Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American (ethnic group)

Semi-related discussion

 * Your historical revisionism will not change how Americans view themselves for any better. Brendel confessed in a recent edit of his that "pluralism" is the solution and I take that to mean he is philosophically opposed to the facts.  I have enough of German revisionism and denial.  His attempts to relativistically apply such treatment to the actuality and not mere concept of an ethnic American people, are futile save here.  Franks founded France and Americans founded America.  Franks were previously known as Sicambri; before that even as Cimmerians.  They undoubtedly did blend with immigrants to their tribalistic society and polities, but that does not cancel out their own singularistic existence.  That does not disqualify their Frankish legacy to France.  You cannot silence the truth by shooting Wikipedia in the foot.  E pluribus unum is what defined the Americans in their nascent stage, not what defined them through subsequent immigration and continuing to the present.  Your defials of traditional history are Original Research and unverified by all but the most "up to date" social scientific twists and reinterpretations of what it means to be any type of people.  You would deserve no respect for the lack of it you give, save for the fact that Jesus taught me the amendment to "An eye for an eye" as being do unto others as you would have them do unto you and turn the other cheek.  Give me a scholastic genocide and maybe I might turn the other cheek, or maybe not.  Éponyme 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * E pluribus unum is exactely why your point is mute. As for these 7.2%, we don't know who they actually are. All we know is they state "American" as their ethnic group. But to take an educated guess they are what you call "immigrants themselves" as most of them are not Native Americans and most-likely (guessing from their national distribution) thereby European-Americans. George Washington was an Englishman, so were all the other forefathers, the USA was founded by Europeans-who then became European-Americans (Of course they were Americans, after 1777, but obviously they were European-Americans-they weren't Navajo or Cherokee now were they.). That's pretty much common knowledge these days, may I suggest reading a newly published American History textbook. Ana Quindlen once states in Newsweek: "All of us are immigrants, some of us just got here sooner."-there is no exception unless you're a Native American, or as you insisted on calling them: "Indians." The US is a country of immigrants, every child knows that, from sea to shiny sea. Besdies according to the article you originally wrote, people like: President Eisenhower, Kennedy, Hoover, FDR, Regan, Carter would not have been Americans-of course according to you 92.8% of Americans arn't part of the "American people." Besdies, the article is totally OR. See the arguments made by Hornplease above on why this article needs to go. ...and please do not use WP as your blog. Wait, why I am talking to you? Regards,  Signature brendel  05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a break with the Israel Zangwill (melting pot) and Howard Zinn (the other side of David Irving) nonsense of revisionist pipedreams. The British colonies were a melting pot, but the American states are multiculturalism.  The former provided the ethnogenesis and the latter provided the atmosphere in which you are a German American immigrant as opposed to the few German colonists who perhaps identitified with the rest of the former colonial subjects and also declared themselves American.  (The Census Bureau map is very revealing.) You will NOT redefine America and Americans with an outsider, Hippie perspective of what American means.  Washington and his co-conspirators explicitly condemned being referred to as English/British and which is why this country was founded.  Hippies who say they are atheist also think they know more than Christians do about Christ and say what Christ would do.  Your position is relativistic lunacy and we Americans are not the European Union--do not treat us this way as you are attempting to do.  You also sicken me with such disrespect for my nation and my family, my ancestors and what they fought or died for.  Incidentally, I did not say who could become American.  The closest comparison is Irish (our White House is based on an Irish state building in Dublin and Maryland was affiliated with an Irish lord of English origins), whereas we have had four Presidents of Irish immigrant roots (Arthur, Wilson, Kennedy and Reagan) and no other immigrant background.  As a side note, my English contacts inform me that Americans remind them of the Irish in speech and mannerisms (most indentured servants in the colonies were evicted from Ireland--the story of country and western music culture's beginnings--I did say cowboy culture was truly American as this was where Jackson/Polk/Johnson/Buchanan/etc's families were from before settling the Carolinas and frontier, before the indenture system was replaced by Black slaves).  For whatever reason the Dutch and German colonists in America apparently did not assume the new identity is beyond me, apart from cultural (Continental) differences--but I concede that they were/are technically American and only plausibly not, by the standards explained before.  I'm not trying to exclude them--they did so themselves, like the Amish.  Furthermore, you are going to have to convince us all that the Sephardic Jews in Rhode Island, New York and South Carolina called themselves American or assimilated at all.  Éponyme 08:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Americans:

