I have a tendency to assume everyone on the internet's American, but I know that's not true here. I know Wensleydale's Welsh, and SA's Australian, for starters... And I started wondering who else on here is from where? Just idle curiosity, really, but... tell me, haha.
Me, I'm English, and I live in London at the moment, although I grew up in Lincolnshire and only moved away last year.
I'm Canadian (though Steerpike thought I was british)
united states.
United Statesian.
Native American
Earthian. Because I don't believe in countries.
American, in Florida, currently.
I'm Nevadan... err American
K'Ar - the US Gov't claims we're American (along with a couple of hundred other sovereign nations within their borders remaining from the couple of thousand nations they wiped out to fulfill their "manifest destiny")
Canadian.
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawK'Ar - the US Gov't claims we're American (along with a couple of hundred other sovereign nations within their borders remaining from the couple of thousand nations they wiped out to fulfill their "manifest destiny")
Honestly? It happened a hundred and fifty years ago. Get over it.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: Snargash MoonclawK'Ar - the US Gov't claims we're American (along with a couple of hundred other sovereign nations within their borders remaining from the couple of thousand nations they wiped out to fulfill their "manifest destiny")
Honestly? It happened a hundred and fifty years ago. Get over it.
When you're people are officially declared to no longer exist how will you feel about it
wasicu boy? The broken treaties still exist - and are still violated. This is not ancient history, it is current policy.
Let's keep this civil guys.
I'm from Denmark. I live in a suburb a bit north of Copenhagen (the capital).
Amerikanische
German. I originally came from Nuremberg, but now I'm living in Aachen, the westernmost city of Germany (and the only German to be occupied by the Allies in 1944).
Fraconian errr... german, too. Currently living in Würzburg (which was bombed flat, to carry on with the WWII memories).
Heh, I find it funny the way here in the UK we have this massive cultural memory of the blitz and how terrible it was, and the majority of people forget that afterwards we did the exact same thing to Germany, only probably worse.
Quote from: KindlingHeh, I find it funny the way here in the UK we have this massive cultural memory of the blitz and how terrible it was, and the majority of people forget that afterwards we did the exact same thing to Germany, only probably worse.
There's some anecdote about an Allied commander wanting to drive into Aachen some time after the battle. His driver keeps on driving through a ruined landscape of broken stones. He asks his driver: "When to we get to Aachen?" His driver replies: "Sir, we've entered the city limits half an hour ago..."
Nuremberg was also fairly flattened. My actual home town of Erlangen was lucky - the American forces wanted to capture it intact because they wanted the infrastructure for their field hospitals, so the city was spared.
On the other hand, my mother's home town of Siegen was a major mining center with an important railroad, so it got bombed fairly often. My grandmother also witnessed a strafing run by an Allied fighter, which was a fairly harrowing experience.
Quote from: KindlingHeh, I find it funny the way here in the UK we have this massive cultural memory of the blitz and how terrible it was, and the majority of people forget that afterwards we did the exact same thing to Germany, only probably worse.
ironic, it was a british bomber wing that wiped out 90% of the city center in a single raid. my grandparents lived over forty kilometers away and they could see the fireglow and hear the explosions. i'm actually pretty happy of the time i live in, when i think of that... especially seeing as würzburg has always been a university town with zero heavy industry. never saw it coming.
And I'm from Lincolnshire, nicknamed "bomber county".... they probably flew from round the corner from where I used to live....
Where I live is where the American army got many of it's uniforms and clothing. My town also manufactured breach casings for 20mm anti-air cannons.
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawWhen you're people are officially declared to no longer exist how will you feel about it wasicu boy? The broken treaties still exist - and are still violated. This is not ancient history, it is current policy.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's as a political entity that you no longer exist.
And I might be wrong, but usually when a treaty is broken it doesn't stick around to be waved about, except in the case of the Indians.
Whoa, calm down. The things that happened to the native americans were awful, but it wasn't these guys, here, now, that did them. So both of you, peace out! Whew.
Welsh, myself. I was for a while under the impression that my family came (from a few generations ago) from England and Ireland, but I have now discovered that I'm in the paternal line a descendant of a fluent, home-Welsh speaker, whose name was (apparently) Black-Eyes Jimmy. Fascinating fact, eh?
