briar patch

[Josh]

I was born in America as a descendant of immigrants who arrived from 150 to 300 years ago. No Native American ancestors that I'm aware of, although my great-great-grandfather bought land that was designated as an Indian reserve, and my parents still live on part of that. Am I part of my ancestors' Swiss, German, French, and English people groups, or have those melted into an American people group, and how long ago did that happen? Is it okay if I call myself an American when I'm in one of the countries my ancestors came from?

A rather easy way to find out would be to ask people there if they think you're an American. I suspect they'd say "yes".

America may have been a proposition nation at some point, but as of now it has existed over 200 years ago and there is indeed a distinct ethnic people called "Americans" who do exist and have an identity, and whose identity is something other than than the U.S. government granting them citizenship. It's amazing that this is even controversial.

[RZehr]

Try understand this. When people say that people who are born in Ameria aren't "actual Americans" and says things like "America is not a nation of Tamils or Sikhs," they are using language that is objectively racist and xenophobic. I'm ok being divisive about that.

Would you insist on calling one of these folks American, if they self identified as non-American? If they found it offensive? Even if they were born in American?

I don't understand why it's so important that I insist on who people are. How people identify themselves seems more relevant. So I'm not sure I'd have to insist on anything. I'd mostly ask questions.

…

So what is my Dad? Does it matter?

Perhaps Dad is an American Russian (instead of a Russian American). But I don't know and I don't think I care.

So where my mind was going, is that while you take a very loose stance on labels such as “American” (quite identical to Ken’s loose stance on self-identification of the label “Christian”), you (and Ken) are seem pretty confident in what and who a “real” racist or xenophobe or bigot is. You are powerfully confident in applying these labels upon, and over the disputations of the poor recipients. And insist that these labels are a wholly different matter, than say, Christian. Or American.
Why the supreme confidence in the pejoratives racist, xenophobe and bigot? And then the frail deference to “Christian”? And the complete forfeiture of everything definitive when it comes to pronouns?

[Josh]

Good point. I don't identify as a xenophobe, racist, or bigot.

Therefore, I am not any of those 3 things.

Please respect my identity.

[ohio jones]

A rather easy way to find out would be to ask people there if they think you're an American. I suspect they'd say "yes".

So if people in Jamaica, India, or Canada are asked if they think Harris is an American, would they say yes?

You probably think they wouldn't, you racist xenophobe. That last bit is just to justify keeping this bunny trail in the briar patch, instead of returning it to Kamala the Cop.

[Robert]

Good point. I don't identify as a xenophobe, racist, or bigot.

Therefore, I am not any of those 3 things.

Please respect my identity.

Where is that slap emoji?

It is good to have these discussions, but we should give a lot of grace as we do so. Please do not define others. You can state that they may sound that way or some such thing, but let's not decide what others are and why others have their opinions.

An overabundance of grace can and will keep this constructive.

I did like Szd's definition of citizenship. It does not cover heritage. Mennonites carry a lot of heritage with them.

I identify as European- American. Whenever I give that as an answer when I am asked, I get some strange responses. Of course, that is why I do it. I enjoy hearing the responses. Yes, I am that obnoxious.

[temporal1]

.. Please do not define others.
You can state that they may sound that way or some such thing,
but let's not decide what others are and why others have their opinions. ..

^^This could be useful in numbers of topics.

Should it apply when referring to individuals and/or groups of people not necessarily represented in forum membership?
That seems to be a passtime .. (thinking now of the “Them there” topics) ..

2017 / KingdomBuilder / ”Them there Protestants” / General Theology
viewtopic.php?t=262

The tendency of “us vs them”. (Us presumed to be better-than.)

i wonder what KB is up to these days?

[Szdfan]

I'd appreciate clarification how this comment --

Overall, I don’t really like the focus on ethnicity so much. Trump asks if Kamala is black or Indian. Do we really want that? Then next someone announces JD Vance is actually black or mixed race? It seems both of these candidates have a big smorgasbord of backgrounds, with none of them predominant. Harris isn’t a typical Indian-American nor black American nor Irish American. JD Vance isn’t a typical Appalachian nor a typical Melungeon either. Neither of them really represent average “America” at all, but then again, there isn’t really much of an archetypal American these days. It’s more comparable to the gate area at an international airport.

--fits with these comments--

I would prefer not to have [Vivek Ramaswamy] - a billionaire capitalist with a mysteriously meteoric rise and a tenuous connection to America. There seem to be a lot of Indians who decide they need to be leaders of non-Indian nations - witness the leaders of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and the UK (several of whom just lost devastatingly in an election). We don't send Americans to be installed as the Prime Minister of Indian or Pakistan, and would never expect to be elected there in a million years.

Nimrata Randawha (who likes to go by the middle name "Nikki" and her married name, "Haley") comes from a family of wealthy Sikhs from Punjab. Another good example of wealthy, elitist Indians who seem to think they should get to be in charge of America, too.

I am simply deeply suspicious of first and second-generation Indian ladder-climbers, of which there seem to be many in America. America should be ruled by actual Americans, not foreigners.