See here: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/ancestry.gif

Baptists:

See here: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif

Check those two out, based on what states are Americans and Baptists found a majority on county-wide levels in almost totally, completely, identical states. It is not original research to note something that most Americans and hyphenated Americans already know, especially if it helps bring about cultural awareness and tolerance--not that American Baptists need that sort of thing, you know? They're just a bunch of Neo-Con Fundies who make American look bad for everybody else? Éponyme 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also not Original Research to say it how it is, to recognize the forest for the trees. The states which have American a majority in one county or more are ominously in regions which recieved much less immigration. Now, look at it the other way. The other, unshaded states in regions shown on the MyWorld66 maps are areas which experienced heavy immigrations. These immigrations were themselves EUROPEAN. So, it goes to show you that your argument is invalid. Europeans live in ethnic islands throughout America and refuse to assimilate. On contrast, the states responding with American majorities in one county or more also have many African American responses accompanying them. This means that these are the original Americans, White and Black:

That is the African American, one county or more with majority...Notice the similarity? So then, where is there discrepancy in putting two and two together about the master and slave, the Confederate roots of these labels? Éponyme 09:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even further, these maps coincide with Red States (see Jesusland map) for both Black and White Americans of Baptist religion, while the unshaded portions of MyWorld66 correspond with the Gore/Kerry votes and the Union. I am merely corroborating things already accepted at the Wikipedia with more evidence to support those assertions. Ethnic Americans and African Americans (White and Black) voted for Bush both times and their religious proclivities are under siege by pluralist Kerry lovers like Brendel who want to deconstruct ethnicity and heritage to make it relativistically encompassing everybody--one surefire way to help build a one world government under the United Nations. I would like to say that again, your POV is interefering with your hold on reality. Your agenda is to "abolish" the old, isolationist and "backwards" America to open it up for your kind of people. Therefore, you oppose my defense of something that can still be defended and has not been lost just yet. But go ahead and try. Éponyme 09:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The main fact is that despite the ignorance of a few antisocial wallflowers making judgements here about stuff they don't know, there are a few thousand times more people at least who know where I am coming from--your little "poll" notwithstanding. Perhaps they see Wikipedia's stodgy feigners like you lot are not worth their time--they are right. I have been warned time and time again to quit worrying what jokes like you on a joke website like this should say and have a say on in transmitting preferred spins through the infowars. You tell me to not use the Wiki as a blog, but look at you Brendel with your agenda to get the word out about the things you are interested in. Hypocrisy is boundless with you. I will leave you to your blog where you think you've won the real battle, fighting over internet territory like junkyard dogs. http://members.dodo.net.au/~grindercom/argument.jpg Éponyme 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are using the rules to support your politics, by inferring something about the data that simply is false. You are leveling untrue accusations to smear the whole American demographic. Whereas only a minority of Americans report that they are singularly descended from American colonists (the Upper South and minority in Pacific Northwest), the rest would indicate a varying degree of relatedness between the colonists and immigrants--per the identity of a hyphenated American. Éponyme 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * American People is a term applied to nationals of the US. The Daughters of the Revolution are no more American than German-American President Eisenhower or Roman-Catholic Irish-American President John F. Kennedy. Besdies, we donnot know that these 7.2% of Americans are descendants of the early colonial settlers. The Census is based on self-identification. All we know is that 7.2% of US Census respondents stated "American" as their ethnicity. Why they did so, we don't know. All we can say is that they stated "American" as their ethnic group. (Perhaps they jut don't know there roots) Stating that these 7.2% are exclusively constituted by the Daughters of the Revolution is completely speculatory OR. None of your "sources" talks about these 7.2% being exclusively the descendants of the first European settlers to this continent. Regards,  Signature brendel  19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have held double standards for America vis a vis other countries in terms of nationality. Odoacer was not more Roman than Augustus, the same thing with Charlemagne or Henry the Fowler!  You make false assertations and have never apologized for belittling my heritage, but repeatedly put "no attacks" warnings on my talk page and had me blocked for standing up for my heritage which you bash and cheapen constantly.  