Post by MRuffalo715 on Jan 3, 2006 10:09:53 GMT -5
A large number of white American citizens listed "American" as their ethnic background in the 1990 U.S. Census. Some people have a problem with this. But shouldn't the descendants of the colonial American patriots have the right to list "American" as their ethnicity? Their families have been here for 300 or more years! Clearly the English are descended from the Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, and Romans among others. But they are still English! Shouldn't the descendants of early American patriots be called Americans?
Post by aroundtheworld on Jan 3, 2006 13:25:51 GMT -5
What about the people of other races who were not slaves who lived here for over 300 years? Not all blacks/mulattoes/mediterraneans were slaves. Some of them came freely and set up homes and families. Are they American as well?
Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion, or the tiger, or even the elephant. It's a shark, riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see.
^When you speak of Mediterraneans, it was almost exclusively Turks who were enslaved, and they were very few in number. I believe that such people were regarded as mulatto by the one-drop rule of the time.
You are what you think you are. If people just consider themselves to be American (ethnically speaking) then they are, whether they be white, black, or anything else. Many or most Brazilians, Chileans, Argentines, Mexicans, etc... consider their nationality to be their ethnicity. Besides, many in the US have regional traditions and customs, beliefs, that are very typical of forming an ethnic group, especially the South: It's got culinary, musical, linguistic, and belief traditions just to name a few. I'd say they are an ethnic group (if those individuals see themselves as one). Also, Americans abroad tend to be seen as a nationality/ethnic group.