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?
Anonymous wrote: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?
Most “Americans” are occupiers, living on stolen land.
Which is a good not bad thing. If you can't defend your land, you lose it. Natives took land from each other all the time. No utopia before Europeans. And indeed their ancestors came from Asia and stole the land first.
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.
That's just silly, and I suspect you are trying to pass yourself as some kind of leftist. You are a native of the country in which you are born, although few Americans would refer to themselves as "native Americans" because the term "Native American" refers to the indigenous people who inhabited this country prior to the arrival of European colonists.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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?
Most “Americans” are occupiers, living on stolen land.
Which is a good not bad thing. If you can't defend your land, you lose it. Natives took land from each other all the time. No utopia before Europeans. And indeed their ancestors came from Asia and stole the land first.
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.
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.
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?
Most “Americans” are occupiers, living on stolen land.
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.