Talk:German Americans/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Garfield?

I removed the claim that President Garfield was German because he campaigned in German. He spoke many languages but I could find no evidence that he was German himself. Indeed, Garfield is an English name and his mother's maiden name, Ballou, is of Norman (French-English) derivation. A couple sites specifically called Hoover the first German-American president. Rmhermen 15:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for expansion

I think it would be interesting to add some bits on German-American politics. German Americans were, after all, the backbone of the 19th century US socialist movement, and also of the anarchist movement; they've overwhelmingly voted Republican, and largely moved to the Right as the Republican party has gone from a left-wing to a right-wing party. There's also the question of German-American responses to the world wars, including all positions from the German-American Bund to General Eisenhower himself. Also, we should have a list of active German-American organizations (I know the Goethe Institute has a US presence, and there are also plenty of more home-grown movements). I'll start adding some material of this sort unless the feedback is negative. QuartierLatin1968 18:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far as current societies, I only know Texan ones like the German-Texas Heritage Society and various local German language groups, but there's also a good amount of local-level activity. I assume other states like Pennsylvania have similar groups.
A quick google search turned up the German American National Congress/Deutsch Amerikanischer National Kongress amongst others, but I honestly don't know how much these groups do now aside from trying to get German back into schools. --Laura Scudder | Talk 06:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quibble: I don't think the Republican Party was ever truly left-wing. It was founded on the basis of opposition to the expansion of slavery, and contained a handful of radical abolitionists/reconstructionists, but on the whole it was still fairly conservative. (At no point was it aligned with socialism or anarchism.) American politics of the 19th century were not particularly ideologically-charged, aside from the issue of slavery. Funnyhat 05:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was going to challenge the Republican-leaning allegation at the top of the section by comparing the ancestry map further down in this page to electoral college maps, but the association I found wasn't as close as I'd expected (although if the liberal/conservative divide could be refined I'd suspect German republicans lean closer to the libertarian axis as opposed to the moral and authoritarian axis). I did find one strong electoral correlation however in that German-Americans say "Pop", Southerners speak "Cola" and the bi-coastal set says "Soda". Not quite the resounding proof for German-American identification with liberal values which I was looking for...but a fascinating marker for a key cultural set of boundaries in the United States (the New York/LA Coastal community, the old Confederacy, and the Heartland) Haverberg 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens

This term should not be hyphenated unless used in adjectival form (e.g., "German-American cuisine"). In noun form, it should be simply German Americans. Funnyhat 04:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See Hyphenated Americans. Rmhermen 17:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
In light of the fact that the hyphen is only appropriate in adjective form (if even then), I put a requested move tag here for German American instead. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Article titles should be nouns, not adjectives. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, it turns out Chicago (15th ed.) actually recommends open compounds (non-hyphenated) for both the adjective and noun forms, unless the writer prefers it (so it's not a strong recommendation). I'm still sticking with support, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the hyphenated form is more common. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for the reason Funnyhat mentions. (Sorry I haven't gotten around to my proposal for expansion yet.) QuartierLatin 1968 02:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not an adjective; it is a hypenated noun. This usage is less common recently but an old immigrant group like this is more likely to use the older standard spelling. See [1] for examples. Rmhermen 19:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that in most writing people don't think too hard about whether they should hyphenate or not, as exemplified by the German American National Congress website, which uses both hyphenated and unhyphenated rather haphazardly between both noun and adjective forms throughout, even alternating the spelling of the name of their organization, but overall seem to favor unhyphenated. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

List of German Americans

I'm suprised there's no list of German Americans. Maybe somebody could put it here because Germans are the largest ethnic group.

I've heard that up to 30% of Americans are majority German; it would be almost silly to compile such a list.

It does seem absurd to give Paris Hilton any more publicity. I vote for deleting her and Hossel... from the lead of this article.--Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We NEED the List

Is there a List of German Americans?

--Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 05:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

AFDed redirect

Germans of USA had an AFD debate that agreed to redirect the article here. If there's any salvageable material in the original article, feel free to merge it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC) i

I HAVE A QUESTION AND KNOW NO OTHER WAY OF HOW TO EMAIL ON THIS SITE YET OR ANYTHING. HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HELP ME LEARN AND ANSWER MY QUESTION/STATEMENT TO BE ADDED. I HAVE COME ACROSS A SOURCE IN WHICH EISENHOWER IS QUOTED: "God, I hate the Germans..." (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944) HIS FATHER WAS A GERMAN JEW. JUST SO YOU KNOW. PLEASE EMAIL ME BACK AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU FIND AND MAYBE HOW TO JUST EMAIL THE PAGES KEEPER INSTEAD OF POSTING THIS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

THANKS, SARAH T3ACH3SKIDS@MSN.COM

Well, Sarah, in times of anti-German prejudice and hate, maybe the German-American General said, he hated Germans - in times of war, even the intelligent are drawn into propaganda, but after the war, Eisenhower wrote his biography dealing with the war, he also said publicly:
General Eisenhower, 22.01.1951:
"Ich war 1945 der Auffassung, daß die Wehrmacht, insbesondere das deutsche Offizierskorps, identisch mit Hitler und den Exponenten seiner Gewaltherrschaft sei - und deshalb auch voll mitverantwortlich für die Auswüchse dieses Regimes. Genau so wie ich mich damals eingesetzt habe gegen die Bedrohung der Freiheit und Menschenwürde durch Hitler, so sehe ich heute in Stalin und dem Sowjetregime dieselben Erscheinungen.
Ich habe damals in solchen Gedanken gehandelt, denn ein Soldat muß ja für einen Glauben kämpfen. Inzwischen habe ich eingesehen, daß meine damalige Beurteilung der Haltung des deutschen Offizierskorps und der Wehrmacht nicht den Tatsachen entspricht, und ich stehe daher nicht an, mich wegen meiner damaligen Auffassungen - sie sind ja auch in meinem Buch ersichtlich - zu entschuldigen.
Der deutsche Soldat hat für seine Heimat tapfer und anständig gekämpft. Wir wollen alle für die Erhaltung des Friedens und für die Menschenwürde in Europa, das uns allen ja die Kultur geschenkt hat, gemeinsam eintreten."
I'm sure you can find the English translation in the net, but in his book he takes back all prejudices against Germans. He said and wrote, that German soldiers fought bravely and honorably! He said: Europe granted us cultur - oh how true!!! I have often said, I hate Americans, but I always ment the foreign politics (Irak, Iran, North Korea, USrael and so on ...) and the lack of culture and intelligence in mainstream circles, never the American people, who I cherish!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.125.203 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Also, Eisenhower's father was from German Protestant ancestors who came to the US as refugees in the 1700s. They were not Jewish.--Parkwells (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

POV?

Someone edited my contribution and mentioned POV in the edit note. Unfortunately this editor was mistaken. The heavy citations in my contribution support all of the facts I assert. The other editor provided no evidence, apparently failed to read the citations, and in several instances introduced unsourced assertions that are contrary to fact. The most egregious of these is the claim that some World War II detainees had dual German-American citizenship. The United States does not permit dual citizenship with Germany. I am reverting to the earlier version of this section. Please discuss future edits on talk. Durova 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted another change by the same editor about World War I. I'll outline some possible counterarguments:
  1. German Americans spoke a wide range of German dialects. When a husband and wife spoke differing types of German but essentially the same dialect of English, it could be simpler to use English in the home.
  2. First and second generation German Americans often remembered language problems from their early years in school. By using only English in the home parents hoped to spare their children from the same stresses.
  3. The German language declined in international importance with the close of World War I. Germany lost its overseas colonies. Reparations hampered economic recovery. This reduced prestige might have influenced parental choices.
  4. There were obvious benefits to ensuring that one's children spoke unaccented American English.

It might be interesting to create a new section to explore these questions although adequate citations may be hard to locate. Since this article does not currently have such a discussion, it is unwise to conclude an analysis of wartime prejudices with an unreferenced assertion on a different subject. Durova 18:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a large literature on the question of family and school language usage. Before making up all sorts of hypotheses it would be a good idea to read studies of language loyalty and assimilation--try the Kazal and Tischauser studies cited in the references, as well as Thernstrom's Encyclopedia. A useful online source is [2] It argues "The overwhelming evidence from internal documents of these churches, and particularly their schools, however, indicates that the German-American school was a bilingual one much (perhaps a whole generation or more) earlier than 1917, and that the majority of the pupils may have been English-dominant bilinguals from the early 1880's on.

