When is a citizen not a citizen?

[Forty Two]

It's like "Sweden." It's people are "Swedish." Now, a Somali who becomes a Swedish citizen can call himself a "Swede." But, that Somali is ethnically Somalian and not Swedish. So, it wouldn't be really all that weird or nefarious for an ethnic Swede to not consider the Somali person "Swedish" even if he is a Swedish citizen. He'd be a Somali-Swede, or an African-Swede, whereas if you say "Swede" it paints a picture an ethnic Swede.

Relate that to African-Americans, if you please. Will they never be regarded simply as American citizens? Skin colour precludes them? Condemned to remain ethnically African? Even those whose ancestors have been born and raised in the USA for many more generations than your ethnically German president?

They are, because America - the United States - doesn't have an "ethnicity" associated with it to the same extent as Sweden or Germany or France or Saudi Arabia.

The US has always been an amalgam of ethnicities, not just one ethnicity. Native Americans, plus then the French, English, Dutch, Spanish, etc., all settled. So, you'd have Swedes settling in Minnesota, etc., and they became American, and so did Nigerians who went to Alabama.

That's different than in homogeneous countries, like, say, Nigeria, where you'd be hard pressed to consider a WASP a "Nigerian." That's one of the reasons why it's not generally considered appropriate to call a white South African an "African American" if they move to the United States. A black American who has ancestry 400 years here in the US is called an African American, but my friend whose parents were South African does not call himself African American -- he's not ethnically African. He's ethnically Dutch.

[Hermit]

It's like "Sweden." It's people are "Swedish." Now, a Somali who becomes a Swedish citizen can call himself a "Swede." But, that Somali is ethnically Somalian and not Swedish. So, it wouldn't be really all that weird or nefarious for an ethnic Swede to not consider the Somali person "Swedish" even if he is a Swedish citizen. He'd be a Somali-Swede, or an African-Swede, whereas if you say "Swede" it paints a picture an ethnic Swede.

Relate that to African-Americans, if you please. Will they never be regarded simply as American citizens? Skin colour precludes them? Condemned to remain ethnically African? Even those whose ancestors have been born and raised in the USA for many more generations than your ethnically German president?

They are, because America - the United States - doesn't have an "ethnicity" associated with it to the same extent as Sweden or Germany or France or Saudi Arabia.

The US has always been an amalgam of ethnicities, not just one ethnicity. Native Americans, plus then the French, English, Dutch, Spanish, etc., all settled. So, you'd have Swedes settling in Minnesota, etc., and they became American, and so did Nigerians who went to Alabama.

That's different than in homogeneous countries, like, say, Nigeria, where you'd be hard pressed to consider a WASP a "Nigerian." That's one of the reasons why it's not generally considered appropriate to call a white South African an "African American" if they move to the United States. A black American who has ancestry 400 years here in the US is called an African American, but my friend whose parents were South African does not call himself African American -- he's not ethnically African. He's ethnically Dutch.

Nigeria is not ethnically homogeneous - unless of course you lump all brownies together in the same bucket. If you don't, you'll notice many ethnically differentiated populations among its 188 million inhabitants. The Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and Fulani account for 70% of them and the Urhobo-Isoko, Edo, Ijaw, Kanuri, Ibibio, Ebira, Nupe, Gwari, Jukun, Igala, Idoma and Tiv for most of the rest. Even Somalia's population is only 85% Somali.

Not that any of this matters. You have neatly sidestepped the question why African-American still has currency while German-American has not. I put it down to skin colour. White or orange - good. Other - bad. Collector fairly obviously goes along with that, and you pretend to be blissfully unaware.

[laklak]

Mrs. Lak was born in Zambia, raised in Swaziland, and educated in South Africa (and later the UK). She is more African-American than probably 99% of American blacks, who have never even visited the continent. If you're American because you're born in the USA, then you're surely African if you're born on the continent, yes?

[Hermit]

If you're American because you're born in the USA, then you're surely African if you're born on the continent, yes?

Now tie that in with US-born children of Somali or German-born parents/grandparents/great-grandparents.

[laklak]

Makes no difference where your parents are from, if you're born in the USA then you're a citizen, full stop. If you're born overseas of even one American parent you're a U.S. citizen. That said Americans have a habit of making a big deal out of their ancestry.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm glad I never got caught up in all that. The Irish are the worst. The Italian side's at least fun.

-sigh

[laklak]

Try the dour Scots Presbyterians. They're a fucking laugh riot.

[Sean Hayden]

[Hermit]

Here we have the descendants of the first-fleeters proudly proclaiming their British ancestry. I really don't know why. Not only were most of them shoved off because they were convicted criminals, but according to the original settlers they have done nothing since then to be proud about.



Doesn't prevent the Johnny-come-latelies from treating today's asylum seekers like shit, though.

[Hermit]

Now I just wait for Svarty to point out what's wrong with the flag.

[Svartalf]

the >George cross looks white

[Hermit]

the >George cross looks white

Worse than that, the cartoonist actually drew the Union Jack, which did not become the national flag until the union of Great Britain and Ireland 13 years after the First Fleet left England for Australia.

[L'Emmerdeur]

BNP in Britain means something specific when they want to keep things British.

Yes, they actually mean 'white and at least nominally Christian,' not 'British.' Britain has been ethnically diverse for well over a thousand years, and as a result of the British Empire even more so. 'British' is, in reference to any particular ethnic identity, nearly as much of a non-starter as is 'American' (referring here to citizens of the United States). The BNP's position is equivalent to Collector1337's when it comes to asinine and unsupportable 'nationalism.'

[Brian Peacock]

Here we have the descendants of the first-fleeters proudly proclaiming their British ancestry. I really don't know why. Not only were most of them shoved off because they were convicted criminals, but according to the original settlers they have done nothing since then to be proud about.



Doesn't prevent the Johnny-come-latelies from treating today's asylum seekers like shit, though.

Australia is the biggest cover-up going. It never actually existed EVER at all and was just made up by the government as some distant sounding place for sending criminals to BUT in REALITY they just chucked the buggers overboard in the Bay of Biscay and went to the CARIBBEAN and to hide their GUILT and stop the TRUTH coming out they had to maintain the fabrication and now when YOU think you're going on holiday to Australia they just fly you round for ages before landing on a SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED reef in the Mediterranean populated with actors with prepared back stories and SHIT anecdotes and none of the Australians on THIS FORUM OR ANY FORM are real people BUT they're just the likes Barry humphries and Guy Pierce working for THE GOVERMENT and the sheeple don't want to HEAR THE TRUTH because they can't handle the truth. This is the REAL reason why Mel Gibson went MAD.

/Galaxian

[JimC]