Social Thoughts on "Heritage" Americans/Canadians?

[Gutter Chris]

Don't know how you ended up on dubs but my advise is to take a two week hiatus otherwise you may be gone for good...if you can keep away I know you have like a million posts.

In general though lmao at the idea of 'heritage Americans' being anything other than the native americans who got wiped out largely.
I knows there's like a hierarchy of the other groups, German,Dutch, English, then it was Irish, French ,then Italians and Poles on a lower tier came later then you got non European groups. Afro's honorary position sometimes due to being brought as slave labour so they were here from the start. Then you got mestizo's, white passing are ranked higher especially in South America. Lets not even start on where muslims fit it nowadays.
It makes sense that there would be some kind of rank system arising though it always does with multi ethnic and racial groups living together.

Feel like Indians, blacks , whites and people of Spanish decent can probably all call themselves heritage Americans fairly.

 

[Andy Capp]

The people advocating for it do not care about fairness. They will try to chase out anyone not like them from the entertainment industry. They loved the witch hunts of the last 10 years.

Well, it is certainly true that opinions are like assholes--everybody has one.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

A citizen is a citizen.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Well, it is certainly true that opinions are like assholes--everybody has one.

The difference is i can defend mine.

 

[Andy Capp]

The difference is i can defend mine.

The difference compared with what? What I posted is fact, not opinion. But by all means, go ahead with the defence of your opinion. It may be interesting given your subjective description of other peoples' feelings and motives.

 

[Sinister]

I am a heritage Canadian. When it comes to this issue people jump right away to "oh no, does this mean me or my friend Mike are excluded?!" The main issue is that we as a people are often denied a legitimate identity in the name of tying up the loose ends of multiculturalism. It's politically inconvenient that there are people like me whose family has lived her for centuries and are a bit different than Baljeet who came here a few years ago. So of course I support the idea because without it I would be erasing my heritage instead of honoring it.

In Canada we never had the idea that we are simply a creed because our history is so sharply defined by the Anglo vs Franco conflicts. The charade started in the 70s. Liberals try to project it backwards and say our nation was about a mix of European and indigenous cultures but this is transparently not true. We are not Mexico which will be obvious to any observer.

For America it's more complicated because in the frontier days they would expand the frontier by aggressively recruiting German and Scandinavian immigrants and had to come up with some kind of creedal identity to convince them to speak English. Even still, Americans largely defined themselves by their heritage until FDR started pushing the idea that the creed was the important part.

TLDR being Canadian or American can be a creedal identity if you want it to, but its also the ethnicity/heritage of our people and our non-creedal identity. It's the plainly descriptive reality of our identity that any alien ethnographer would use to classify us.

It's not necessarily that multiculturalism is politically inconvenient, the struggles of multiculturalism are laced all through the implications in this post. Conflict between ethnic groups in a completely new place in a struggle for control (see: 7 years War for the US). The need to include other ethnic groups/nationalities for purposes of expansion. BTW Mexico was not merely a mix of European and indigenous cultures. That's WAY too nice a way of describing colonization which contained absolutely brutal acts against the Indigenous.

The issue is, what dictates the barrier of entry? That's where you run into the real political inconvenience, and that inconvenience is not liberal/conservative dependent, its usually dictated by the role of Nationalism in the body politic. Anyone who is using Nationalism to further their narrative is going to have to grapple with the burning question, just who are you talking to?

Traditionally "Hertiage Americans" sound like Bill the Butcher:



Or at least, they think they sound that tough. Really they sound like entitled brats who have an aneurism anytime they hear a funny language. Heritage Americans would also invoke the reason for denial of 14th Amendment protection to Natives as reason to suggest that Natives are members of their own Nations and cannot be under the same consideration. If you're part of the "Mohawk Nation" you never were an American.

It becomes quite clear with how the term is used that the purpose is an exclusionary National identity. If it was, as you say, about a creed then it would simply include anyone who adopts the creed, even Baljeet who came a few years ago. Even Bill the Butcher knew that because for all his venom against the Irish in that clip above, he surrounded himself with them once they adopted his creed and even tolerated their cultural norms that were different than his:

 

[Kassitus]

It's not necessarily that multiculturalism is politically inconvenient, the struggles of multiculturalism are laced all through the implications in this post. Conflict between ethnic groups in a completely new place in a struggle for control (see: 7 years War for the US). The need to include other ethnic groups/nationalities for purposes of expansion. BTW Mexico was not merely a mix of European and indigenous cultures. That's WAY too nice a way of describing colonization which contained absolutely brutal acts against the Indigenous.

The issue is, what dictates the barrier of entry? That's where you run into the real political inconvenience, and that inconvenience is not liberal/conservative dependent, its usually dictated by the role of Nationalism in the body politic. Anyone who is using Nationalism to further their narrative is going to have to grapple with the burning question, just who are you talking to?