It's also funny how in Britain, we make such an immense issue out of nationalities. Scotland wants to go independent, Ireland (with the exception of parts of Ulster) DID go independent, Wales has its own hardline independence party - even Cornwall has Kerno. We have this immense thing about nationalities up to the point where in any debate we'll automatically side with anyone who's British and not English - up until the point where an American, Frenchman, or practically ANYONE else from another country comes along, at which point we'll all gang up together.
Quote from: WensleydaleIt's also funny how in Britain, we make such an immense issue out of nationalities. Scotland wants to go independent, Ireland (with the exception of parts of Ulster) DID go independent, Wales has its own hardline independence party - even Cornwall has Kerno. We have this immense thing about nationalities up to the point where in any debate we'll automatically side with anyone who's British and not English - up until the point where an American, Frenchman, or practically ANYONE else from another country comes along, at which point we'll all gang up together.
You guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
Nothing precludes them from being a federation under the thumb of the EU.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
Nothing precludes them from being a federation under the thumb of the EU.
Very true but they will have more gravitas as a united federation compared 4 independent nations. England will always have that gravitas, so I suppose it is, in my opinion, in the best interest of Scotland/North Ireland/Wales to play Remora and latch themselves onto the shark that is England while pushing for greater and greater domestic control until Federation is achieved.
Guys (Wenslydale, EE, et al) - no I don't hold anyone *here* as responsible for the things I'm talking about, but as for *now* - I am trying to correct the common error that these are simply matters of ugly history. As I said, they aren't (just) history - they're current policy (in practice as I sit here typing). It should not be difficult to understand why I would take offense at being told to "get over" something which is going on right now. For one of many intro's to relevant current issues see (http://www.dickshovel.com/www.html) - particularly if you're wondering what the hell I called SG (in Lakota). As for being civil - I'm trying very hard to keep my temper here and will point out that I did not use the word among my (biological) father's people which basically translates as "rabid beast" even though I am, if not quite that pissed, certainly that disgusted.
SG, yes you are mistaken - you are making it ever more clear that you have no inkling of the issue(s) which I initially raised. This is actually true of vast majority of U.S. citizens. The complete absence of any mention of Native issues in recent (and virtually all previous) elections/campaigns in the U.S. might seem to demonstrate that these things have ceased to have any meaning; until you contrast this with Canadian politics in which First Nations issues are an explicit (and absolutely necessary) part of any candidate's platform. The implication your last statement carries with it would be like saying that the Irish people didn't exist while Ireland was ruled by England, that Jews did not exist until Israel was (re)founded or that the Tibetan people do not exist now. You may well have intended to provide clarity and actually (consciously) avoid such an absurd declaration, yet for nearly 90% of the original nations of this land this has been made true - they are extinct. Only a tiny handful of the Forgotten Nations (like the K'Ar) remain, though unrecognized. The remaining, roughly 10%, constitute those Native Nations which are recognized, but whether or not (or more precisely, how) they constitute political entities is an extraordinarily tangled matter as touched upon below.
As for broken treaties sticking around - treaty enforcement is one of the functions of the UN - except in the case of Native Americans, broken treaties *do* stick around - and are held as "treaties in force" by the international community which seeks (with highly varying degrees of success) through various means (e.g., "economic sanctions") to get the violating party(ies) to honor the contract. However, treaties with American Indians (for a partial list see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_United_States#U.S._Native_American_treaties)) do not stick around - you will find none of those treaties listed if you search the U.S. Department of State's Treaties in Force (http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2007/index.htm). The whole matter of legal cases regarding the (current) honoring and enforcement of treaty terms (often Tribal Hunting and Fishing Rights cases) gets very strange and complicated - because here we are looking at entities which the US Gov't does acknowledge as Sovereign States when it suits them. That's not a facetious statement, Tribal Sovereignty under US policy exists primarily on paper outside of a relatively few specific court rulings enforcing it.
American :(
M.
American born, Japanese American, my mom is full blooded Japanese, dad was a sailor...
Thus my mother, as a child, was about 70 miles from Hiroshima when they faced American wrath, which was on the other side of a mountain range, thankfully.
My dad's side is mostly Irish, though my grandmother is of Scottish descent, also got some Amish in the blood, from about 5 generations back, so a tiny bit of German in me too.
Other than a very slight Mongolian fold, no one would guess me for oriental blood.
GP
United States.
As an aside, I am about an eighth Potawotomi Native American. The rest of my ethnic heritage is various kinds of white, including English, Irish, Lithuanian, and Russian. My mom tries to be active with the local Native American community, but no one takes a blond Potawotomi too seriously.
