Who is an American? Who is French? Who is English?

[Aethrys]

1777 onward makes most sense to me, as before that a significant portion of the rebels really weren't on board with the whole independence thing and hoped their insurrection would end with the crown giving them more rights as english citizens. Thomas Paine and his ilk started off as something of a lunatic fringe.

[Thermodolia]

1777 onward makes most sense to me, as before that a significant portion of the rebels really weren't on board with the whole independence thing and hoped their insurrection would end with the crown giving them more rights as english citizens. Thomas Paine and his ilk started off as something of a lunatic fringe.

But they called themselves Americans as early as the 1600

[Internationalist Bastard]

Americans became Americans when they decided they were different from everyone else. That's it

[Cadonica]

I am American, i am SOUTH American.

For now on, everyone in this thread is "United Statenian".

That could also refer to Mexicans. The official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos", and guess what, Estados Unidos translates to United States.

Also, I'm not an American so not everyone in this this thread is United States of American. Or simply put, American.

[Hetalia Dakota 2 II]

Americanism is completely up to interpretation as there are many steps and different statuses one could be in this country, I think a lot of people like to play to division here, an American should be anyone who puts in the effort to be one however and whatever those efforts may be

[Conserative Morality]

Identification with the label.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, it's always very nebulous terminology.

I mean, as a Canadian, my country didn't technically come into being until 1867, even though most of its population had clearly stopped identifying as being British or French some time prior. I'd say the best way to go about it is self-identification. Americans who fought in the American Revolution were clearly American and not just British rebels, even though their country had yet to come into being. Canadians of the early 19th century who'd developed their own cultural identities were clearly Canadian, and not just British and French colonials, and so on and so forth.

[Ashmoria]

I'm not really interested in this topic except in this one small way

alexander Hamilton wasn't born in what would become the US. he was born on a small Caribbean island and moved to new York in 1772 at the age of 16. he joined the American revolution as soon as it started

there was never a time when he was considered some kind of intruding Johnny-come-lately who had no claim to being an American. he lived here a few years, fought in the revolution and that was enough for him to be considered a true American and automatic citizen as soon as there was a united states to be a citizen of.

so it seems like the willingness to make a life in the land that would become the united states was enough to make you an American.

then we developed rules and those rules decide who is and who isn't.

them English and French have that whole "subject" thing (until france didn't) and a series of different governments and arrangements. they can decide for themselves who was English/French in their past.

[Thermodolia]

Eh, it's always very nebulous terminology.

I mean, as a Canadian, my country didn't technically come into being until 1867, even though most of its population had clearly stopped identifying as being British or French some time prior. I'd say the best way to go about it is self-identification. Americans who fought in the American Revolution were clearly American and not just British rebels, even though their country had yet to come into being. Canadians of the early 19th century who'd developed their own cultural identities were clearly Canadian, and not just British and French colonials, and so on and so forth.

Well you could grandfather all those born before 1867 as Canadians due to the current Canadian nationality law which relies on birth right citizenship. So everyone born in what is now Canada has always been a Canadian, the for every other nation on North and South America.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, it's always very nebulous terminology.

I mean, as a Canadian, my country didn't technically come into being until 1867, even though most of its population had clearly stopped identifying as being British or French some time prior. I'd say the best way to go about it is self-identification. Americans who fought in the American Revolution were clearly American and not just British rebels, even though their country had yet to come into being. Canadians of the early 19th century who'd developed their own cultural identities were clearly Canadian, and not just British and French colonials, and so on and so forth.

Well you could grandfather all those born before 1867 as Canadians due to the current Canadian nationality law which relies on birth right citizenship. So everyone born in what is now Canada has always been a Canadian, the for every other nation on North and South America.

The problem with that is you get Siberian nomads crossing the Bering Strait and the coast of Alaska into British Columbia as technically counting as Canadian, even though they would have died more than 10,000 years ago and hadn't the faintest clue of what "Canada" would be. It would be extremely anachronistic.

