Jump to content

Talk:American ancestry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Many United States citizens who can trace their ancestry back to the American colonial period consider themselves to be ethnically American.

Many United States citizens who can trace their ancestry back to the American colonial period consider themselves to be ethnically American.

This sounds like a guess by the writer of the article. It seems to me a more likely guess that people who can't trace their lineage back to anywhere outside the United States would consider themselves ethnically American. Or there may be a lot of people who can trace their ancestry back but don't consider it particularly relevant since every relative they ever met was born and raised in America. Or perhaps they can trace their ancestry back but a large number of countries and thus consider their ancestry to be "typical American mutt". Readin (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

From English American article:
According to 2000 U.S census data, Americans claiming English descent form the third largest European ancestry group after German Americans and Irish Americans. However, demographers regard this as a massive undercount as the index of inconsistency is high, and people from English stock have a tendency to identify simply as Americans [2][3][4] or, if of mixed European ancestry, nominate a more recent and differentiated ethnic group.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.178.177 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not a guess, I for one am one of those people. My ancestry is like, exclusively English and Scots-Irish but because the entirety of my family tree goes back to the colonial era I identified as American on the 2000 census. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that the assertion is original research, supported only by your personal experience and opinion right? If that is the case, the assertion can be challenged and removed, per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. OTOH, I would guess that supporting sources for such an assertion might exist, just as there are supporting sources for an assertion that some consider black Americans to be ethnically American[1], an assertion that some contend that the population of America is not ethnically American[2], an assertion that some contend that Mormonism is historically and ethnically American[3], an assertion that parents sometimes categorize U.S. born children as ethnically American even though the rest of the family retains a non-U.S. identity[4][5], etc. Given a supporting source, your assertion might be included in this article -- as might any or all of those others -- the question of whether or not such supportable assertions should be included turns on due weight considerations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, tone down the hostility brother, nobody's trying to offend you. All I was saying is that whoever wrote the previous entry wasn't "guessing", and I know this because me and many people I know feel that way, so to state that we don't exist is false. That's all I was saying, I didn't say it should be included in the article. Relax, this is supposed to a forum for discussion. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thesouthernhistorian, but I have never seen it documented in a way that would pass as a reliable citation in the article. The area of the country where a majority respond with "American" is generally where English, Scotch-Irish and Germans settled a couple of centuries ago, and which has not seen the subsequent influx of immigration that coastal areas, the midwest, or the west have seen. I think the reason many claim "American" is that many of us have been here so long that we just plain don't know where we came from. We are Americans, and we came from American soil. Eastcote (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't intend hostility, I was commenting that original research, supported only by personal experience and/or strongly-held opinion is not acceptable in WP to support an assertion. My guess is that there are sources out there which would support an assertion to the effect that some in the "my family goes back to the Mayflower" crowd consider themselves ethnically American. I don't know whether my family goes back to the Mayflower and never had any interest in finding out. I'd guess not. I think of myself as ethnically American, and always have. That was the case going back to my grandparents on both sides -- which takes us back to somewhere in the last half of the 19th century. All I know of my lineage is that it seems vaguely European. If asked, I describe myself as "American". I live outside of the U.S., and I do get asked.
David Ward (1989), Poverty, ethnicity, and the American city, 1840-1925: changing conceptions of the slum and the ghetto, CUP Archive, pp. 15, ISBN 9780521277112 looks like it would support an assertion that some sense of American ethnicity which was linked to anglo-saxon genaeology but was founded on the idea of political participation rather than on common origins began to emerge after the U.S. Civil War. Yiorgos Anagnostou (2009), Contours of white ethnicity: popular ethnography and the making of usable pasts in Greek America, Ohio University Press, ISBN 9780821418215 might have something useful in it.Robert D. Johnston (2004), The politics of healing: histories of alternative medicine in twentieth-century North America, Routledge, pp. 215, ISBN 9780415933391 speaks of "direct expressions of an emerging American ethnicity". There are no doubt other sources out there which speak to American as an ethnicity. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertions in this area need to be toned down and the lead paragraph of the article should be changed. While certainly many claiming American ancestry fit TheSouthernHistorians' view of this, there is no reason to think this is true of everyone that makes this claim. There was immigration into the South post-1776, so it's not clear that everyone making this claim is 100% of pre-1776 decent or even primarily of such decent. Also, folks who are primarily of such decent (3/4 of my ancestors came over before the Revolution, many in the 1600s) may not claim American descent. I don't for instance despite being a mix of a bunch of Western and Northern European ethnicities. I don't think the article can claim that people who claim this descent are necessarily of the same ancestry as SouthernHistorian and myself or the descendents of the founders of the nation. Claiming that they are all really of Scotch-Irish descent would be equally suspect. The problem is the notion of ethnicity and the notion of where one's ancestors came from are related, but not identical. Ethnicity is not purely genetic, but also socially constructed. (29 May 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.175 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The only people who are ethnic americans