I apologize in advance for derailing this...
QuoteIt should not be difficult to understand why I would take offense at being told to "get over" something which is going on right now.
Really? Native American lands are being taken by force right now? I know something, I would hope, about the legal debacle, but I was talking about the initial push westward.
QuoteAs for being civil - I'm trying very hard to keep my temper here and will point out that I did not use the word among my (biological) father's people which basically translates as "rabid beast" even though I am, if not quite that pissed, certainly that disgusted.
I'm really not trying to piss you off. I apologize if I am. Understand where I'm coming from. In Wisconsin, as well as Oklahoma (my roomate's home state), we have not had good relations with Indians.
QuoteSG, yes you are mistaken - you are making it ever more clear that you have no inkling of the issue(s) which I initially raised.
The problem I have is that I can't find a clear, concise statement of what that issue is. All I ever get from Indians is a sense of dissatisfaction and, from many, a desire to 'get off their land.' Something which is ridiculous (I was born here too bub.)
QuoteThe implication your last statement carries with it would be like saying that the Irish people didn't exist while Ireland was ruled by England, that Jews did not exist until Israel was (re)founded or that the Tibetan people do not exist now.
Politically, they didn't[Don't]. Note 'nationality,' not 'ethnicity.'
QuoteThe whole matter of legal cases regarding the (current) honoring and enforcement of treaty terms (often Tribal Hunting and Fishing Rights cases) gets very strange and complicated - because here we are looking at entities which the US Gov't does acknowledge as Sovereign States when it suits them. That's not a facetious statement, Tribal Sovereignty under US policy exists primarily on paper outside of a relatively few specific court rulings enforcing it.
See, this is what annoys me. Either one or the other, but not both. I understand it's not your(referring to the Natives) fault, but still.
Are there any Native nations recognized by anyone other than the country they reside in?
Apology accepted - and yeah - it's way confusing a morass. Given the number of questions I'm going to move this to a new thread.
I am what is affectionately referred to as an American Mutt; the product of the great Melting Pot.
I know for a fact that I'm part Irish, English, and Mi'kmaq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micmac) (although due to confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy), I've ended up learning more about the Abnaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki)), and I think I'm also German and French, along with quite a few other ethnicities that I either don't know of and/or can't think of.
Then there's the Italian. This isn't actually part of my genetic background, at least as far as I know, but it's still a part of me that I consider just as important as any other part of me. My "second" (honorary) mother is very much Italian, and I picked up several traits from her when I was growing up. To this day, I still talk with my hands a little, although it's more noticeable around people I know very well.
If we start going back generations I think me and my mom traced something ridiculous like 20+ ethnic groups in the last 5 generations.
I know for a fact that I am part French-Canadian, Irish, regular French, Native American, Italian, English(UK), and possibly German.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
But we basically ARE a four-state federation, only all extremely dependent on the overhead body (i.e. the British government). Legally speaking, the Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly have no sovereign power, which means any decision made by them can be overruled by the British Parliament at any time. The Scottish Parliament have slightly more power. Wales, for example, is independent only in the following senses:
1) We get recognised as a separate area on the map, with our own capital. Sometimes.
2) We have our own national anthem.
3) The Welsh assembly chooses how to spend money given to them (to a degree, anyway)
4) We're allowed to compete in
some sporting events as an independent team (although not the Olympics, where we're strangely considered a non-competing country despite the GB team encompassing the entire island).
5) We're sort of something to do with the EU
We're not, however, in the following senses:
1) Our parliament relies totally on the British parliament to exist, legislate, and so on.
2) Our resources (especially water) are piped away into England without any money going to the Assembly, etc.
3) We're not allowed to compete independently in the Olympics.
4) We don't have our own internet .tld, we don't have any status in the UN, etc
5) Almost all of our national institutions (i.e. the NHS) are controlled directly from London
So we can't really be considered four totally-independent countries, we're just 'Devolved', that is, each branch has some authority over its own affairs.
This is what happens when you're conquered, Cymry. I'm amazed you get those rights at all, considering British history.
M.
Quote from: CheomeshThis is what happens when you're conquered, Cymry. I'm amazed you get those rights at all, considering British history.
M.
You mean Cymry? Or Cymro? Or Cymru? :P
So'm I, really. It's some kind of big English guilt thing they've got going on. I think it's mainly due to an immensely vocal minority made up of Plaid Cymru and the SNP that forced the government to put it to a referendum, which then of course they had to stick to. Northern Ireland on the other hand is a whole other affair.
