Can you be a native of America/United States of America if you are not Native American?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

+1

It depends on how you define native, of course. But since there are "Native Americans," it's weird to call yourself "native to America." I think people usually say "first generation immigrant" or "born the USA" or something like that if they want to say they were born in the US.

There are American Indians or more properly, the specific tribe. Of course most Americans are native to the U.S. Where else would we be native to?

I think you can say that and be technically accurate, I just think it's a weird thing to say since Native American has a very specific meaning. Why would you even have to say "I'm native to America?" I say "I'm from the US," "Born in America," "seventh generation American," whatever. If I had to say I was "native," I'd say I was native to my region, so "native Georgian" or something. I still think it sounds weird and it's odd that people would insist on it.

Ha I'm not 11:01, we just had the same idea I guess and they articulated it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is something only a white person would think of...

#LandBack

LANDBACK is a movement that has existed for generations with a long legacy of organizing and sacrifice to get Indigenous Lands back into Indigenous hands. Currently, there are LANDBACK battles being fought all across Turtle Island, to the north and the South.
As NDN Collective, we are stepping into this legacy with the launch of a LANDBACK Campaign as a mechanism to connect, coordinate, resource and amplify this movement and the communities that are fighting for LANDBACK. The closure of Mount Rushmore, return of that land and all public lands in the Black Hills, South Dakota is our cornerstone battle, from which we will build out this campaign. Not only does Mount Rushmore sit in the heart of the sacred Black Hills, but it is an international symbol of white supremacy and colonization. To truly dismantle white supremacy and systems of oppression, we have to go back to the roots. Which, for us, is putting Indigneous Lands back in Indigenous hands.
In addition, LANDBACK is more than just a campaign. It is a political framework that allows us to deepen our relationships across the field of organizing movements working towards true collective liberation. It allows us to envision a world where Black, Indigenous & POC liberation co-exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is something only a white person would think of...

#LandBack

LANDBACK is a movement that has existed for generations with a long legacy of organizing and sacrifice to get Indigenous Lands back into Indigenous hands. Currently, there are LANDBACK battles being fought all across Turtle Island, to the north and the South.
As NDN Collective, we are stepping into this legacy with the launch of a LANDBACK Campaign as a mechanism to connect, coordinate, resource and amplify this movement and the communities that are fighting for LANDBACK. The closure of Mount Rushmore, return of that land and all public lands in the Black Hills, South Dakota is our cornerstone battle, from which we will build out this campaign. Not only does Mount Rushmore sit in the heart of the sacred Black Hills, but it is an international symbol of white supremacy and colonization. To truly dismantle white supremacy and systems of oppression, we have to go back to the roots. Which, for us, is putting Indigneous Lands back in Indigenous hands.
In addition, LANDBACK is more than just a campaign. It is a political framework that allows us to deepen our relationships across the field of organizing movements working towards true collective liberation. It allows us to envision a world where Black, Indigenous & POC liberation co-exists.

Okay. And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

Not every Black person is an African American. American Americans are a specific cultural group/sub sect united by slavery and shared genetic history due to such. For example, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are Black Americans but not African American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

Not every Black person is an African American. American Americans are a specific cultural group/sub sect united by slavery and shared genetic history due to such. For example, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are Black Americans but not African American. I believe both have citizenship now. I could be incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

That’s fine, but surely you realize she is unusual? That’s why she had to explain it but your friends whose ancestors came from Ireland did not. I still remember feeling offended when Whoopi Goldberg said that in the 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

ALL are occupiers.

Those "Native Americans" came from Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it so embarrassing that Columbus Day is still celebrated. It should banned entirely.

Every time this comes up, it's a slippery slope to then erasing any and all traces of western European exploration and settlement.

America is named after a European explorer. Whether does it end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who says native to America, ever? How would that come up in a conversation? If someone asks where you're from, you just say America. Or the United States.

This is just stupid.

I didn’t read the OP as asking if people could use the term in conversation, more as could they think of themselves as native to the Americas.

And, yes, as noted above, one is native to the place where one is born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so embarrassing that Columbus Day is still celebrated. It should banned entirely.

Every time this comes up, it's a slippery slope to then erasing any and all traces of western European exploration and settlement.

America is named after a European explorer. Whether does it end?

It ends with banning English and renouncing the Constitution, of course.

Let's celebrate Anarchy and BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so embarrassing that Columbus Day is still celebrated. It should banned entirely.

Every time this comes up, it's a slippery slope to then erasing any and all traces of western European exploration and settlement.

America is named after a European explorer. Whether does it end?

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm.
Any and all traces of European exploration are visible by looking at all of us white people living here.

[Anonymous]

There are still plenty of hyphenated Americans of European descent.

Italian-Americans have their own organizations and festivals.

The Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

The Scottish-Americans celebrate the Highland games.

Washington D.C. just isn't typical of most urban areas with older neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves of western Europeans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

But do we know for certain that they didn't start out somewhere else? At what point in time is the magic point in which nationalities are set? Boarders in Europe have moved based on wars for as long as people have been recording history. So what happens when the name of your country changes? How long does my family have to live in the US before we stop saying we are German and are allowed to say we are just American? Is it 3 generations born in the US? Is it 6 generations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only natives to this country are the indigenous peoples. Which makes white supremacy in this country all the more laughable.

Nah. The indigenous people all came from somewhere else, mostly from Asia. And those people originally came from somewhere else too.

By your definition, no one is native once you get away from the people living in southern Africa.

Oh please.

PP is correct though. If you don't accept the dictionary definition of "native" meaning the place where you were born, then you have to ask, how far back do you go in your genealogy to get to your 'native' land? And who gets to decide?

My ancestors came from places that are now politically three different countries on two different continents, and if you research the surnames, they were occupiers of that land anyway, and came from somewhere else, and that somewhere else was only settled in historically available times, so clearly they were somewhere else before that ... where do I stop to state my native country and will it be the current political state occupying that land or whatever it was known as the farthest back we can trace? And which family line am I supposed to use to find my native land, since they all lead to different places (though ultimately south Africa according to anthropologists).

So you see why the actual definition of one's native land is where an individual personally was born.

But by this, wouldn’t African-American assemble into simply being American? Same with Asian-American, etc.. at what point in time would that happen.

They are all American. The adjectives describe different flavors, not different countries.

In comparison to how this is defined in other Nations, it poses a problem unique to America. As a person of example, Jamaican or Japanese heritage can become Australian without being titled Jamaican-Australian or Japanese-Australian, how does America correct this over time? Or does it never change as America is not old enough to accept all as American.

It just corrects the longer you have generations born in the US. Irish and Italians went through this not so long ago. Now people rarely self identify as both. Once your grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the US, and have no ties back to their home country, you just say American. There's no set timeframe, it just happens.

It only happens over time organically for white people. Which is ok. I'm good with African American or Black.

Not true. I have a black friend who just says she's American. Or a black American. She feels no claim to Africa, maybe because she has friends who have recently immigrated? I'm not sure, but she's vocal about just being American.

Not every Black person is an African American. American Americans are a specific cultural group/sub sect united by slavery and shared genetic history due to such. For example, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are Black Americans but not African American.

But,

- every Black person experiences racism and oppression on a daily basis in the United States, along with other BIPOC peoples.