Are Native Americans. If these stupid white rednecks thick of themselves as ethnically American, well then that's just BS because they come from Europe and belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP CONFUSING RACE WITH ETHNICITY!!! A race is a group of people with shared genetic background (Ex. the Native Americans). An ethnic group is a group of people (of ANY race) with a shared culture. 69.153.120.29 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, more or less. See Race (classification of human beings), Race (biology), Race and genetics, Historical definitions of race, vs. Ethnic group. David Duke and Jesse Jackson, as examples, are both ethnically American in that that they identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. These example individuals differ from one another in a lot of ways, but I think they would both describe themselves without hesitation as "American". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. You argue ethnics have nothing to do with race yet you still are defining ethnic american according to linage and country of origin. Americans are native, also America is a continent. If you are of English linage you are English and thats your ethnicity. This is like a German invading Poland saying the next day they are the real Polish people and the previous settlers being called now Native Polish. BS.

Yes the ONLY ethnically Americans are Native Americans. Others are just immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Finally someone tells it like it is. Ps Native Americans are not a race, they are the indigenous peoples of the Americas and are part of many ethnic groups. I think the Native Americans race are Asian or Eurasian. When someone says ethnically they usually mean an indigenous people of that land, the descendant of indigenous people of that land, the ethnic group thats native to that land or orgianted in that land. Such as Irish the ethnic group originated in Ireland, Scottish the ethnic group are indigenous people of Scotland. The ethnic groups are usually of one race, but sometimes could be mixed because of mixing. Just like Han Chinese the ethnic group are all Asian, English the ethnic group are all white, Irish the ethnic group are all white, so on. They're nationality is American but ethnically they are not. Isn't the biggest ethnic group in America Germans? Then Irish. America is full of immigrants or descendant of immigrants. Secret killer (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when someone says "ethnically" they are NOT usually refering to the indigenious people. That word would be "native" or "native peoples." The word "ethnic" means to have a particular heritage that is either real or presumed. According to your logic, Latinos aren't an ethnic group either, since they can be of any race (Caucasion, Native American, Mestizo, or Black) some of which aren't indigenious to the Americas. As we all know, it is universally accepted that Latinos are an ethnic group. So if Americans can't be an ethnic group than Latinos can't be either. Finally, it is universally accepted that Native Americans are a race composed of many ethnicities, regardless of whether or not they crossed the Bering land bridge a million years ago (all of humanity originated from Africa anyways). 156.110.35.114 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, ethnic groups can be identified by genetics as well. Italian Americans for instance are ethnic Italians but have largely adopted English culture. Native Americans are are a race. There is no such thing as an ethnic American. This article should be deleted. sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.254.100.197 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


According to "dictionary.com", the word "ethnic" is defined as follows[1]

(adjective)

1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

2. referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.

3. being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society.

4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.

5. belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country.

6. pagan; heathen.

(noun)

1. a member of an ethnic group.

So as you can see, the genetic relation is only one of many definitions. Moreover, the word "or" is used in this particular definition, which means that the racial element doesn't have to be present. In order for this article to be deleted, American people must be unable to meet all of these definitions. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Americans speak English, are Christians, and share a common culture.