[Thermodolia]

Well you could grandfather all those born before 1867 as Canadians due to the current Canadian nationality law which relies on birth right citizenship. So everyone born in what is now Canada has always been a Canadian, the for every other nation on North and South America.

The problem with that is you get Siberian nomads crossing the Bering Strait and the coast of Alaska into British Columbia as technically counting as Canadian, even though they would have died more than 10,000 years ago and hadn't the faintest clue of what "Canada" would be. It would be extremely anachronistic.

I'm just saying that it's possible.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not really interested in this topic except in this one small way

alexander Hamilton wasn't born in what would become the US. he was born on a small Caribbean island and moved to new York in 1772 at the age of 16. he joined the American revolution as soon as it started

there was never a time when he was considered some kind of intruding Johnny-come-lately who had no claim to being an American. he lived here a few years, fought in the revolution and that was enough for him to be considered a true American and automatic citizen as soon as there was a united states to be a citizen of.

so it seems like the willingness to make a life in the land that would become the united states was enough to make you an American.

then we developed rules and those rules decide who is and who isn't.

them English and French have that whole "subject" thing (until france didn't) and a series of different governments and arrangements. they can decide for themselves who was English/French in their past.

Hamilton was often considered a monachist, which he wasnt, and his birthING is one of the slanders used against him to incite the point. (Full disclosure: am in the middle of chernow's biography of Hamilton ).

Anyone in the US, or born in the US after the constitution was ratified is considered a citizen.

Hamilton is considered a citizen.
Benidict Arnold is not.

[Ashmoria]

I'm not really interested in this topic except in this one small way

alexander Hamilton wasn't born in what would become the US. he was born on a small Caribbean island and moved to new York in 1772 at the age of 16. he joined the American revolution as soon as it started

there was never a time when he was considered some kind of intruding Johnny-come-lately who had no claim to being an American. he lived here a few years, fought in the revolution and that was enough for him to be considered a true American and automatic citizen as soon as there was a united states to be a citizen of.

so it seems like the willingness to make a life in the land that would become the united states was enough to make you an American.

then we developed rules and those rules decide who is and who isn't.

them English and French have that whole "subject" thing (until france didn't) and a series of different governments and arrangements. they can decide for themselves who was English/French in their past.

Hamilton was often considered a monachist, which he wasnt, and his birthING is one of the slanders used against him to incite the point. (Full disclosure: am in the middle of chernow's biography of Hamilton ).

Anyone in the US, or born in the US after the constitution was ratified is considered a citizen.

Hamilton is considered a citizen.
Benidict Arnold is not.

not much of a requirement, really, eh?

but he wasn't considered an outsider before the constitution was ratified. the willingness to fight for the cause is a big reason but no one suggested that he maybe ought to go back home before the revolution.

[NeoLiberia]

As a high school student who recently finished reading the book Radicalism and The American Revolution, I might actually have something to contribute here.

If you follow the thesis proposed in that book you might argue that an American is anyone born post-1800. The Founding Fathers were in fact quite conservative by our standards. They thought America was a republican society which required a "disinterested" aristocratic elite to rule it. They were represented by the Federalists (ie: Hamilton's party) whose opposition were Jefferson's (Democratic) Republicans, who named themselves that in reference to the Federalists alleged monarchist nature. The victory of Jefferson in the presidential elections of 1800 marked a point of unstoppable decline for the Federalists. After 1800 American society began to acquire its egalitarian and capitalist nature which really is still around today.

Anyway, that might be a way to think about it. Don't take any of it as pure fact though. I'm literally just restating what I understood from the reading. I'm not very educated.

As for French and English identity: I think French is more of a linguistic and non-ethnic identity. Whereas English directly refers to an ethnic group. That's all I'm really able to say on those.

[Herargon]

I think people become Americans when they settle permanently in America, or if they are born in America. Same with any other place.

The Indians beg to differ.

[Ashmoria]

I think people become Americans when they settle permanently in America, or if they are born in America. Same with any other place.

The Indians beg to differ.

since when?

"the Indians" are americans.

[Farnhamia]

As a high school student who recently finished reading the book Radicalism and The American Revolution, I might actually have something to contribute here.

