Per this Kos article there is a concerted effort by various white identity groups to use the term “European American” as a group description for white people. In doing this they are (it seems to me) trying to present whites as an oppressed minority.
As the American white demographic shrinks relative to other groups coming up over time do you think the use of this term can gain any traction outside the white identity groups?
The odd thing is that logically, regardless of the racist origins, it does kind of make some sense to tag whites as “European American” if we’re describing other American groups with different national origins in the same way.
I would think that an effort to label whites as European Americans would be more an effort to delegitimize whites as being “real” Americans. By this I mean that you have blacks who are African-American, Asians who are Asian-American, Latino-Americans, Native-Americans, and then whites are just American.
Yes, it seems clear that “black” replaced the once-acceptable terms “colored” and “negro”, and relegated them to archaic/offensive status. However, it makes little sense for “African American” to relegate “black” in the same way, simply because not all black people are American. My perception is that “African American” is simply a term that is accurate and appropriate in some contexts, and “black” in others; unless I’m mistaken, “black” is not seen as offensive per se in the way that “colored” and “negro” are, and nobody has an agenda to make it so.
Likewise with the use of the putative term “European American” vis-à-vis “white”.
I think it’s nonsense. I’m not a big fan of hyphen-American to begin with because it assumes race must correlate to region. Are you really an African-American if your black grandparents were Jamaican, your parents emigrated to the UK, and now you’ve emigrated to the US? Maybe you’re actually a European-American even though you’re black? Is a lily-white Afrikaner an African American or are they still European-American even though no ancestor of theirs has set foot in Europe for 200+ years?
Furthermore, keeping these distinctions around belies the whole melting pot concept we should aspire to. There mere fact that a hyphen-American distinction can hold any meaning is a failure of integration.
Is America *really *a melting pot though? I used to think that (as general concept) but over the last 30 years of so there seems to be a lot more effort by various cultural groups to section out x, y and z “American” spaces for themselves vs “melting”.
I don’t know. It may seem that way now, but the historical example is interesting.
It certainly seems that white groups like the Germans, Irish, Polish and Italians gained acceptance and mixed in reasonably quickly. If we celebrate something specific to those groups, it’s often something that everyone celebrates (St Patrick’s day, for example, or hot dogs as the all-American food).
All of these groups were accused of creating their own spaces. Those Irish clustered in their own neighborhoods taking jobs away from honest Americans! Then it was the Italians with their foreign-sounding pizza and spaghetti - they didn’t even want to learn English!
On the opposite end, blacks have been here longest, but only in the last few decades has it even been legal to make them part of the melting pot. Still, we’re seeing increased rates of interracial marriages and soul food is getting some mainstream attention. Without a legal barrier to the melting pot, I think it will be inevitable over the space of three or four generations.
Only time will tell, but I think that’s what racists are most afraid of - not just that non-whites will be successful, but that someday we’ll forget why we celebrate two New Years, or forget that tacos were ever considered an imported foreign food. Most American traditions are not that old, and the melting pot isn’t simply assimilation; everyone changes.
This is called “identity politics.” It is the direct result of people trying trying to mobilize political movements around race, so that they can have a “black” voting bloc and a “Hispanic” voting bloc, and so on. And I agree that inevitably people are drafted into a culture war because then you become judged by your “community” as a participant in a subculture that you were born into and may or may not actually care about. I’ve known plenty of African Americans who came into conflict with others when they didn’t act “black” enough, or they did something their friends thought was too “white.”
At best, these kinds of politics can help mobilize people to fight injustice, as we saw in the Civil Rights era. At worst, it breaks us down into racist tribes that put our racial identity above our national identity. We can see this very clearly in European nations where isolated immigrant enclaves actively resist assimilating into the host culture and then act surprised when they are excluded from mainstream society.
As for OP, this seems like a pretty typical racist scheme. It’s brought to you by the same people who came up with such classics as “Why is there no white history month?”
Anyway, if implemented, I demand to be recognized as an Anglo-Saxon American. Calling me a European American would imply that one is too ignorant to tell the difference between an Angle, a Pict, and Jute, and are therefore abhorrently racist.
Yes, there’s the abstract question of whether the term might in principle be a useful and appropriate one, then there’s context and intent, as in the Black Lives Matter / All Lives Matter shenanigans.
But, Dracoi* that’s the whole point of the effort amongst those who are trying to do it. The effort to reinforce or reinvent (or just plain invent) distinctions for the-historically majority-in-power is a backlash against those who are bringing other cultures into the melting pot. It’s a blatant and conscious rejection of the melting pot paradigm.
It’s not like the James Edwards/David Duke/Joe Arpaio types are oblivious to the fact that all humans# are so similar that the distinctions of skin colors and skull shapes are largely irrelevant. For at least half a century we’ve known that key organs and tissues are interchangeable regardless of race and we’ve known that genetic mixing results in live, fully-functioning, non-mutant offspring for centuries. The Oh no we’re losing the socio-economic strength of superior numbers guys are just trying to water down the equality movements and maintain their last fragile holds on power as long as possible. And in the same way that it’s easier to say, “I lost the game because my opponent had an unfair advantage” than “I lost the game because he was a better player” it’s also easier to say, “Our dominance is diminishing because they are gaining special distinctions” than to say, “They are gaining in equity through measures designed to discourage historical and persistent discrimination and abuse – by US.”
I think the fundamental error is in perceiving the world as a pie that must be divided among conflicting groups – English versus Scots and Celts; Europeans versus Native populations; Catholics versus Protestants@; Romans versus Gauls and Thracians (and everyone else); Manchus versus Hans (and the others), Tutsi versus Hutu; McCloud versus Frasier; and so on and so on. I think the error is in thinking “there must be a dominant group and I want it to be my group.” Really? Why ‘must’ there be? Why can’t there be no dominant group while you (or me, or Burpo, or Nava, or Rivka) has every opportunity to succeed or fail as an individual? But, then again, I’m a naive ‘Can’t we all just get along?’ kind of guy. :o
And even the European-American distinction backfires when it precludes South-Africans and Australians and New Zealanders.
–G
*…and yes, I realize you’ve provided a better and deeper explanation two posts below this one to which I’m responding … #Animalia Chordata Synapsida Mammalia Primate Haplorhini Hominidae *Homo Sapiens Sapiens
*@Aramis: Porthos, have you no education? That’s what religious wars are all about!
I’d be satisfied to check the “penis wielding ghostface oppressor” box on the census if that’s what I’m to be called. Regardless of my own merits it’s how I’m treated.
It pretty much is an Americanism, yes. Here in the UK, you might occasionally hear someone described as ‘Black British’ to distinguish a black person born in the UK from a first generation immigrant from elsewhere, but that’s pretty much it.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has a large section devoted to The Nativist Lobby.
So, yeah, “European-American” has suspect roots. For demographic purposes, White works fine.
My father’s parents came from East Galway in the early days of the last century. My mother’s father had Famine Era Irish grandarents. Recent research has revealed my maternal grandmother (who helped raise me) also has Famine Era ancestors–although most of her folks were what she called “Scotch Irish.” That is, Same Island, Different Religion.
So I’ll occasionally identify as Irish-American. But sneer at those who claim These New Immigrants Are Different–They Will Not Assimilate!
Here in Texas, the Spanish tinge will remain for reasons of geography & history. They helped make Texas what it is. (And, yes, many do not look that “Spanish”–because of Native blood. Their folks were here first!)
And the African-American strain remains, although mixture continues. Again, they were building this country long before any of my folks arrived.