Now lets try another dictionary. This time we'll go with Webster, which defines "ethnic" as follows[2]

(adjective)

1. heathen

2. a) of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background b) being a member of a specified ethnic group c) of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics.

(noun)

1. a member of an ethnic group; especially a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group.

Again, the racial element is only one of many elements and also the word "or" is used. As for the "minority" element, the noun definition in no way requires "ethnic" to refer to minorities only. It just says "especially."

Finally, lets look at Wikipedia's own article Ethnic group. Basically it defines an ethnic group as a group of people who identify with each other through a common heritage that is either real or presumed. Hispanics/Latinos would be a good example of this definition since they can be of any race.

Conclusion: "American" most definately satisfies the criteria of being an ethnicity.Yongbyong38 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic
  2. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnic

So-called "Native Americans" are immigrants from Asia. They violently replaced people who were already here. Today they are mostly half and quarterbreed Anglicized Christians. They're just mixed race trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred007666 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What? There was no one here before the Native Americans, so they couldn't have violently replaced anybody. Chevalier54 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment before the one by Chevalier54 contains slurs against a group of people, calling Native Americans "just mixed race trash." Is it permissible to delete that garbage? Jk180 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong

"An individual's nationality is American if he or she is a citizen of the United States of America." By Law - An individual's nationality is U.S. Citizen if he or she is a citizen of the United States of America.

As a Canadian Citizen, I would like to add that I am American by virtue of America, but, a Canadian Citizen by Law. American(Can) (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Source please? Examples of this usage of the term "American"? I note that when you said "countries in America" you felt it necessary to clarify that by "America" you meant "the Americas". But when someone uses "America" to mean "the United States of America" they feel no such need to clarify, because America means "the United States of America". Maybe it shouldn't be that way. Maybe your statements are more logical. But Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is what it is even if it shouldn't be. Readin (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

there are ethnic americans

i fit all the discriptions im 3/4th American 3 of my grandparents were american they had ties to the colonial period. 1/4 is my maturnal grandmoter who is part of the Bavarian ethnic group its from a region in Germany. there were a large group of families that left Bavaria and settled in westvirgina in the 1830's after a hundred years they ran out out people that were not related to the original few hundred people. ethnic groups cant survive forever they need a strong base of population to reproduce or they hit a exstintion vortex. in addition to my 1 quarter bavarian all three of my other grandparents had german but not bavarian. theres upper saxony ,baden-wurtemburg ,and lower saxony from immigrations in the 1700's in adition to this theres some people from the state of silesia it was part of german at the time but this family that i decend from silesia came from france originally they were kicked out by napoleon in the after 50 years of living there in the great migration of meternich in 1848 they come to live in westvirgina. aisde from my german heritage i had English , irish , scotish ,and dutch plus native american but the native american has never been verified by me as my records do not go back more far enough. going back to my most recent arivals im 6th generation american. i dont care what people say im not a european. im not german or anything like that and the information i have is not complete not will it ever be there for i can give a exact percentage as to what my hertage is where as some other person can say with clear demarcation there clearly this or that. if i tried to re-patriate to germany i dont know if they would take me. i have a english last name. by the origin of this english last name is not known. it could have arived in the 1700's or the 1600's as the first record it in 1805 in kentucky. but i live in ohio. i mandated that my family must remain in ohio for 100 more years after which time a colonization to the surface of luna. all im trying to say is american is a ethnic group. its the same thing as ethnic russian eqivilent people from outside russia come in and then a few hundred years later thos from that imigration become russian then though assimilation and intermarrige the russian population grew at the exspence of other groups. dont judge my culture or heritige american is a real thing. im a white american -american. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Globalize

