To wonder when Americans lose their roots

[categorychaos]

Curious to know (especially from US Mumsnetters) but when do Americans stop referring to themselves as having heritage from where their forefathers came from?

Whenever I read a bio on someone famous reference is often made to their roots - so for example German, French, Scots, Irish, French, etc..

Along with a fair number of people I have heritage stretching back to different cultures/places but after a few generations I would not refer to myself as Irish or French and it wouldn't tend to crop up anywhere outside of genealogy

Is there a reason they do it so much in the USA or am I mistaken in that assumption?

I’m not sure what the relevance of being unified is? Europe wasn’t and isn’t unified.

I’m not sure what you mean by “very related” but Native American tribes have different but related languages and their genetic history shows shared ancestral lineage from Ancient E.Asia/Paleo-Siberia.

I think it depends on the American. It sounded weird to me to hear Americans / Canadians etc refer themselves as “I’m Irish / French / British” etc when they mean that’s where their forefathers were from. But some Americans don’t but into the “hyphen-American” model and are just American.

It’s interesting because I don’t see this as much with New World countries in South / Central America and the Caribbean. But always see it with Canadians and Americans.

But it’s not just a Yank thing. You see this a lot in European countries but here it tends to be more “othering” of non-whites than self-identification (like when I lived in France and French people of Moroccan / Algerian heritage were always referred to by their grandparents nationality no matter how they see themselves. Happens in England too.)

But there is a difference I think. Between acknowledging diverse ancestry and doing it to the extent Americans do.

Yes, I wonder why it's different in Australia & New Zealand?

I imagine this poster means that Native Americans weren't 'American' in the sense that 'America' as a country, the US Constitition etc were ideas created by European settlers. Native Americans viewed themselves as belonging to tribes and areas (some lived long term in certain areas) rather than a unified nation

. I understand this view (if that's what she means).

I still think it's a bit too simplistic though- it seems odd to elide groups who occupied the continent for 15000 years or more, because unlike settlers who arrived at most 500 years ago, they didn't create the idea of America or the constitution etc

In the same way, it would feel odd to make that point about Aboriginal Australians or Maoris, although it's likewise true that the modern idea of 'Australia' or 'New Zealand' arrived with the settlers.

I found it wasn’t that different when I was in Australia. I definitely heard Ozzies of Greek / Italian descent stress that when I lived there (or some even placed themselves under the “wog” umbrella).

I also heard multiple times “Australian” used to mean “White Australian” which bemused me.

That makes sense. I looking for a book on Amazon about Australia recently & stuff on Chinese-Australian community came up, so there clearly are some communities who still feel connected to their heritage.

Maybe it's more that US culture is dominant so we're more familiar with their ways of keeping up with their heritage? Also maybe Americans are more vocal about it?

Personally, my grandfather was a Polish immigrant & the language, literature, news etc is important to me, but I'd never call myself Polish-British (or vice versa). I imagine quite a few people are the same in the UK (though there are distinct groups in some areas, esp more recent immigrants) . So maybe in some ways it's not that US are more likely to do this but that they're more vocal about it/ more well known on the world stage?

Ancient DNA is only relevant to archeologists.

@Sibilantseamstress Yes, DH’s family makes certain Eastern European dishes, but what I also find interesting is that sometimes, part of the heritage is lost for no apparent reason. For example, DH has Irish heritage, but in terms of traditions, his family veers towards their Eastern European ancestry.

That’s also very blended as their great-grandparents were from different Eastern European countries and apparently the wider family communicated through their children as they spoke limited English.

It’s quite interesting tbh, the country is a proper melting pot.

Can you get an EU passport?!

But in Britain you still here it a lot. For example people will refer to Britons as “Pakistani” if that’s where their parents / grandparents are from.

From my (admittedly limited!) knowledge of Polish food (my grandfather was Polish), pierogi are an Xmas food, but are also eaten all year round.

That's true. Esp with more recent immigrant groups, some will identify as British Asian, British-Pakistani etc. But as you say, sometimes people may just say that, ignoring if the person's family has been in the UK for generations & may not even feel very connected to Pakistan.

I think the difference is that immigrants of non-British or Irish descent mostly came to Australia in significant numbers after the war. This means they are far closer to their countries of origin and heritage, as we are only going back to the 1950's/60's. Whereas the Americans call themselves German-American (for example) even though they know nothing about Germany or its customs and their German heritage derives from one great great great grandparent on their mother's side who died 120 years ago!

I think another reason why it sticks out is that Americans traditionally put the immigrant ancestry part first: Irish-American, Chinese-American etc
So it sounds inadvertently, if you're not used to hearing people say that, as if they want to emphasise that part of their heritage more.
Whereas surely it would make more sense to put 'American' first and say they're 'American-Irish' etc?

They don't always do that.

No American of Norwegian, or Scottish descent would introduce him or herself to a Chinese business colleague as Irish.

They might comment to a Scottish or Italian or Norwegian or Chinese person they met that their grandfather (or whatever) was Scottish. Italian, Norwegian, or Chinese as a way of trying to break the ice

When does it stop? Who knows - still on 532 years after Columbus sailed.

Hmm...not wholly true though...I mean as we've seen on this thread, Poles, Irish, Italian, Chinese etc all came fairly recently.

And there are enclaves even for longer-ago ones like Scots,,so they may have a strong connection even if it's more a time-capsule connection than to modern Scottish culture.

And as some have pointed out, German Americans have also had that kind of enclave, so it makes sense some might still feel a strong connection

Is it “wrong” though @Animatic ?

As @PrincessSophieFrederike mentioned above, Romany communities still identify with their cultural heritage centuries after leaving India. Do you think that they should stop doing this?

I am not merely talking about self-identification. But how others refer to them too.

A lot of hyphen-Americans families did only arrive in the USA in the 1900s though.

I don’t find the hyphenating odd though. More when they only call themselves “Irish” or “Italian”.

That's more complex though as both Romany and Jews maintained their identity so strongly partly because they were excluded from the rest of the societies they lived in (though there have always been groups who make a strong effort to maintain Jewish religion in particular including in societies where they are more accepted). Likewise, the Romany and related groups like European Roma often still live a travelling lifestyle at least partly, whether they are more accepted or not, so that makes it easier to maintain as it separates them to a degree.

Whereas people with 18th century Scottish ancestry don't have a travelling lifestyle, religion etc to separate them. Living in a Scottish-American enclave might have a similar effect. Likewise as pp said, being Catholic in a majority Protestant country.

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone even celebrating their 16th century pioneer ancestry etc I just think the way it's preserved would be a bit different from Romany, for example, as there wouldn't be such strong buffers to prevent full assimilation.

On this point - it's interesting as the Romany people's language (afaik) has apparently quite big similarities with Indian languages like Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Sanskrit also. But I don't think they were aware generally of originating from India until recently, I think the studies showing this are quite recent.

So they're maybe a unique example of strong connection to a heritage, but no conscious connection to the country it originated from.

@PrincessSophieFrederike I know it’s more complex, I was just responding to the notion that there’s a time limit on how long people “should” hang onto their cultural heritage/traditions.

None of us can really tell others to stop doing this, can we? It’s none of our business tbh.

👍 I get that, I agree there shouldn't be a time limit.

Some gentle ribbing is fine, but if anything, imo it should be celebrated that US people often feel a connection to the 'old country', wherever that may be. As pp pointed out, it has previously influenced them to defend Europe's freedom in WW2. More positive connection to other places is surely always good?

People mock (with some justification) US lack of knowledge of the rest of the world, but otoh it's then unfair to criticise people valuing their family heritage and finding out what they can.