Quote from: WensleydaleQuote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
But we basically ARE a four-state federation, only all extremely dependent on the overhead body (i.e. the British government). Legally speaking, the Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly have no sovereign power, which means any decision made by them can be overruled by the British Parliament at any time. The Scottish Parliament have slightly more power. Wales, for example, is independent only in the following senses:
1) We get recognised as a separate area on the map, with our own capital. Sometimes.
2) We have our own national anthem.
3) The Welsh assembly chooses how to spend money given to them (to a degree, anyway)
4) We're allowed to compete in some sporting events as an independent team (although not the Olympics, where we're strangely considered a non-competing country despite the GB team encompassing the entire island).
5) We're sort of something to do with the EU
We're not, however, in the following senses:
1) Our parliament relies totally on the British parliament to exist, legislate, and so on.
2) Our resources (especially water) are piped away into England without any money going to the Assembly, etc.
3) We're not allowed to compete independently in the Olympics.
4) We don't have our own internet .tld, we don't have any status in the UN, etc
5) Almost all of our national institutions (i.e. the NHS) are controlled directly from London
So we can't really be considered four totally-independent countries, we're just 'Devolved', that is, each branch has some authority over its own affairs.
Like I said, you guys have been limping along and doing a half-arsed job that doesn't really accomplish much other than needless amounts of legal wrangling. Honestly, you guys (Scots and Welsh) are nothing more than puppet regimes, IMO. You have no real independence in domestic affairs for the simple reason that London tells you what you can use the money they give you for and if London doesn't like something your government has done, they can override it. You may as well be in a unitary state at that point.
P.S. In a true federation, you wouldn't be competing under the 'Welsh' flag in any international sporting events (save some EU or Commonwealth ones) any more than there can be an independent Nevadan team, separate from the US's team.
The Scots actually have a lot more freedom then the Welsh, there semi-autonomous.
I'm Canadian, of English descent. I live in Vancouver, and have lived in and around the city my whole life.
Quote from: LlumThe Scots actually have a lot more freedom then the Welsh, there semi-autonomous.
True, very true. I don't know, I can never wrap my heads around the point of a unitary state when you have such vocal ethnic minorities in lands that were once independent nations. the UK should take a page out of Spain's handbook, throw up their arms and say 'enough is enough already!' I'm unsure why London is so against the idea, its not like England, even if it's split into multiple states, would
not dominate the Federation. Their population alone would assure that (even if England were split into 6 states each would still have 3 million MORE people than Scotland and 5 million MORE than Wales).
Now one might ask 'but why change anything at all then?' My answer would be that, on a domestic front, Scotland and Wales would have much, much more freedom. So really, its a win, win situation.
Because historically the English want to own all the British Isles. That is a big part of it. Scotland is only as independent as it is because of many many wars, that the Scots won.
The old Homogeny vs. Heterogeneity debate. I'm a hardcore federalist at heart, so I have a definite preference for Federations over unitary states, especially unitary states that encompass large and diverse populous.
African American, but raised in Oz. There's some Spanish and Scottish floating around in there from my father's side (he was born in the Carribean) but my mother's pure chocolate.
I don't consider myself "black", which is bothersome when all the teens and twenty-somethings expect me to identify with my "ethnicity" (usually by being sexy and superfly - which I am, but that's beside the point). None of my friends are black, and they generally describe me as "the whitest guy they know", by which I suppose they mean well spoken and the only twenty year-old within fifty miles who doesn't wear his pants below his butt crack.
My citizenship is American, Oregonian to be precise. My ethnicity though is extremely varied though much of it is concentrated in one part of the world. I am 1/4th sottish and also have bits of English and Irish in me as well as some welsh (or so I am told). There are also bits of German and Polish as well as some Native American (my dad has enough of that blood in him to qualify for the checks). While I consider myself solidly an American, I identify well with my scottish heritage (and take great pride in it).