There are some comments above speaking of American ethnicity in the context of the Americas rather than in the context of the USA. Being American in that sense would seem to be a status analogous to the status of being European. I've added a {{Globalize/USA}} tag to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i agree a non indiginis USA population of american culture exsists after my discription of my heritage above you understand exactly what i mean. forinstance the people who started russia were originally called the russ and they lived in what is now belarus in the 700's ad belarus is not russia. just as northern europe is not the USA yet the russians eventually came to become russia as the northern europeans became the USA. but i think your talking ofmaking the hispanic origin tribes become part of the american ethnic group and i dont agree with that. but my difinition is you have to trace all the way back to before 1854 when gadsen purchace was done casue thats when america was still forming territorially. also in my difinition some black people can be ethnic americans casue they face the same ethnic position as my people no actual ethnic group of origin and they been here since the formation but black people of immigration are all in there ethnic groups acordingly. so my difinition would be people who solely decend from the 1900 census with out further immigrant ansestors. so then we could take that 76 million people and see if there number went up or down i know theres 300 million over all in the usa but when its 400 million hispanics will hit 100 million. id just like to know if that 76 million actually declined or not up to now and in the future. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the {{Globalize/USA}} tag after its recent removal. I don't know how much material might be available to fill out a globalized article but, presuming that the material exists, the article might be structured something like

lead section
comparison with other regional ethnicitities—European (with east/west subdivisions), Asia (again east, west), etc.
The Americas
North America
Canada
U.S.
Mexico
Islands of the Caribbean and the Gulf
Central America
South America
endmatter sections
Or, perhaps better, pattern it on existing articles covering similar teritory outside of the Americas (Ethnic groups in Europe, Ethnic groups in Asia, Ethnic groups in Africa). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


The proposed puts too much weight on the minority usage of "American" as "of the Americas" rather than the more common usage "of the United States of America". Readin (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag, not realizing that this was another stupid "but everyone in the Western Hemisphere is American!" argument. I stand by the removal. This article is about US nationals who claim "American" as their ethnicity instead of citing their country of national origin, which is more common. Comparisons to "Ethnic groups in Europe" or other continents is irrelevant, as it isn't about a continent. --CAVincent (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scots-Irish

"American" ancestry in the census context effectively means Scots-Irish. Look at that map - where did the people who settled Appalachia come from, I wonder. There's plenty of sources that say this. Why is the word "Scots-Irish" not so much as mentioned in the article? john k (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT.
etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that support this, go ahead and write it in. However, the areas where people claim "American" as their ancestry, were not exclusively settled by the Scotch-Irish. Lots of English, Germans, Welsh, French Huguenots, and others settled in those same areas. Have fun sorting them out. After 200-300 years we are all a pretty mixed bag of ancestries. Eastcote (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, of all the lines of my "American" ancestry I've traced back to the greater Tennessee area, most are English, some are German, a few Irish, and almost none Scots-Irish. Not saying there's not a lot of Scots-Irish ancestry in the region, just that "American" doesn't "effectively mean Scots-Irish". Pfly (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

When did this article become "American ethnicity" instead of "American ancestry"? Is there a move log somewhere?

"Ancestry" is a specific US Census question, different from the "Ethnicity" census question which is devoted to Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic.

The US Census Ancestry information is real, sourced data, and almost all the article is about it - there is one vague unsourced sentence in the intro about "American ethnicity".

Can we just move the article back to "American ancestry (US Census)"? --JWB (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bogus Article

This is a very silly/stupid article. There's no such thing as American ethnicity, except pertaining to Native Americans. This article is saying that white people are true Americans. This is a bigoted concept based on pure ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.141.52 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It may be a bit early to define a "white American" ethnicity but it'll have to be done at some point. People who identify as "English" technically are Celtic, Roman, French, and Norwegian. But since they're all roughly the same blend, "English" is used. I've traced my ancestry pretty far and it seems that out of 16 great-great-grandparents there are 11 ethnicities. It's much easier (and in my opinion, more accurate) to say "white", "American", or "white American".