You are an ignorant hypocrite who refuses to aknowledge the traditions and customs of my people as they have been!  You let the media's fluff version of relativistic Americana determine your views.  Call this comments on you, rather than content, but the issue is that I have supplied numerous presentations of why I am right and you have only bashed my heritage as some cheap interchangeable thing, comparing essentially my country to a whorehouse.  You are a foreigner dictating my customs to me!  If you don't like the Bush administration doing that in Iraq or whatever, back off with regards to me and my habitation.  You hold no "regards" to anybody except yourself and your positions!  Éponyme 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody's attacking your heritage; though you have been attacking the heritage or "hyphenated American[s]" such as Presiden Eisenhower, Al Gonzales, and 93% of Americans quite a bit. Your article is being deleting in accordence to WP policies. We have explained them to you over and over again.  Signature brendel  04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you are, so very naively...And I have tried time and time again, to explain to you people that Italian-American pizza is not American like cornbread and fried chicken. Pizza was imported with immigrants from Italy who came to work for the Robber Barons in the Gilded Age; cornbread and fried chicken was a staple diet of colonists who created America as a sovereign nation built with their sweat, blood and tears (and whose names are given to the first counties, towns, villages and Revolutionary War military pensions).  Corn bread and fried chicken was already here, looong before pizza was heard of on this side of the Atlantic--at the previous turn of a century.  http://www.twin-music.com/lyrics_file/alanjackson/when/where.html  At least Eisenhower knew why he was supposed to speak English!  For you, you want to revise what it means to be American at the heart of it all.  You want to apply social engineering to fit your fantasy of what America should have been in the past, but you cannot change the past and so why bullshit with falsifications?  So you want to change how America must be--fine...but that is not how it was founded.  You misequate Ellis Island/ Statue of Liberty ideas with the Founding Fathers--that is called a false analogy!  That you are this ignorant is no surprise; people are more and more forgetting the ideals of my country.  There is a difference between John Adams and Al Capone.  There is a difference between the Latins and the Gauls they conquered/incorporated, even if the Latins were a Greek people beforehand and took Etruscan lands.  There is a difference between these peoples and the Germanic tribes who sacked Rome and toppled the Western Roman Empire, even though the Franks rebuilt it as the Holy Roman Empire.  There is a difference between Julius Caesar's ethnic heritage and Charlemagne's.  Colonel Sanders was American (ethnic group); Alberto Gonzales is Mexican American.  Just think for a minute:  The Toliver family of colonial Virginia was originally from Florence, Italy and used to spell their name as Taliaferro.  I am in all likelihood descended from them, but I would not call that family nor these origins in my case to be Italian American.  They are just Americans now as they were then.  However, that is a different story than Al Capone or Tom Tancredo, or Rick Santorum, or Gianni Versace.  They immigrated here; they did not colonize and found like the Taliferros did.  These men are like a Greek presence in Italy after the Roman Empire was founded by ex-Greeks.  There is no reason to call the Taliaferros, nor the Washingtons (in their case, English-American is just as wrong), hyphenated Americans.  There is substantiated cause to depict Charles Laughton as British American, just as there is evidence to support calling John Kerry a Austro-Hungarian American.  That is because these men's stories began not as builders of America, but immigrants.  Romulus and Remus may have had Greek roots, but one would not call them Greek-Romans.  They would be called Romans or Latins--we would not call the Etruscans Romans, because the Roman country had not begun before the Roman ancestors made it to Etruria.  This analogy is the same as the labeling of Indians as Americans, being outright false and insulting to both parties.  I'm sure Indians of all tribal backgrounds have their own pre-Columbian name for the continent they have called home, but I do not believe they knew of the world in hemispherical terms before the emissaries of Castile and Aragon made it across the Atlantic.  Please, learn tolerance and understanding for those who host your presence here and realize that if not for them, you would have no country called America.  Éponyme 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The colonists were immigrants as well. They came from Europe after 1492, didn't they. As for Rome: today we have Sociology, Antrhopology, and Geneology to tells us where people come from and what exactely their heritage is. The Social Sciences are an investion of the 19th century and have obviously redfined the manner in which humanity looks upon itself. Today we have a more enlightened view on the issue of heritage than did the fore-fathers. For example we no longer bleive that Blacks are inheritely inferior to Whites and we have learned that the founding fathers were European-Americans adn the dscendents of immigrants. This country was built by immigrants and American culture and society are the results of melting pot of all these immigrants. The Hamburger and Tomatoe Ketshup, German-American contributions are as American as Fried Chicken. This country would be a mere