If we're talking about ethnicity/heritage then I may as well put myself out there. My mom's side is heavily Dutch, mostly originating from a small town called Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berg_(Margraten))(near the border with Belgium and Germany. She also has a little French and Belgian in her, which makes sense, given the location of Berg. On my father's side, things are much more sketchy. My Dad's Father doesn't know much about his family's history, other than being English (trust me, my teeth (pre-braces) will attest to that, lol) along with a little French. On his mom's side, things are also sketchy but she does know she (and thus I) am descended from the Scottish Clan of Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Grant), as well as a little English and French. given the information I have, I believe I am: 1/4 Dutch, English & French, 1/8th Belgian & Scottish. So yes, I'm fairly 'white bread' as my friends with more 'exotic' heritages tell me :P
Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
Has the EU evolved into an Evil Empire while I wasn't looking? ;)
Quote from: Jürgen HubertQuote from: Elemental_ElfYou guys should just become a 4 state (at minimum) federation and get it over with. Ya'll have been dragging your feet on this issue, IMO. Better to be a federation than 4 independent nations all under the thumb of the EU.
Has the EU evolved into an Evil Empire while I wasn't looking? ;)
It's Evil Umpire. That's what the "U" stands for JH.
And if we're doing ethnic descent now (which I guess more Americans need to describe since we can't take it for granted), primarily Irish. With some English, a little Cherokee, and probably some other stuff I don't know about.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawEarthian. Because I don't believe in countries.
Yeah, on the whole "under the thumb of the EU" thing... personally I think we (the UK) should stop considering ourselves somehow aloof from the rest of Europe. You look at an atlas and we're a part of Europe. We need to sort ourselves out and properly embrace the EU.
I want to say my Canadian nationality is traced back through English, and then German or some sort of Slav ancestry, but I don't know - never done a check, and you all know how easily someone can take a different name, especially way back when (when they were practically being handed out).
Why do people care so much about what geographical location and/or tribal group they're from?
Note: I'm just asking.
Because some people like having a heritage, which partly means knowing where your ancestors came from. Another thing is good ole familial pride that some people trace back tons of generations.
I would also like to point out that your heritage does have an effect on you wether you like it or not, its something that effects us, so I guess most people embrace it.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhy do people care so much about what geographical location and/or tribal group they're from?
Note: I'm just asking.
What llum said. Like I mentioned, I take pride in my Scottish (and to a lesser degree native American) ancestry. It is something I research and am fascinated by.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawEarthian. Because I don't believe in countries.
Unfortunately, countries believe in
you.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhy do people care so much about what geographical location and/or tribal group they're from?
I used to wonder about that myself. Then I actually lived in other countries for a time (six months in Scotland, three weeks in Thailand, two months in the United States), and I realized that being born and raised in a particular country means you start out with a whole range of cultural assumptions and behavior which you don't even
notice as something unusual until you've come into extended contact with people from other countries.
My current place of work was fairly instructive in this as well. We've got two Brazilians, one Indian, one Russian, and one North Korean. And the only other German among the scientific assistants comes from a Moroccan family. Each of us has his own set of cultural assumptions and behavioral norms built right into us, and this has shaped all our personalities - and how we interact with each other.
Places of origin matter because they are part of what we are.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertPlaces of origin matter because they are part of what we are.
Only if you let them be.
Although i seem to be bringing it up an awful lot i don't care that much about my nationality. I'm actually kind of bitter about not growing up in an english-speaking country. Not that my country is bad in anyway, pretty good place in many ways, i just can't stand all the national pride (especially when it comes to sporting events, although it should be noted I'm not that sporty).
[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]Only if you let them be. [/blockquote]Amen. Maybe (ironically) it's just because I live in Canada - a very multicultural place where nationality and ethnicity don't matter as much compared to many parts of the world - but I've always resisted the notion that place automatically defines a person. Certainly to the extent that it does form part of who someone is, it's only a part. I just really don't like all-encompassing identity labels: I think that humans are way too complex to be summed up through a few elements. We're too complex, and our identities are mysterious even to ourselves.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Jürgen HubertPlaces of origin matter because they are part of what we are.
Only if you let them be.
If you aren't aware of how your country of origin shapes you, you don't really have much of a choice - it is too ingrained.
How much time have
you spent in another country, if I may ask?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Jürgen HubertPlaces of origin matter because they are part of what we are.
Only if you let them be.
I hate to say this but it effects you wether you like it or not. Just like your heritage. There are some things you can't escape, even denying it is being effected by it in a way.
Now I'm not saying these are the only two things that define you and that's all. Where you come from and your heritage will have a non-marginal effect on you as a person.
I'm going to agree with everything Jurgen has said above me as well.