The difference here, though, is that purpose of surveying Americans about their ethnicity is to find out where these people were before they came to the New World, excepting Native Americans. So it defeats the entire purpose of the survey to say, "I'm ethnically American." Wglane (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The so-called "Native Americans" were not the first people on this continent. They are immigrants who violently replaced people who had already been here for thousands of years. Today they are a bunch of cultureless drunks and mixed race idiots. They are NOT American!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred007666 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In its current form, this article does not follow Wikipedia policies for controversial articles and neutral point of view. The article should be deleted or revised. The logic is not sound, and the sources do not say what the article claims they say (for example, Albion's Seed does not support the idea of a white American ethnic identity). The person commenting before me wrote that Native Americans are "cultureless drunks and mixed race idiots." Can we ban that IP? Am I permitted to delete that inflammatory nonsense? Racist comments have no place on wikipedia, but they are not surprising on the Talk page for the pseudo-factual article arguing that "American" means white. Jk180 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is shaping up! Moxy's revisions to the opening section are very good. The History section now stands as the least developed and supported of the sections. It doesn't yet acknowledge the contested nature of the term "American" when used to designate ethnicity. I corrected a quotation in the History section but don't know the subject well enough to make more extensive revisions. Jk180 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Can someone figure out how to clean this section up? Delaware is a New England state, not a Southern one, plus the two sentences sound confusing next to eachother All Southern states except for Delaware and Maryland reported at or above the national average of 7.2% "American", but outside the South, only Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho, Maine. All Southern states except for Delaware, Maryland, Florida, and Texas reported 10% or more "American", but outside the South, only Missouri and Indiana did so. 174.53.223.53 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)CO

--Delaware is most certainly not a "New England" state. It's a "Mid-Atlantic" state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.85.3 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No such thing

Technically, there is no such thing as an American ethnicity.

Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

See the Ethnic group article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American ethnicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideologically Ethnic American

An ideologically ethnic American (IEA) is an American of non British (or other) colonial descent who identifies as an Ethnic American for political reasons. In some areas IEAs are more than colonial EAs but both support only (or mainly) their USness. It is a common occurrence but due to their beliefs they don't enjoy to analyze it. IEAs usually (by statistical significance) don't care much about their non US descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4110:5400:1BE:5CDD:6222:3974 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

American ethnic group is a very real, though largely ignored.

In the 18th-20th centuries, the American ethnic group was a very real ethnic group. In the early 1900s, they were referred to as old stock Americans and they share similar cultures, dialects, history, and religion. Theodore Roosevelt had his on frontier thesis in which a distinct "American race" was forged on the frontier. This belief was common during his time and has largely been ignored in the 21st century, for whatever reason. It may be because Americans began defining themselves with hyphens in the 1960s, though this is very odd because most white Americans aren't fully German, British, French by ancestry. This causes some very confusing census stats and really doesn't portray the ethnic history of this nation correctly. European immigrant groups are fully assimilated and are nearly indistinguishable from old stock Americans. This is the whole point of the melting pot. Immigrants are assimilated into the dominant native Anglo-American population. This belief has its origins in the very early years of the United States, but has recently been stifled by the increasingly common multicultural narrative.

Then there is also the fact that regional identities had formed within the American ethnic identity centuries prior. White Southron intellectuals had fully recognized the presence of a distinct Southern ethnic identity within the Southern United States, as well as a distinct Yankee ethnic identity in the North. This led to the creation of ethnic origin mythology in the 1860s, mostly by J. D. B. De Bow, a prominent Fire Eater. But he wasn't the only one, the belief that Southerners and Northerners were distinct regional ethnic identities was common in the 1700s and 1800s. Sam Houston, the famous Texan revolutionary, spoke of the Southern and Northern races from a hotel window in Galveston in a speech regarding Southern secession and the coming war. Even into the 1940s, this belief was still dominant. Anglo-Saxon was a racial category in the US and even British prime minister, Winston Churchill, spoke of the common origin of the American and British peoples.

So, its very incorrect to assume that this American ethnic group is nothing more than patriotic Americans refusing to define themselves with a hyphen. They're a distinct group and arguably are the dominant group in this nation, as they've always been. This resurgence in the use of the hyphen won't change that.

I've provided some links on the subject. It's truly fascinating and I'd like to add this information to the American ethnicity page.