shadow of itself if it hadn't been for the immigrants who built the Fortune 500, the New York City skyline, the factories and freeways. I am going to say this for the last time, then I am officaly done talking to you. The descendents of the colonial settlers who arrived here before 1777, are not anymore American than the 93% who are the descendents of immigrants who built this country. The US was not the same country in 1777 or 1800 as in 1940 or 2000. The US was not a wealthy superpower, it is today because of immigrants and their descendents with names like Kerry, Eisenhower, Astor, Regan, Bush, Carter, Johnsen, Clinton, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Gozales. You cannot write an article called the American people and exclude the immigrants and their descendesnt who not only constitute the overwhelming majoirty of the population of this country but also built and governed this nation for the better part of its very exsistance. Besdies the OR nature of your article has been expressed very clearly by multiple users above. You're article violated WP policy that's why its being deleted. Regards,  Signature brendel  17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the ad hominem personal reasons for dissolving this article by such as Personal attack removed, they are insulting a lot of Americans at the heart of what essentially it means to be American, by suggesting that identity is more or less relativistic and subject to their interpretation or judgement--they do not believe that America is allowed to have its own original inhabitant ethnicity like any other country. That is their POV and prejudice, which is intolerant and biased in favor of other countries--specifically other countries which have sent their own immigrants here to supplement the original population. It appears they wish to supplant the ex-colonials, with such vitriolic language you may see about their lack of interest in keeping this article. Throughout this, they have gotten me blocked and complained to the powers that be for standing by my family--most of whom have no immigrant ancestors and do not call pre-1776 ancestors to be hyphenated-Americans, even if they know where such genetic origins came from. That's old news--they have been Americans since 1776, just as the Romans were Romans since Aeneas or whathaveyou was no longer Greek. I'm only standing up for the traditional Americans, even if a minority. America is a country that stands by its minorities. Éponyme 21:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no country to emigrate to until 1776. They were colonists who founded a country. Sure, they might have been unwitting and illegal squatters, but that is not the same as immigrant. They never became part of the Indians' countries, never became citizens of those tribes, except a rare few which were expelled from the colonies or who chose to leave White settlements. Stop being so intolerant to my country and my relatives. Stop the historical revisionism and social engineering, which postulates how you want things to be, rather than how they are. Comments like this: "Today we have a more enlightened view on the issue of heritage than did the fore-fathers." are uncalled for. You never cease to be prejudiced, careless and without justice in your hate for my country. You want a "revolution" of perceptions, to accomodate those just like yourself and to do it, you hold the minority down. In America, holding minorities down to uphold majorities is against the law. You may see fit to do that back in Germany, where none are legally allowed to complain. Go back home and leave us alone. You obviously do not acclimate to our culture, nor our customs and constantly berate us for it. You don't want to keep talking to me, but all you do is condescend in issues you are ignorant about. Éponyme 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In my own defense, I have never once criticized the naturalization process of other countries. In fact, I have merely noted that America carries a similar type to the Roman State. That is exactly what type of comparison our Founding Fathers would have done, just as their interest in the Classical World permeated all of the foundation of our country. Stilicho was not like Julius Caesar, at least as ethnic roots go. Caesar was of the original Roman type, but Stilicho came from the outside and became naturalized. Germans tended to do that and rebuilt the Western Empire with Charlemagne. I have no objection to the positive qualities of Germans or Germany--even Germany is a Roman name--but there were Germans from outside the empire who moved into the Germania provinces and were different from those Germans as well. I just think it would be ludicrous for Stilicho to dictate to Casaer what it means to be Roman. I believe I am in the right and there is nothing you can do to change it, even by controlling the content of information on this controversial subject to benefit your POV and political agenda. Éponyme 06:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * American society and culture is as much the prodcut of immigrants and their descendents who came after 1776 as it is the result of the colonialists' efforts; thus it is wrong to apply the term "American people" only upon the descendents of the colonial settlers. In other words, the American people are not exclusively constituted by those who are descendents from the colonial settlers. America is not comparable to the UK, becuase 90%+ of Americans are the descendents of immigrants-they are the American people. Stating that the term "American people" only applies to those who were present in 1777 is complete OR. Besdies there is no data stating that these 7.2% actually are the descendents of colonial settlers. Nonetheless, five days are over and this article should be deleted any moments along with this hideous discussion.  