" Rjensen 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My objection was to an uncited assertion that appeared at the end of a different discussion. This link is a narrow academic study that focuses on a small group of bilingual parochial schools. It has little relevance to the statement, "In general the older generation that wanted to keep the old language lost out to the more Americanized younger generation that did not want it." This might become acceptable if you supplemented it with statistics for enrollment in this type of school and referenced an analysis that noted the children's role in changing school policy. Such decicions usually result from agreement between administrators and parents. An expanded and referenced discussion might make an interesting addition to this article. That would deserve its own section. Durova 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is an encycopedia and we are not allowed to do the original research that Durova wants. The article in question was a major summary that covered most German language schools in the USA, based on actual historical documents, not speculation. Dozens of scholars -- Like Tischauser supported the statement that "In general the older generation that wanted to keep the old language lost out to the more Americanized younger generation that did not want it." So as an encyclopedia we must report what the scholars are saying. Rjensen 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about "must," but I think you make a case that it is allowed in the encyclopedia. MPS 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
by the way there is a large literature on assimilation (see Kazal) and it makes the point that it is almost always the younger generation takes the lead in Americanization, not the older generation. WW1 was a shock that disempowered the elders, giving the younger generation the chance to do what they wanted (switch to English). The reason there was no "going back" in 1920s is that the younger generation did not want to go back. Rjensen 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If dozens of scholars have made that statement then it should be easy to provide a relevant line citation. This is the contributor's responsibility. I objected because the statement had the appearance of original research. A statement that holds true for a wide variety of ethnic groups does not necessarily hold true for every group. The link provided on talk in defense of this statement was only tangentially related. In fact, a critical reading could interpret that link as a refutation of that assertion (by claiming that the few parochial schools with German educators abandoned bilingual education with no resistance from parents).

Rjensen mistakes critical commentary for personal opinion. There's a difference between saying, You haven't established this: the same evidence could point to something else, and actually believing the opposite view. Rjensen's edits today attributes Franklin Roosevelt's appointment of German Americans to high military posts to "a deliberate effort" to demonstrate that ordinary German Americans would not face the same discrimination that they had in the previous war. That would be very interesting if it were sourced, which it isn't. What is the evidence that Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz owed their appointments to anything more than their professional achievements? I don't advocate original research; quite the opposite. The section where I have contributed is the most heavily referenced part of the article.

To be completely candid I should inform other editors of any possible bias. I am a United States citizen of partial German ancestry. I speak the language well enough that I sometimes passed for a native among Germans in Germany. That places me among a very small percentage of German-descended Americans. I have studied modern German history and modern American history at the university level, but not specifically the history of German Americans. Durova 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Durova 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

FDR promised no attacks on German Americans in his famous speech of Oct 12, 1940 at Dayton Ohio. Why did FDR surprise everyone by putting Eisenhower in charge of the invasion instead of Marshall? He never said, of course, but everyone the time commented that German-Americans were heading the war effort in Euope and the Pacific. FDR deliberately reached out to Willkie, the leader of the country's German Americans after the 1940 election. He was doing much the same with the Irish (the other group Wilson had trouble with). Perhaps the best overall sources are Kazal on Philadelphia and The Minds of the West: Ethnocultural Evolution in the Rural Middle West, 1830-1917. by Jon Gjerde (which compares several ethnic groups). Rjensen 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional note: the best study of the language transition is * Carol K. Coburn, Life at Four Corners: Religion, Gender, and Education in a German-Lutheran Community, 1868-1945 (1992), which I added to the readings. Again she emphasizes that the younger generation insisted on the transition toEnglish. Rjensen 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion covers several subjects so I'll respond in bullet points:

  • FDR's speech from October 12, 1940 would make a good reference in the World War II section of the article.
  • I suggest citing some of the leading commentators from that period about who was heading the war effort, and toning down this article's editorial description of FDR's motivations. If nothing more tangible has emerged from FDR's private papers or associates' memoirs then the simplest conclusion would be that the German American ethnic group produced generals and admirals because so many Americans had German ancestry.
  • If you have a good source for linguistic transition then cite it. Part of my concern was that roughly half of Germany is Roman Catholic rather than Lutheran and that there are several different Lutheran synods. Parents who enroll their children in bilingual parochial schools are a small and self-selective group.

Regards, Durova 07:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Having read this article and associated talk page for the first time in late 2008, I understand that it may be too late to raise the following question but here it goes anway.

Why do the arguments about the transition from German to English appear to rely on an assumption that in order to understand the phenomenon, it is sufficient to know what occurred in parochial schools?