Indian-Americans are already incredibly privileged - they are the single most wealthy ethnic group that exists in America.

It's OK to say that you don't really have strong ties to a specific country or people (I would definitely put myself in that category). I think it is good to simply be honest about such things. It is a fiction to pretend someone like Harris is loyal to America or has deep ties here; she is very much a "global citizen", with strong ties to nothing in particular.

There is nothing wrong with not being an "actual-American". It is simply true, however, that some people actually do have strong roots and strong ties to America and are unquestionably Americans... and other people are not. If you aren't planning on running for high office, I don't even see why you would consider that a problem

Yes, that's true. I think it's worth noting, though, people from backgrounds that have precious little to do with America who nonetheless seem to suddenly be rocketed to the top here. America is not a nation of Tamils or Sikhs.

An American cultural background is not one where you say your foundational moral and ethical values were shaped by visiting your grandparents in Chennai. Those are Indian (well, Tamil) values. Likewise, an American cultural background is not a Slovenian one or Jamaican one.

There’s nothing wrong with those, but they aren’t American.

Who said anything about deporting? I simply said people from cultural backgrounds that have nothing to do with the U.S., and very little to do with America, like Trump’s wife, JD Vance’s wife, or Harris, is not a very good fit to be President. There are plenty of Americans with deep roots going back generations (and perhaps married to someone like that too). They are better candidates.

The actual fact is that some people are born Americans into an American family, and some aren't. There is nothing wrong with being the latter. Some people are born into a Tamil family, and some aren't. But it is very silly to pretend that Tamils are Americans and that Americans are Tamils. It is particularly interesting that the arrow only seems to point in one direction - we have to endure the fantasy that the first minister of Scotland was "Scottish" when he was clearly Pakistani; that the Prime Minister was "English" when he was actually Punjab; that the First Minister of Wales is "Welsh" when he is actually Zambian; that the second minister of Ireland was "Irish" when he was actually mixed Indian and Irish.

Do you think the terms "Welsh", "Scottish", "Irish", "English", or "American" have any meaning other than some government citizenship document? I think that terms like "Irish" or "Scottish" actually do refer to an actual people group. And an actual people group is not just one composed of a cornucopia of immigrants from other people groups from all over the world.

[temporal1]

kimmel-emhoff / “What was your reaction when your wife turned black?” ..
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IwQjODhYEbY

[Josh]

I'd appreciate clarification how this comment --

--fits with these comments--

It is entirely reasonable to notice that a great deal of leaders in English speaking countries (regardless of any former colonial connection to India; America has none), in both politics, small business, and big business, seem to be becoming dominated by Indians, and if one digs a little deeper, usually Brahmin-caste Indians. (Harris, Usha Vance, and Vivek Ramaswamy are all examples of Brahmins; Nikki Haley is Punjab/Sikh. Brahmins represent about 4% of Indians and Sikhs are about 1.5%. Yet they represent 100% of Indian-Americans running for President or Vice-President.)

It is also entirely reasonable to question if Brahmin Indian-Americans should be dominating the top offices across the land. It is entirely reasonable to notice that Indian-Americans are the wealthiest and the most privileged ethnic group there is in America, ranging from occupying seats in elite universities to proportions of senior level executives in American businesses. It is reasonable to ask if there may be a persistent nepotism underlying this ungoing process.

If India's Prime Minister were a white American, or over half of the people running for PM were white Americans or white American-Indians whose parents had migrated to India, the CEOs of many Indian businesses ranging from equivalents of IBM to Google to Microsoft, then similar questions probably would be being asked - and should be being asked.

I hope that helps clarify my comments.

[Szdfan]

I'd appreciate clarification how this comment --

--fits with these comments--

It is entirely reasonable to notice that a great deal of leaders in English speaking countries (regardless of any former colonial connection to India; America has none), in both politics, small business, and big business, seem to be becoming dominated by Indians, and if one digs a little deeper, usually Brahmin-caste Indians. (Harris, Usha Vance, and Vivek Ramaswamy are all examples of Brahmins; Nikki Haley is Punjab/Sikh. Brahmins represent about 4% of Indians and Sikhs are about 1.5%. Yet they represent 100% of Indian-Americans running for President or Vice-President.)

It is also entirely reasonable to question if Brahmin Indian-Americans should be dominating the top offices across the land. It is entirely reasonable to notice that Indian-Americans are the wealthiest and the most privileged ethnic group there is in America, ranging from occupying seats in elite universities to proportions of senior level executives in American businesses. It is reasonable to ask if there may be a persistent nepotism underlying this ungoing process.

If India's Prime Minister were a white American, or over half of the people running for PM were white Americans or white American-Indians whose parents had migrated to India, the CEOs of many Indian businesses ranging from equivalents of IBM to Google to Microsoft, then similar questions probably would be being asked - and should be being asked.

I hope that helps clarify my comments.

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you claiming that there is a conspiracy of Indians or people of Indian descent out to take over or dominate the world? Other than the individuals you have already mentioned and former British PM Rishi Sunak, which other Indian leaders are dominating leadership in English-speaking countries?