Signature brendel  07:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In my social circles, this ethnic relativism is considered only plausible. Nobody denies that those such as the Astors would undoubtedly be among the more American than others. Earlier immigrants tended to be more culturally related to the ex-colonials, but that does not discount the time between 1607-1776/1783. Please, learn to respect our traditional history and presentation. It represents the PEOPLE you are RELATIVIZING apathetically. Hey, I appreciate lots of what immigrants have done. I do not disqualify their presence here. German-Americans are largely responsible for the Republican Party and the Union victories in the Civil War. per Reconstruction, some German Americans could be considered more native than Southerners. It's all about technicalities. Certain technicalities matter more than other; naturalization technicalities matter more than most outside of the hard sciences, religion and economics. Please, do not keep quoting the majority population. The majority of Israeli citizens are not Israeli, but immigrant Israeli or hyphenated Israeli. That does not disqualify the original Israelis and their potent story which gave the immigrant a place to stay. Don't quote the age of my country to mean less than the naturalization of other countries which have had much older traditions and established ethnicities. I do not split hairs over the tribal differences which made up the Kenyan people, before there was a Kenya. Kenyans are now Kenyans, not autonomous peoples of other origins. This way of thinking I hold is how most have traditionally done so, but you don't want to see things as they have been presented. You expect to revamp perceptions and have agree. I refuse to anachronistically depict my ancestors as hyphenated, or as a multicultural mix. I count the kingdoms under title of King James Stuart as my immediate ancestry before America was founded. Why should I go back into that time, or even to the Middle Ages with ancestors from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece or the Holy Roman Empire? Look, the fact remains that ethnic Americans deserve equality and the same respect one might give a Czech or Slovenian. Their countries are how old? The elitist condescensions you hold about my people are just ridiculous and distorted. Éponyme 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, removing the prime opponents of my editing who have leveled attacks at this project with logical fallacies, is vandalism and I reverted it. There have been several references to me. How come I and this article are given double standards? Don't play any game and there won't be a reason to feel sorry taking part in it. Your own actions are reason why this discussion exists. You're filibustering something because it offends you politically. You've tried to have me and perhaps gullible bystanders, believe that this identity only exists in a recent census bureau compilation and map. That's so illogical and hostile to my people that I can't believe you think ethnic relativism is more tolerant than otherwise. Your stances on ethnicity are degrading, yet there are no outcries. That stands as reason why Wikipedia is not a respectable source to quote in even public schools. Éponyme 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My points above are based on some of the most commonly used history and sociology books, I am not trying to change anything but I will not tolerate pure OR. The American people is a term that is mostly applied to the ancestors of immigrants, as that is what 90%+ of Americans are. And yes the US is different from any other country on the planet-the American people is a multi-cultural mix-that is common knowledge. The president you so much admire, George W Bush, is an Irish-American. He is not a descendent of the colonial settlers, yet he is obviously part of the American people-he is their leader. You are trying to push your POV with pure OR and try defeat what has become common knowledge-if you don't like the idea of America being presented as what it is, a multi-culutral mix of immigrants and their descendetns who have come here over the past 229 years, then you might want to write a letter to McGraw Hill to have their textbooks re-written. Otherwise you may publish your opinions somewhere else but unless they have been published by the likes of McGraw Hill or the US Government itself they are not fit to be here on WP. You say, that the descendents of the colonial settlers who were here when the US was established are the original Americans who were supplemented by immigrants in the past 229 years this country has exsisted. The problem is that there is no credible source backing this assumption. All usages I can find of the term "American people" referrs to all American nationals and always includes the descendents of immigrants. Furthermore the US is commonly referred to as a "Nation of immigrants"- an assumption backed by nearly any prominent social science or history textbook. Signature brendel  08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The people who wrote those textbooks also represent the views of intellectuals of certain trains of thought which you adhere to, while the publishers are in New York City, where Ellis Island is located. Furthermore, public acclaim of the media has given some of their sources. Much of it is OR reinterpretation of the data. Do you not know why so many children are failing in school? It is