about what gives the most information coming first is clearly wrong. An adjective doesn’t give you any useful information until you know what noun it modifies.
I use my various ethnic backgrounds as a way to weasel out of responsibility for my various faults. I’m quick to anger? It’s because I’m mostly an Irish/German cross, and we know how THEY are. I’m cheap? My wife and I argue about this because she says that Bohunks are cheap and Polacks are frugal, but I say it’s the other way around. Then there’s the centuries-old Norway vs Sweden feud, but I belong to a primarily-Norwegian church (as an assistant pastor said, “the Swedes are across St Charles Road”) so the issue rarely comes up.
So I can use the fact that I’m a mutt to laugh at several claimed backgrounds. Okay, I’ll still laugh when there is no connection between them and me, but I’ll pretend someone else was laughing.
Catalan, French and Italian also put the adjective after the noun. In Catalan and Spanish you can put the adjective in front for poetic purposes or emphasis, or to avoid cacophonies (I don’t know the other two well enough to tell whether it’s also the case).
All my parents and grand-parents were born in Joberg.
I’m a white Jewish African-American. To be honest “African-American” is kind of silly, IMO. I don’t see what’s wrong with “black.” Does anyone else remember the clip where a CNN anchor is talking about riots in the banlieues of Paris and mentions the “African Americans”? :smack:
Possibly stupid question–do people from India think of themselves as Indian? I thought “India” was a colonial sort of name, and that natives had another name for it, but it is quite possible I am full of crap.
India is only sort of a colonial name. It came to English via Greek, and ultimate from the Sanskrit Sindhu- the Indus River. The other names are Hindustan and Bharat. Hindustan comes from the same root as India (Sindhu), but via Persian. Bharat comes from the Rig Vedas, Hindu holy texts.
Interestingly, all three names can be used to describe the nation-state known in English as the Republic of India or the region known as the Indian subcontinent, which includes India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Tibet and sometimes Burma and Afghanistan.
India is the commonly used term among Indians when speaking English, and ISTM to be driving out the other two, though Bharat is the Hindi term. Bharat and India are the two official names of the country; Hindustan tends to appear more in print and in the names of businesses and the like.
Just wanted to add, with regard to the name India: It’s considered an English word rather than a Hindi one, and English is an official language of India. In any case, there’s remarkably little postcolonial antipathy for the British in India; most Indian emigrants go to Britain, and British and Indian culture are inextricably linked today, much to the chagrin of a few on both sides.
It seems that “India” would also be the most politically safe choice, being the only one that’s not overtly Hindu in origin - I’d imagine that “Hindustan” is not a popular choice for the Muslim population, for example.
Political correctness doesn’t really factor into it. Remember, the national language is called Hindi. Hindustan doesn’t mean “land of the Hindus”, as you might think; it was the name used by the (Islamic) Mughal emperors for their territory, and means something more akin to “Land of Hind”, Hind being the Arabic name for India.
Bharat, on the other hand, is a bit politically charged. It’s the favored term among Hindu nationalists.