Do you think the US does multiracialism and assimilation of immigrants better than the UK (and Europe) does?

[Cybercubed]

Ronald Reagan in a speech on immigration spoke of a letter he received from a recent naturalised immigrant on what it means to be an American:

"You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk or Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American."

I know people will immediately laugh this off as typical American exceptionalism etc and yes the US has a lot of racism but I think some of this statement is true if I'm being honest, I feel the concept of being an American (and Canadian) are more broader than many European nationalities, including possibly British and almost certainly English is.

The problem with national identity in Europe is its still to many largely based on ethnicity, i.e. if you're not ethnically English you're not English, if you're not ethnically Swedish, you're not a real Swede. Many people still hold these views, and often minorities struggle to integrate and identify with their host country here because of how European national identities are often strongly tied to ethnicity.

I'm actually in this situation myself, I was born and raised in England to Irish parents, and I have faced prejudice for my background and people telling me I can never be British or English because I'm not ethnically British or English. I've often had a identity crisis therefore, not feeling British or Irish. These experiences are even worse for people of colour obviously.

I've long wondered whether I would have had this problem if I was born and raised in say the US or Canada instead, people make fun of Americans doing the "I'm Irish!" or "I'm Scottish!" but they'll never deny they're American. The US is a very flawed society but I do admire this about them.

@CuthbertDibbleandGrubb

Maybe if you are white, but not otherwise.

Well they elected a (half black) president with Kenyan immigrant father (twice), so although some definitely do think like that, I think there are many more who embrace the multiethnic concept of America.

So I still think overall American or Canadian identities are still more inclusive than possibly British and almost certainly English. There is tendency for people to use the term "indigenous brits" a lot here to separate them from "other brits", at least going by the dailymail and bbc hys comment sections.

I am 50 years old and I have never heard not even once in my life the term "indigenous Brits" until you typed it there.

@AvaCallanach

I am 50 years old and I have never heard not even once in my life the term "indigenous Brits" until you typed it there.

Perhaps its just an online thing then. But theres a fair bit of it underneath the tweets of say David Lammy, Ash Sarkar, Maajid Nawaz etc. Some of the braver racists do ring up LBC and tell Maajid Nawaz to his face.

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/caller-tells-maajid-nawaz-he-is-not-an-equal-in-britain/

But you do here people complain about the "white British" being a minority in London etc, so I do think theres a sizeable who think in this way.

Following Nick Griffins appearance on QT back in 2009, a Yougov poll found although only 3% would ever vote for the BNP, the poll also found this back in 2009.

However, more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought when asked if the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of "indigenous, white British people".

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8323638.stm

People do use 'native-born Americans' or US-born to compare with immigrants all the time. They obviously can't use Indigenous Americans or American Indigenous because that means entirely different groups to the ones many media people like to focus on when they say 'native-born Americans'. There are tons of articles on the 'looming White minority' in the US, especially in cities from mainstream US news sources and discussions on in mainstream parties.

Obama was plagued by the 'birther' movement throughout his entire presidency. Let's not pretend his election meant anything about how inclusive the US is. I mean - you have seen the recent rioting and mass killings, right? The children in the system who've been caged and "lost"? Saying it shows anything about population be like saying Thatcher and May prove the UK has less issues with sexism while ignoring what's going on in the news.

I'm all for recognizing the shite on our doorstep in the UK, I find it very frustration that my British-born children get remarks that they aren't actually British (which many Americans - even Indigenous ones - get as well), but I don't think there is much benefit to treating either country as a monolith when there are so many differences within the countries or compare them to each other when they have so many differences.

We also have to keep in mind that not everyone wants their identities assimilated even if their legal status changes and that the pressure to do so can be anti-multicultural. The attitude of 'you're American' and 'you're in America now' is often used negatively against people who are perceived as acting not American enough. There was recently a whole thing about the issues with Korean names of victims being miswritten in the media and there was a large response of 'we changed our names, you should change yours' from European Americans discussing old Ellis Island practices towards Asian Americans. We can't really have multiculturalism and assimilation as simultaneous goals - they often oppose each other - which is why many discuss integration - unifying with a commonality but differences remain.

Another who has never heard the term indigenous Brit so no, I don't think it's accurate to say that you hear it a lot.
I also don't think that voting in one black president reflect embracing ethnic diversity - you only have to remember the rampant racism and conspiracy theories that dogged Obama's terms to see that he wasn't 'embraced' by all.

You can pick and choose examples to support your perspectives all you like - alternative examples might be the forced separation and caging of immigrant children, then ongoing problems in getting justice for missing and murdered indigenous women etc,

But It's not as easy as as cherry picking a couple of examples to support your narrative - both countries have problems eg in how black people are treated by the justice systems. I'm not sure that trying to compare very diverse countries with different problems is actually very helpful.

I’ve never heard or read the term ‘indigenous Brit’ before reading your post just now.

It may be used ‘a lot’ in certain places on the internet, but I really don’t think it’s mainstream.

Some person rang in on LBC yesterday to tell David Lammy he's not English because he's not ethnically English.

twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1376522685073735683

I think this is a generational thing personally, I don't think these views are anywhere near as prevalent among younger people.

But you can see from the comments how many people agree with her sadly.

I think it's a sensitive issue, so will be looked at from an oppressor/oppressed POV. However, I see some truth to it when I think about how it is in my country.

There are many people of different heritage born and raised in Nigeria: Indian, Lebanese, Romanian, Chinese, British, etc. Some have lived there for generations. These people consider themselves Nigerians and are considered Nigerians by other Nigerians. Many consider themselves more Nigerian than the other nationality. Rightly so.

What you'll never hear them or anyone say is that they are Igbo, Yoruba, Efik, Hausa or any other ethnicity in Nigeria, even if they were born in that region. It's reserved only for those whose parents, grandparents and ancestry are connected to those ethnicities because these are actually small nations brought together under the British colonial rule to form one country, Nigeria. They're ancient in their own right so unless your family was part of them before Nigeria was born, you're Nigerian only. They can adopt those ethnicities but there's never a serious claim to it. They're Nigerians of x heritage or background.

There are many mixed race people too with one Nigerian parent (from a Nigerian ethnicity) and one parent from another country, those are considered part X Nigerian ethnicity and part of the other country because they have a parent from that ethnicity.

I've never heard from anyone or anywhere how displaced they feel to not be anything else.

I've met a few people here who told me they're Nigerians too because they were born in Nigeria to British parents. Some grew up there for a while before moving back. Others didn't live there for long but there's this pride they all have just being Nigerian, being able to bond with other Nigerians and have no identity crisis because they aren't part of any Nigerian ethnicity.

That said, I think the difference between this Nigeria analogy and the UK is the history of Britain and Black people. However, the US is different to the UK in that most people in the UK know exactly where their ancestors were originally from but most Black Americans don't - at least they didn't till they started the dna ancestry testing. They knew Africa but that was it. So while a black Briton can be English as someone from England, they can still easily claim a different ethnicity if they want because most of their parents or grandparents have some sort of attachment to their heritage, unlike Americans.

Lastly, I think when people have been displaced from their country of origin, you don't get to tell them not to call themselves whatever they want in the country they were brought to. If they weren't dragged here in the first place, this issue wouldn't be happening.

Anyone can become the proud flag flying American

But even in the most multicultural cities of America is still surprisingly segregated

Far more so that here in the UK (I think France is quite like this too)