because teachers go on strike to get more money. Teachers give children fluff or self-debasing accounts of history. More and more, the young people are indoctrinated in anti-American history that purports to give a more internationalist perspective. I'm sorry, but I never listened to the politicization of history by revisionist historians enough to let them change my own heart. I still know and cherish that Americans are those whose stories are told in the traditional national epic; not the politically correct version of hippies and the Frankfurt School. I'm satisfied with Roanoke Island, Jamestown, Plymouth Rock etc. and even New Amsterdam as well as Fort Christina. The White population of 1776 between the bounds of the Atlantic Ocean, East and West Florida, Louisiana Territory and the Loyalist British colonies was American--Jews included. You think I'm trying to be overexclusive, but I even make reservations for the Sephardi Jews whereas I will not grant anachronistic ethnic American status to ALL Jews who have come and assimilated. Henry Kissinger and Wernher von Braun were German Americans, but I myself adhere to the traditional nativist convention that Eisenhower was American, according to natal status built over generations since before 1776. It's a shame that several people have looked to pre-1776 status in order to feel special somehow. I feel special enough with my American background. Descent from somebody in England is not more important to my ethnocultural identity than America itself. Being part of the "colonial elite" is all I have to offer. Signers of the Articles of Confederation and more I have to justify this. I fail to see where some like Roman Polanski has this, unlike perhaps some African Americans descended from Thomas Jefferson. Those Blacks are just as American (African- for convenience's sake) as myself, unlike yourself. In fact, I as an ethnic American see the relationship between my country and Liberia to be paramountally more important than one with Germany. Race has even less to do with it. Frederick Douglass is more American than William Shatner. These things are of a convention and establishment I belong to, but you are up against.

My point about admiration of Bush was only to say that I'm unashamed of my cowboy (native) image and will not feel self-critical because of foreigners like yourself who find such an identity to be ignorant, flawed and nonexistant. That's your tolerance? Bush having some roots in Ireland is not the same or as important as the fact his family has had Yankee roots in Southern New England since well before America was an actual country; the fact that his family did not defect to the British side is even more proof of his American status. Incidentally, I did not say that non-"creole Americans" couldn't become President either. Whether Bush has post-1776 Irish roots or not is an area I don't know, but it is not the same as Arthur, Wilson, Kennedy and Reagan. Irishness of any quality has never been a mark of dynamics in the President. Every true American knows that their country was founded between the reign of Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen and became an official country under George Washington. Every true American knows that their country was formed of 13 states which comprised the original population of the country and which are the plain-janes. Immigrants like to call such folks WASPs and the colonial elite, or other terms. The simple fact is, they were American while these other people who eventually became immigrants or whose children became immigrants were not then yet Americans in any hyphenated form to say the least. American cheese is from America. Romano and Muenster cheeses are from Italy and Germany. We had no idea of fontina in 1776. We knew of cheddar and farmer cheese. Our American customs mostly chose beef, rather than anchovies. We had our customrs and our preferences already. Our dress and speech was different from other countries. We had an existence and then others came to supplement that, not replace or supplant it with an abolition of the natives. We didn't know how to speak or read Russian. That's because we were'nt Russians. We were just Americans and we speak American English. Learn about America and Americans instead of judge. Éponyme 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Every American of creole descent knows they are a nation of colonists; Whites of Christian or Jewish religion, as well as Blacks of a Christian/Voodoo hybrid (who are called African American), supplanted by immigrant, hyphenated Americans whom have expounded upon the concept of diversity to know no bounds. The American Indians did not assimilate to American society by that time and remained isolated, so were not American either. Hypocritically it may seem, Americans considered the Indians to be squatters and which is why the Indian Wars happened in the Old Northwest, even though we as Americans clearly left a memorial to them by designating the place "Indiana". The original story is what existed in 1776 and that is essentially most American. Anything since is just additive. Éponyme 09:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not judging, I am trying to present the most scientific, most commonly accepted view. As I said, there are no credible sources to sustain the assertion that only the descendents of colonial settlers are members of the American people. As much as your argument may make sense, if there is no credible source to cite for it, it can't be here. According to the most credible soucres, the descendents of immigrants who came after 1776, such as Astor family are as much members of the American people as the colonial