I think there are some things you have no control of; subconscious pushes to your personality made by your surroundings and the culture that surround you. And then there is the more conscious matter of partaking in a cultural identity. You might have been manipulated on an unnoticeable level to become slightly more american than canadian (or whatever), but you can make this division even more obvious by making choices counter to your own identity but which fit with your national identity (listening to certain types of music, only reading up on your own country's history, only taking part in traditional religions rather than religions you believe in, and only watching sports that are popular in your country or where your own country is participating).
[blockquote=JH]Unfortunately, countries believe in you.[/blockquote]
This is grounds for EPIC "in Soviet Russia" jokes... :)
Quote from: SteerpikeAmen. Maybe (ironically) it's just because I live in Canada - a very multicultural place where nationality and ethnicity don't matter as much compared to many parts of the world
I doubt it's that since many places where culture is greatly varied (see: America) tend to have large groups that strongly identify with their ancestral culture. It's probably just your personality.
QuoteLike I said, you guys have been limping along and doing a half-arsed job that doesn't really accomplish much other than needless amounts of legal wrangling. Honestly, you guys (Scots and Welsh) are nothing more than puppet regimes, IMO. You have no real independence in domestic affairs for the simple reason that London tells you what you can use the money they give you for and if London doesn't like something your government has done, they can override it. You may as well be in a unitary state at that point.
P.S. In a true federation, you wouldn't be competing under the 'Welsh' flag in any international sporting events (save some EU or Commonwealth ones) any more than there can be an independent Nevadan team, separate from the US's team.
You may have missed the point slightly. Although London could in THEORY overrule anything we do, there's a kind of unspoken rule that they DON'T. I do agree that we have less independence than Scotland (mainly 'cause their government have more powers than ours) but that IS slowly changing. So actually, what would really be the difference about being under a federation? We have our devolved governments and we have our over-seeing government in London which makes all the 'big decisions' (like going to war or passing pan-national laws, just like, I believe, the American... Congress? Possibly?). The only differences would be that we'd have slightly more say in what we spend our money on and legislation within Wales, which is basically what Scotland's got now.
Quote from: Jürgen HubertIf you aren't aware of how your country of origin shapes you, you don't really have much of a choice - it is too ingrained.
Quote from: LlumI hate to say this but it effects you wether you like it or not. Just like your heritage. There are some things you can't escape, even denying it is being effected by it in a way.
Now I'm not saying these are the only two things that define you and that's all. Where you come from and your heritage will have a non-marginal effect on you as a person.
I'm going to agree with everything Jurgen has said above me as well.
The point wasn't that origin doesn't affect you, the point is that you don't have to give a damn if you don't want to.
I don't see how you can fail to "give a damn"... the whole way you were raised, and the way you developed as a person due to the cultural influences that surrounded you in your formative years, which can vary HEAVILY from one nation to the next, are an integral part of who you are... are you saying you don't give a damn about yourself?
I think I see one aspect of where you may be coming from... which is maybe that you see taking interest in your heritage, or pride in your nation, as something to associate with a sort of obnoxious, just-sub-racist patriotism, which is something I myself have done for a long time...
But I am quite proud of my nationality, in a sort of... I dunno, alternative way... England has a less than wonderful history, but I think despite that we've turned into quite good modern nation, all things considered. There's a lot I would like to change, but I like it here and I'm proud of being English.
However, this form of national pride in me is very different from the kind of right-wing, nationalistic, racist "national pride" associated with people like the BNP... who have actually achieved the demoralising feat of turning the English flag into a symbol of racism.... instead I'm simply... I don't know. Quietly proud, I suppose, while also being realistic about the flaws of my nation.
Quote from: Kindling... are you saying you don't give a damn about yourself?
I'm saying I don't give a damn about the parts I don't give a damn about. Genetic and cultural history and nationality are examples.
And just because I have parts I give a damn about I don't need to actually give them names or identify them.
Quote from: KindlingI think I see one aspect of where you may be coming from... which is maybe that you see taking interest in your heritage, or pride in your nation, as something to associate with a sort of obnoxious, just-sub-racist patriotism...
No, I don't see what you guys are doing as anything that bad. I see it as needless labeling, a grabbing of an icon to stick on yourself because you need to tell someone, even yourself, who you are out-loud. I just don't see a reason to take identity farther than just
being.
Nothing I've read here as struck me as "obnoxious, just-sub-racist patriotism". :cool:
I wasn't referring to what was posted in this thread, I'm sorry if it came across like I was! Not at all!