If you follow the thesis proposed in that book you might argue that an American is anyone born post-1800. The Founding Fathers were in fact quite conservative by our standards. They thought America was a republican society which required a "disinterested" aristocratic elite to rule it. They were represented by the Federalists (ie: Hamilton's party) whose opposition were Jefferson's (Democratic) Republicans, who named themselves that in reference to the Federalists alleged monarchist nature. The victory of Jefferson in the presidential elections of 1800 marked a point of unstoppable decline for the Federalists. After 1800 American society began to acquire its egalitarian and capitalist nature which really is still around today.

Anyway, that might be a way to think about it. Don't take any of it as pure fact though. I'm literally just restating what I understood from the reading. I'm not very educated.

As for French and English identity: I think French is more of a linguistic and non-ethnic identity. Whereas English directly refers to an ethnic group. That's all I'm really able to say on those.

What "English" ethnic group? Britons? Anglo-Saxons? The sadly neglected Jutes? Normans? Danes? Norsemen? They've all blended to produce "England."

[Alvecia]

I think people become Americans when they settle permanently in America, or if they are born in America. Same with any other place.

The Indians beg to differ.

Depends on whether you're distinguishing between continental Americans and US Americans.
Native Americans and US Americans are both Americans, just different Americans.

[Aclion]

It depends

[Herargon]

The Indians beg to differ.

Depends on whether you're distinguishing between continental Americans and US Americans.
Native Americans and US Americans are both Americans, just different Americans.

Well, geographically, they are* (*could controversially be called) Americans. But ethnically, religiously, socially, and all that sort? They're nothing alike the Americans in the sense of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and such. Those latter Americans are extremely different from the natives there.

Not to sound rude, but to be honest, the US could have picked a better name than one that implies it claims the both of continents.

[Ashmoria]

Depends on whether you're distinguishing between continental Americans and US Americans.
Native Americans and US Americans are both Americans, just different Americans.

Well, geographically, they are* (*could controversially be called) Americans. But ethnically, religiously, socially, and all that sort? They're nothing alike the Americans in the sense of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and such. Those latter Americans are extremely different from the natives there.

Not to sound rude, but to be honest, the US could have picked a better name than one that implies it claims the both of continents.

*rolling my eyes*

take it up with the founding fathers.

[Alvecia]

Depends on whether you're distinguishing between continental Americans and US Americans.
Native Americans and US Americans are both Americans, just different Americans.

Well, geographically, they are* (*could controversially be called) Americans. But ethnically, religiously, socially, and all that sort? They're nothing alike the Americans in the sense of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and such. Those latter Americans are extremely different from the natives there.

Like I said. Depends on how you're defining American, which is kind of the point of this thread

[Thermodolia]

Depends on whether you're distinguishing between continental Americans and US Americans.
Native Americans and US Americans are both Americans, just different Americans.

Well, geographically, they are* (*could controversially be called) Americans. But ethnically, religiously, socially, and all that sort? They're nothing alike the Americans in the sense of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and such. Those latter Americans are extremely different from the natives there.

Not to sound rude, but to be honest, the US could have picked a better name than one that implies it claims the both of continents.

Or one continent.

[Herargon]

Well, geographically, they are* (*could controversially be called) Americans. But ethnically, religiously, socially, and all that sort? They're nothing alike the Americans in the sense of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and such. Those latter Americans are extremely different from the natives there.

Not to sound rude, but to be honest, the US could have picked a better name than one that implies it claims the both of continents.

Or one continent.

Could be, but it is 'The United States of America', not 'The United States of North America', if I'm being nitpicky. That said, you're correct that it is possible.

[Cetacea]

What "English" ethnic group? Britons? Anglo-Saxons? The sadly neglected Jutes? Normans? Danes? Norsemen? They've all blended to produce "England."

Theres still a fair bit of ethnic tribalism in England, with a strong divide between Northerners, Southerners, Londoners (and Kernow (Cornwall)*).They may have blended but Northerners are still loathe to being confused for the pompous morons down south and as for Kernow,well England is a foreign country.