settlers. The most publizied sources tell me that the American people referrs to all Americans not just the descendents of the colonial settlers. Your point that "The original story is what existed in 1776 and that is essentially most American. Anything since is just additive." is not supported by the most prominent sources. They state that the "additive" parts are as essential as "The original story." They do not deny the importance or under play the "The original story" but they clearly state that the "supplemental immigrants" are as essential and as much part of the American people as those involvoed in "The original story." Now if you say these sources are bias, well... contact the publishers, congress, but don't use WP. These are the most accredited source and no offense but McGraw Hill's textbooks are more credible than the OR you published here. Please understand this is nothing against you, but we on WP do not re-invent or state what we consider to be the truth, we just follow and cite the most credible sources we can get our hands on.  Signature brendel  09:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Before the Federal Union or Articles of Confederation, we were known by our state demonyms. and  Shows the original America and the original states. We creoles consider our states to be in federation. A Virginian is of a different background from a New Yorker. There are technically 13 ethnic subdivisions of American. Equating Tradition with Original Research does nothing but try to change the perception of the subject at hand. In Rome, do as the Romans do. None of what I present is original research and I even provide resources you overlook. You misrepresent my position; I never said immigrant Americans were less important. I only said that they supplemented the original melting pot, which was JUST American. There is nothing unverifiable about that at all and in fact, one would wonder why you have a problem with such a statement. Éponyme 09:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "I only said that they supplemented the original melting pot, which was JUST American. There is nothing unverifiable about that at all" - yes there is. McGraw Hills textbook and such state that America today is as much the result of Ellis Island as of the 13 original colonies and its inhabitans. Thus doing as Roman do in American means doing as a diverse group of immigrants does (e.g. wearning green on St. Patricks Day, eating french fries, etc...), not just the way of the colonists. Do you see how the most credible sources on the subject directly contradict what you say. They say that American, its culutre and people are the result of immigration and a mixing of cultures. You say American is the descendents and ways of the original 13 colonies.  Signature brendel  09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confused by semantics--American means many things, it even once meant the Philippines. By the way, E Pluribus Unum was about the thirteen colonies/turned states who united to become one country. It had nothing to do with immigrants. Anybody who contradicts that is misunderstanding the essence of that motto. The only conglomerate discussed in 1776 was of independent states, not ethnic pluralism from afar. These are verifiably separate subjects. I respect the political motivations of my Founding Fathers above any and all media outlets. Éponyme 09:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well than that is the most mis-represented phrase there is according to you. Becuse according to the sources, Ellis Island roots are equated with colonial roots, sort of speak. I know US history, I know that there were differences among the 13 colonies and why its called the United States of America. Nonetheless your usage of the term "American people" contradicts the commonly accpeted usage of the term. There are no sources to support the assertion that the American people only referrs to the descendents of the colonial settlers, espically not as American culture and society is seen, mainly, as the result of Ellis Island. Perhaps you should consider another media outlet other than WP as here we need to adhere to the most commonly accpeted sources.  Signature brendel  09:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where does the text equate them--precisely, as opposed to philosophically, approximation and "happy hippie love connection type speech"? If "common" is the usage by New York media outlets, then I am happy to be uncommon. I am happy to be this minority you think doesn't factor into America as distinct from other ethnic polities. WHAT? Ellis Island is a Northern perception. We DOWN SOUTH refer to Jamestown, Virginia! No, not the most common sources--we must accomodate verifiable sources! Ellis Island was a "Russian bride corporation" and nothing more, using and abusing immigrants to work for the Robber baron (industrialist)s from the Gilded Age until the Great Depression. Éponyme 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love and The New World are what I expect to delineate my earliest roots. The former shows the first colonists in Virginia at Roanoke Island and the latter shows Jamestown in Virginia being founded. The Patriot (2000 film) shows the seal of that era and the inauguration of another in American history, that of liberty for the American people and any hyphenated Americans who would accompany us on a great adventure. I'm sorry, but Ellis Island has never been on the radar screen for any of my family. America's earliest start was with Virginia and officially established with Washington, D.C., not Ellis Island. Éponyme 11:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)