Traditionally "Hertiage Americans" sound like Bill the Butcher:



Or at least, they think they sound that tough. Really they sound like entitled brats who have an aneurism anytime they hear a funny language. Heritage Americans would also invoke the reason for denial of 14th Amendment protection to Natives as reason to suggest that Natives are members of their own Nations and cannot be under the same consideration. If you're part of the "Mohawk Nation" you never were an American.

It becomes quite clear with how the term is used that the purpose is an exclusionary National identity. If it was, as you say, about a creed then it would simply include anyone who adopts the creed, even Baljeet who came a few years ago. Even Bill the Butcher knew that because for all his venom against the Irish in that clip above, he surrounded himself with them once they adopted his creed and even tolerated their cultural norms that were different than his:

Yeah I don't personally subscribe the creed view, to me it is indeed exclusionary as you say as pretty much any ethnic identity will be.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah I don't personally subscribe the creed view, to me it is indeed exclusionary as you say as pretty much any ethnic identity will be.

So then if you were to go around Canada saying you're a "Heritage Canadian" as a distinction...who are you talking to...and what are you talking about?

Notice how Bill refers to his group as "Natives." This was common for the children of settlers or Revolutionary War Veterans who were white, the appropriation of the term "Natives." I know a guy who does this, he gets VERY salty if he hears someone call only Indigenous people "Natives." He'll go on a rant about how he is a Native American because he was born here despite his parents being Welsh, German, and Scottish.

Personally I find these all politically-charged and otherwise unserious terms. Even the term "American" is kind of unserious, as if only ONE Nation in all of the Americas deserves that distinction. Canadians and Mexicans ARE Americans, so are South and Central Americans. The reductionist view of the term is little more than rhetoric to further U.S. Nationalist intent.

 

[lifelessheap]

I recently watched a fascinating segment on the concept of "Heritage Americans" - a term used to to describe people who trace their roots to the founding generations or descend from cultures that are predominantly white and Christian (the "original" settlers of the United States).

In a nutshell, if you weren't white and Christian, you could never truly be American (or Canadian). There was a funny section of the video that described social medias response to Kash Patel when he wished people "Happy Diwali". People told him to go back to India and worship his sand gods, despite the fact that Kash was born and raised in the United States.

I have encountered something similar (although not with a racist intent). When people ask me where I am from, it is never good enough to say "Canada". The follow up question is always "Where are you really from (lineage)?", despite the fact that I was born in Toronto. I am also acutely aware that I will always belong as an "Other" in Canada - I used to do a lot of research in rural northern communities, and I was always viewed differently because of my skin color. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it felt like there was a performative aspect to prove that I was "one of the good ones", because I spoke like them and shared similar values/interests.

I was curious to get people's thoughts on how they feel about the concept of "Heritage American". Is a Buddhist Chinese guy from San Francisco as American as a anglo-white church goer from Nebraska?

This seems really dumb. My cousin is Jewish and was born in Ghana. Nobody considers her African.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

This seems really dumb. My cousin is Jewish and was born in Ghana. Nobody considers her African.

So then you agree with the concept of a heritage American? Just because you are born there, doesn't make you an American?

For the record, I don't say this with any sort of antagonism. I am genuinely curious as to how you feel - you raised something I didn't really think of in my OP. In Guyana, there are many Dutch, Chinese and Portugese people - despite being born there, they are almost universally considered as "others". They themselves self identify by their ethnicity, and not by their nationality. In some instances (especially among the Portugese) - they consider it an insult to be called Guyanese.

It's a fascinating topic (in my opinion).

 

[Kassitus]

So then if you were to go around Canada saying you're a "Heritage Canadian" as a distinction...who are you talking to...and what are you talking about?

Notice how Bill refers to his group as "Natives." This was common for the children of settlers or Revolutionary War Veterans who were white, the appropriation of the term "Natives." I know a guy who does this, he gets VERY salty if he hears someone call only Indigenous people "Natives." He'll go on a rant about how he is a Native American because he was born here despite his parents being Welsh, German, and Scottish.

Personally I find these all politically-charged and otherwise unserious terms. Even the term "American" is kind of unserious, as if only ONE Nation in all of the Americas deserves that distinction. Canadians and Mexicans ARE Americans, so are South and Central Americans. The reductionist view of the term is little more than rhetoric to further U.S. Nationalist intent.

Typically it comes up when someone asks me "Where are you from?" I live in the GTA region and people are often shocked to learn I was born in Canada, let alone that my grandparents' grandparents were.

In Canada our national anthem contains the lyrics "our home and native land." so using native as a plain adjective to describe settlers or even recent immigrants is not unusual. With that said, besides the adjective we also use Native as a proper noun, and this usage is never applied to non-indigenous as its meaning extends beyond the adjective.

Inevitably terms get politicized, it's all a bit of silly game as we both know too well. All that aside though, we need to have terminology to describe things and for groups it's generally better to use autonyms than exonyms.