And as for your point about "needless" labelling... I think there is a deep-seated human need to label... well, pretty much everything. Everyone puts things into little mental categories (or at least, everyone in my experience) so why not themselves and other people too? Labelling something is just describing it as what it is, it's not telling it what to be... does that make sense? I'm not sure it does... but regardless, I mean it.
Quote from: Kindling... I think there is a deep-seated human need to label... well, pretty much everything. Everyone puts things into little mental categories (or at least, everyone in my experience) so why not themselves and other people too? Labelling something is just describing it as what it is, it's not telling it what to be... does that make sense? I'm not sure it does... but regardless, I mean it.
Then just put me in the category of "doesn't understand humans". ;)
I guess the way that I was interpreting Silvercat's point was perhaps that even if a place forms a part of you, it's not the same for everybody. Being American or English or Russian or whatever means something different to different people; it's viewed very differently depending on a lot of other factors than mere place. So, while place might contribute a set of cultural assumptions, it's always interpreted and filtered. What it means to be of >insert nation< isn't a singular thing, it's a multiplicity - in fact I'd go so far as to say that each and every individual within a culture or region has a wholly separate and unique version of that culture/region's behaviors, even if some commonalities can be drawn. Two Americans may radically disagree about what it means to be American, and neither one can claim to be right; in fact, two Americans who largely agree on what it means to be Americans probably disagree in the details or on their interpretation of the definition. And while some people attempt to allow a set of arbitrary cultural norms to define them wholly (in my mind a foolish goal, since those norms are ultimately illusory and mutable rather than static or concrete), others can realize their own essential role in digesting or interpreting their sense of place or culture, defining themselves against or apart from the commonly conceived set of behaviors of their social context. I personally prefer to live in a society that encourages this kind of self-individuation rather than asserting "We're X so we do things in X manner."
/end rant.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThe point wasn't that origin doesn't affect you, the point is that you don't have to give a damn if you don't want to.
If you are ever going to interact intensively with people from elsewhere, you'd better
give a damn. Otherwise the potential for unintentionally giving insult is enormous.
Of course, if you never leave your country of origin, and never have guests from elsewhere in either your private life or during work, then it really doesn't matter. But then you are effectively a captive of your home country...
Maybe I'm seeing something that noone else is in Silvercat's post, but I think you're missing Silvercat's point... the way I understood it, it was about deciding for yourself how much you let your heritage or place of birth define you, not whether to respect and be aware of the customs of others. It's like, say you're born in the Bible Belt of America. That doesn't mean you have to be a Christian, even though Christianity is very much part of that region's cultural norms. You can choose to what extent your heritage or the place you grow up defines you: you're not limited or bound to it inextricably, you can react against it. That doesn't mean that you should be insensitive towards others, though, and I don't think that was what Silvercat was suggesting.
I see what you mean, Steerpike, and, by extension, what Silvercat means, but... my point ended up being less about how your nationality defines you as a person, although I do still hold by what I and Jurgen said about cultural influences affecting what you think of as acceptable social behaviour.
Instead I think I was saying that the point of nationalities is just to provide a frame of reference. Also, I think, that was my point in starting this thread. Not so I could think to myself, "Ah, Crippled Crow's Danish (for example) now I can stop thinking of him as an individual and just lump him in with the rest of his kind" but rather just to give myself more knowledge about the people I'm talking to and interacting with here, in the form of a broad and loose interpretation of what I know of their nation's culture... and also to satisfy my curiosity about their geographical locations, but that's hardly the point at the moment.
Like I said about labels, I think that while many people do see them as constraining ("what sort of music do you play?" "oh, er, um, well, it's a bit of a mixture") I see it more as just categorising things based on characteristics that they have, rather than imposing on things certain parameters so that they MUST fit their label... instead the label is chosen to fit them...
EDIT: Also, little anecdote to support Jurgen's points about cultural assumptions. A few years ago I knew a Portuguese guy who was studying in England. He was a lovely guy, but one time he did something that, to me, seemed really out of character and outright unpleasant.
He picked up an English girl one night and took her back to his flat, where she stayed the night. In the morning, when they woke up, he told her to get up and make him breakfast. Outraged by what was to her blatant sexism, she stormed out and wasn't seen or heard from again, leaving the Portuguese dude extremely puzzled as to what he had done wrong... He thought his behaviour had been entirely acceptable, based on the cultural moires that he was used to from Portugal.