Sources

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/topic/hyphenated-american/ http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/crev/home.html https://books.google.com/books/about/Theodore_Roosevelt_and_the_Idea_of_Race.html?id=OGvFWIq1d3UC http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7741.html http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/america7/content/multimedia/ch26/research_01c.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/29/forget-multiculturalism-restore-the-anglo-saxon-philosophy-of-liberty/#2a2120565f76 http://www.thetroth.org/Lore/Thomas%20Jefferson%20Anglo-Saxon%20Culture%20and%20the%20Declaration%20of%20Independence.pdf http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/know-nothing-movement.html http://declaringamerica.com/houston-address-on-secession-1860/ http://americanaejournal.hu/vol4no1/sengupta https://books.google.com/books?id=0W4n4m9RVnEC&pg=PT186&lpg=PT186&dq=hyphenated+americans,+1960s&source=bl&ots=mDigui8nKA&sig=xMPYx_xhnMOjaXhKrbdFT-3rqdw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs6KbGjt_NAhULGj4KHV8tA7o4ChDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=hyphenated%20americans%2C%201960s&f=false http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=christopher-columbus-longer-iconic-italian-american-might-good-thing https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-98978420/the-difference-of-race-antebellum-race-mythology https://books.google.com/books?id=L941AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=cavalier+and+puritan,+de+bow+mythology&source=bl&ots=bXdtC3TBDH&sig=IvpeYBeNN1BrM7U_ZdblU4R4ipY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjImdzhjt_NAhXFej4KHRTMBNYQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=cavalier%20and%20puritan%2C%20de%20bow%20mythology&f=false

184.53.32.50 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that all of the better sources that you are listing here, such as Russell A. Kazal's Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity, say what you think they say. Here's a statement from the summary of Kazal's book that seems to undermine its value as a source for your argument that there truly is a "American" ethnicity: "Arguably, German Americans form America's largest ethnic group. ... Becoming Old Stock sheds light on the way German Americans used race, American nationalism, and mass culture to fashion new identities in place of ethnic ones." (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7741.html). More alarming is your listing of a KKK speech as a evidence for your argument. (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/america7/content/multimedia/ch26/research_01c.htm) Jk180 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Accepted, similar ideas

Hi, everybody.

I, first, want to thank you for taking your time to read this 'rant'. The American ethnicity is real and can be proven by definition and comparison to other accepted ethnicities. If you agree or not, please take the time to listen and try to understand what I am trying to say.

Some of the above topics are saying that the American ethnicity is "wrong", "bogus", "silly", "stupid" and that it is just a a bunch of "stupid white rednecks" who "thick of themselves as ethnically American." This is actually kind of offensive and I do not believe that most of the Wikipedia community acts this way, considering that most of those people did not even have accounts.
Some people, on the other hand, acknowledged the existence of the ethnicity and tried to explain it but could not get good enough sources. I understand the source part, but before we can even try to get some, we need to agree on the common idea of the American ethnicity.

Firstly, Native Americans are not ethnic Americans, they are very different groups. Native Americans are a hugely diverse group of people loosely associated due to their difference form other Americans and the painfully inept census data that not only groups them together but also groups all whites, blacks and Asians. The last time I checked, Han Chinese people and Arabs are very different, though technically Asian. Native Americans comprise of many groups (Cherokee, Navajo, etc.) that are more similar to each other than to Europeans but still different. This grouping is like saying that Germans and Russians are the same, which they are not. The census data really makes the idea of ethnicity in the US very difficult. In other nations, they get more specific, this is seen a lot in Africa, where different people are considered different, rather than just black.

Are Native Americans nationally American? Yes! But are they ethnic American? No. Nationality and ethnicity are different things. Nationality can be changed, ethnicity cannot. If a Japanese person (nationally and ethnic) defects to the US, they are nationally American but remain ethnically Japanese. Citizenship and loyalty to the nation make a national, bloodline and family lineage makes an ethnicity.

Dictionary.com's definition of ethnicity is "an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" and "ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association"

Ethnic Americans fall into this category. They generally follow American culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_United_States), are generally Protestant, speak American English (which is unique from other forms), have a shared ancestral background, share a nation and associate together.