 

[Sinister]

So then you agree with the concept of a heritage American? Just because you are born there, doesn't make you an American?

For the record, I don't say this with any sort of antagonism. I am genuinely curious as to how you feel - you raised something I didn't really think of in my OP. In Guyana, there are many Dutch, Chinese and Portugese people - despite being born there, they are almost universally considered as "others". They themselves self identify by their ethnicity, and not by their nationality. In some instances (especially among the Portugese) - they consider it an insult to be called Guyanese.

It's a fascinating topic (in my opinion).

This is drawing a clear distinction between Nationality and ethnicity. Normally when you have people who try to blend the two, you gave an agenda afoot. A desire to define citizenship BY ethnicity. If a Jewish girl is born in Ghana and lives in Ghana, she is African. Otherwise essentially every white South African isnt African. And for as hopelessly "woke" as people around here consider me, I wouldnt deny them saying they're African even if I greatly dislike the world views put forth by many of their politicians. They are Africans. Eloy, dipsh*t that he is, is an African American, because African and "black" aren't synonymous. Just like European or American and white shouldnt be.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

The difference compared with what? What I posted is fact, not opinion. But by all means, go ahead with the defence of your opinion. It may be interesting given your subjective description of other peoples' feelings and motives.

In what universe would DEI be about fairness? It something that came out of current academia and has almost no public support.

 

[Siver!]

In what universe would DEI be about fairness? It something that came out of current academia and has almost no public support.

Its less about "fairness" and more about representation of different views and tapping into potential.

Many don't like that and want culture to be homogeneous and plain.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Its less about "fairness" and more about representation of different views and tapping into potential.

Many don't like that and want culture to be homogeneous and plain.

What different views do tell. For profit companies will try to tap into potential no matter what.

If DEI advocate culture does not like homogeneous and plain i don't know what to tell you.

 

[Siver!]

What different views do tell. For profit companies will try to tap into potential no matter what.

If DEI advocate culture does not like homogeneous and plain i don't know what to tell you.

For example, "DEI" in arts and culture means different stories in different settings. Different angles. Different looks.

Its something the right can't come to terms with, they want safety and the same thing on repeat.

Now extrapolate to business and any other industry you can think of.

Policing? Government? Do you want everyone to look and sound the same, with the exact same talking points stemming from the same learned and cultural experience?

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

For example, "DEI" in arts and culture means different stories in different settings. Different angles. Different looks.

Its something the right can't come to terms with, they want safety and the same thing on repeat.

Now extrapolate to business and any other industry you can think of.

Policing? Government? Do you want everyone to look and sound the same, with the exact same talking points stemming from the same learned and cultural experience?

No it does not. The perspectives in the arts are more narrow than ever and megablockbusters took over.

People want to same thing on repeat, that is why tropes work. And sometimes something very divergent works. That is how it worked for a long time.

If the brahmins were to succeed everyone would sound the same since the quote on unquote right is the guardian of regional identities in the United States. If someone is pushing the same learned cultural experience it is the left since they are way more in favor of college in the polls.

 

[Andy Capp]

In what universe would DEI be about fairness? It something that came out of current academia and has almost no public support.

That is not an arguement.

 

[USA!USA!]

Being an American, I don’t like the idea of some Americans inherently being “better” than others based on ethnicity/race. To me you have to have a pretty shitty life to even care about that aspect.

I don’t personally think lesser of people here on work visas or illegally, but I’d certainly put the needs of actual American citizens WELL above them.

In America, Americans should be > than anyone else.. otherwise, what is the point of having a country?

 

[Sinister]

No it does not. The perspectives in the arts are more narrow than ever and megablockbusters took over.

People want to same thing on repeat, that is why tropes work. And sometimes something very divergent works. That is how it worked for a long time.

If the brahmins were to succeed everyone would sound the same since the quote on unquote right is the guardian of regional identities in the United States. If someone is pushing the same learned cultural experience it is the left since they are way more in favor of college in the polls.

Your arguments don't make sense. Perspectives of Arts are more narrow now largely due to capitalism and corporatization of Arts. Actual artists pushing the envelops of societal comfort are being villified by the regime the same as they always are.

People don't just want the same thing on repeat. We condition society to be allergic to change. The conditioning of consumerism which has you choosing from 27 types of ketchup that all look only slightly different and are all made by rhe same 3 companies. But that's not a grass roots occurrence, and that's how culture dies.

Leftists just want different cultures to be allowed to exist so long as they do not aggress upon others. College is not significant of culture. Almost every right wing politician who sells you the idea that it is all have College educations themselves. They just tell you that sh*t because they'd prefer you not be as educated as they are. It makes you easier to convince of their bullsh*t, so you cede power to them and hope they represent you, when their actual goal is just to hold that power.

Someone like me, I want you educated, informed, engaged. And if you have a difference of view that DOES make sense, let's hear it.

But hey I'm the woke radical whatever whatever.