Immigration to this land did not seriously kick off until the late 1800's (http://www.immigrationeis.org/eis-documents/us-demographic-history), when it was easier to get to the continent. That said, there were immigrants who came before, just not in as vast numbers. The first settlers were coming as early as the 1600's; the Mayflower in 1620. That is nearly a maximum of three hundred years of relative isolation from Europe with amounts that followed. Colonial America had specific groups that became the American ethnicity with years of intermarriage (see: Old Stock Americans). The main thing that created the ethnicity was isolation from previous lands and people. The Old Stock American Wikipedia article says: "A distinct American ethnic identity was formed in the Thirteen Colonies due to intermarriage between different ethnic groups, such as the English, French Huguenots, Ulster Scots, Dutch, Swedes, Welsh, and Germans, and distance from Britain."

Evolutionists credit Darwin's finches as different, but from similar ancestors. They adapted while isolated from each other, becoming different. This concept is similar in the American ethnicity. Yes, I know that humans do not breed as fast as the birds, but people are able to change throughout life, especially linguistically.

At this point, you may or may not be agreeing with me on this, so I will put up some more ideas:

Afrikaners are considered an ethnic group separate from the Dutch. The Wikipedia article literally says that in the first sentence: "Afrikaners are a Southern African ethnic group descended from predominantly Dutch settlers first arriving in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." Everybody recognizes Afrikaners as distinct, nobody calls them Dutch. But, for some reason, Americans are not considered in the same way. Afrikaners are European-descent peoples who went to a new land and adapted into a new ethnicity. Ethnic Americans did the exact same thing. Not only that, but the Americans are actually an older ethnic group than the Afrikaners, with people settling earlier. Americans had more time for isolation.

Why are Afrikaners recognized but Americans not? My only idea is the name of the nationality. An Afrikaner is an Afrikaner ethnically but a South African nationally. A Zulu is Zulu ethnically but a South African nationally. Ethnic Americans do not have a name separate from their nation, creating confusion. An immigrant to the UK is British nationally but their ethnicity remains unchanged. This confuses a lot of people. Not only that, but there is a kind of movement of people who want to abandon ethnic differences and act as a human race. Not hating one another on basis of race is a great thing, anybody can agree on that. But we cannot just abandon the fact that people are different. We can be different and not hate each other, accepting one's ethnicity is not racist, it is being honest.

Acting like the American ethnicity does not exist is like saying that Latinos are not Latinos, but just part European and part native and so on. Or that Italians are just Romans and at this rate, all ethnicities kind of fall apart.

This article currently references the census data of self-proclaimed Americans but fails to mention actual ethnic Americans. It seems that the idea of no American ethnicity came from the US government classification of peoples.

I hope this made sense and can push to an acceptance of the obvious existence of the American ethnicity. The group is considered to be related to British, Canadian, Australians, Anglo-South Africans, New Zealanders, Rhodesians and British diaspora in Africa (see 'Related ethnic groups': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australians). There are other related groups, also. Some sources are needed for that.

This article should be renamed: American (ethnicity)

Lastly, for those of you who say that all people from the Americas are American, you are kind of wrong but also kind of right. In Spanish, the word Americano generally denotes people of the American continents while in English, the word American is generally used for the US. In English, there is usually a clarification between North, Central and South America. The Spanish equivalent word for American would be estadunidense which translates to United States-er.

Thanks for reading, hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Skier (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This Article Must be Deleted

This article is all about colonialism fascism, and highly racist. American is not a medal you can grab and steal, this article could easily be the basis for a legal suit from the American (Native) Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwords (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible List of Americans

Looking at articles for other ethnic groups (Germans in particular), I have seen mention of many examples of people of the group. I have a small list of additions to a potential list. Most should apply but should be double checked. Many more can obviously be added.

Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Jefferson Davis, Thomas Jefferson, George S. Patton, Robert E. Lee, John Wayne, Lysander Spooner, Anson Mills, John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed), Cornelius Vanderbilt, Theodore Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Sam Houston, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Mike Huckabee, Chuck Norris (possibly), Rick Perry, Clint Eastwood, Dick Cheney, Nancy Reagan, Richard Nixon

Adam Skier (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_ancestry/Archive_1&oldid=1029156295"