In my own family, my parents' generation was schooled in public elementary schools (1915 to roughly 1930) taught entirely in English. My grandparents' generation, born in the USA, spoke German as their first language and English as their second language. Do any of the books cited in this discussion even attempt to determine what proportion of the elementary school attendees were in parochial schools, versus public schools, during the eras they studied? This would be highly pertinent. Publius3 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts to be verified

Can anyone verify any of these facts? More than 1.3 million Germans were living in the United States at the start of the Civil War, and they comprised almost 5 percent of its white population and about 4 percent of its total population of 31.2 million. The large majority of these German immigrants arrived in the U. S. between 1848 and 1860, and came mainly from the western and southwestern areas of Germany. An estimated 4,000 of these German immigrants had participated in the failed German Revolution of 1848 and/or uprisings in 1849, and fled their homelands to escape retribution. These political exiles, known as Forty-Eighters, caused quite a stir in the U.S. because of their highly vocal agitation for changes in American institutions and practices, and their anticlerical sentiments.

In 1860, more than four out of five Germans in the United States were living in the Free States, and two out of three were concentrated in just five states – New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. The border states, consisting of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, contained about 15 percent of the country’s Germans, and the Slave States in the South contained a little over 5 percent. Germans overwhelmingly chose to live in the Free States because they did not have to compete with slave labor, and the Free States were more industrialized, offering better economic opportunities. Germans also disliked the institution of slavery because it was akin to the serf system they detested in their homelands. [3] MPS 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The claims seem about right. I would drop the last sentence (serfdom was not an issue), and mention the large German population in Texas, that tended to oppose the Confederacy. See http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/png2.html Note that Missouri Synod Lutherans tended theoretically to endorse slavery (but they rarely owned slaves) Rjensen 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The assertion about serfdom might stand if someone finds a reference that links the two concepts. Serfdom still existed east of the Elbe river in early nineteenth century Germany. Without a reference I'd delete it. Durova 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am dubious of the way this article allows that some German Americans were slaveholders but then implies that all German Americans joined the Union side during the Civil War. It also is puzzling to me that the range wars in Texas are said to have been against Germans because of their supposed Union sympathies. If all of this is correct, it does not account for the fact that there were many Geman Americans in Texas who joined the Confederate side. Milesnfowler 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see these claims verified, as well. Growing up in Britain, perhaps not surprisingly as the British don’t like the Germans that much, I was taught at school and heard many times on television and radio, that one of the biggest delusions Americans have about themselves was their supposed German ancestry. The article is probably right but it does contradict everything I was taught, heard and read in Britain. I was taught that Americans of even Portuguese descent outnumbered those of German descent. Supposedly, Germany, historically, was always far too rich for any significant numbers to flee as immigrants to America which was why Americans of true, rather than imagined, German descent were so thin on the ground. I was taught that Americans of German descent were one of the smallest European minorities in America. I was told that the reason Americans thought they were of German descent was that A, Germany as a country was traditionally seen as rich and powerful which many Americans wanted to identify with. B, Germans made up a very large parentage of the American wealthy partly because the education system in Germany was one of the most advanced in Europe in the 19th century and the few German immigrants that did leave Germany, arrived in America with capital enough to start very successful businesses, such as Budweiser. Therefore as America is a very aspirational society, Americans wanted to be of German descent. and c, Most Polish immigrants germanised their names. This is all probably just British propaganda and having more verified sources in this article would convince me of this. Being one of the greatest industrial powers of the 19th century the population of Germany exploded in the 19th century so I can see where the numbers could come from but then I was taught, that in the late 19th century, more Italians emigrated to Germany than Germans emigrated to America.

Encyclopedia must focus on important events -- not millions of petty details

The fact that a handful of Germans came in 1608 is a trivia item. It is not given more space than the millions of germans in and near Chicago! Rjensen 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not it is not. They were the first German-Americans. The first of millions, they are special handfull of people. They were the beginning. The English in Jamestown were also only a handful of people-that is all that Jamestown was for that matter. Jamestown in 1608 is the beginning of it all. That is also all there was on the Mayflower: a handful of people-yet look how important the Mayflower legacy is to Americans. Why should we omit the story of the first German-Americans? It is not trivia. Many people don't even know stroy of the first German-Americans. Their story ought to be told here (especially as this article is not anywhere near the size, where we need to worry about it getting to lenghty) Perhaps we ought to expand the section regarding the millions that followed, but omitting the story of the first German-Americans just seem wrong. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Mayflower set up something new. The Germans at Jamestown simply blended into an English town and seem not to have created anything Germanic at all--they had no influence, lasting or otherwise. No one followed them or emulated them. That makes it a trivia question. Much more important: Name the first Germans in New York, Chicago St Louis. Rjensen 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree. They may not have had the influence later German migrants had, but they were the first. Besides it is just one small paragraph. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention how Germans later on shaped cities like Cincinnati and Chicago (that obviously needs to be mentioned). But we should spare one paragraph for the story of the first Germans in North America. Why can't we tell the story of the first Germans in 1607 and that of "the first Germans in New York, Chicago St Louis?" There is enough room in this article and I think we cannot afford to omit the story of the First German-Americans. That said, I am open to the idea of trimming the paragraph on the first German Americans, so long as we mention them. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun

Hi, I just thought it would be neat to have a German-American userbox:

This user is a
German-American.
Dieser Benutzer ist ein Deutsch-Amerikaner. 		'

The mark-up is {{User:BrendelSignature/German-American}}, as I saved it in my userspace according to the new guidelines regarding personal userboxes. Best regards and happy editing! SignaturebrendelNow under review! 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Very, very nice!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.116.108 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Reverting vandalism

I'm sorry that I've reverted this article, but the anonymous user 72.200.151.171 severely vandalized this article on October 22, 2006. Nobody paid attention and edits were made on top of the vandalized article. Some paragraphs turned into incomprehensible text and were difficult to fix without removing legit contributions. I ask dedicated editors to examine the vandalized text and integrate valuable contributions made since the vandalization. —☆ CieloEstrellado 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower/Eisenhauer

I'm fairly dubious about the claim that President Eisenhower's "surname was originally spelled Eisenhauer in Germany", as the article asserts. First of all, there is considerable variation in the spelling of German family names, since they predate contemporary orthographic standardizations. Also, according to the article on Eisenhower, his family immigrated in the 17th century, before there even was a Germany. If someone with more time and energy than me could look into this, the article could be improved. Bws2002 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A better way of saying it is that "Eisenhower" is the English way to spell the way "Eisenhauer" is pronounced. It's way outside the realm of possible German spelling variations. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Hau" in German is exactly pronounced "How" in English! Any German speaking person can tell you this. There was NO Germany in the 17th Century? How absurd!!! Germany exists officially since the year 800, as it became the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, you must be thinking of the second German Empire of 1871, which was just another political form. Please get your facts straight, before you subtract 1100 years of German history!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.116.108 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Since his family emigrated in the 17th century, they probably anglicized their name after the Revolutionary War, as my ancestors did. As people noted above, there were also many spelling variations. --Parkwells (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1921Smith cartoon - UK rather than USA?

Is the cartoon in the page American or English? just curious as the products sold by the "assimilated German grocer" seem to be awfully English - Melton Mowbray pies, ginger beer, York ham, Stilton cheese, Cambridge sausages etc. Several of these foodstuffs are definitely traditional English foodstuffs with specific meanings. A well meaning but wrong illustration? --mgaved 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post this myself. Somebody ought to get rid of the cartoon, since it has nothing to do with German Americans, but rather with Germans in Britain.

Removed it, seeing ias it wasn't just me wondering why a cartoon lampooning on German assimilation in the UK was in an article on German Americans... : (Image:Smith1921.jpg|thumb|right|450px|Assimilation shown in 1921 cartoon). --mgaved 14:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Whenever I see a statistic such as 43 million German Americans, I become very suspicious of how this figure is arrived at, and for what purpose it is being used. The peak period of mass immigration from Europe to the US was around 1865-1914. Fifty years ago it was very common in the north and midwest for a person to be an immigrant from Europe, or to have an immigrant parent or grandparent from Europe. Now the peak immigrant generation and their children have passed away, it is much less common to have an immigrant parent or grandparent. It very common for first and second generation immigrants to marry within their own ethnic community. It is rather less common for subsequent generations. My first immigrant ancestor arrived before 1700. My last immigrant ancestor arrived in 1920. Out of my sixteen great-great grandparents living around 1870 ( not all in the US ), five were Germans, one was a Hungarian German, one was from Latvia and possibly German, four were Irish Catholics, 1 was a Canadian of Scottish descent, one was an Irish Protestant, and three were from apparently of so-called scots-irish stock living in Virginia before 1740. None of the grandparents or one great-grandparent that I knew in my lifetime was an immigrant. I don't know any languages or recipes or dances from my ethnic makeup. So what kind of mongrel do you call me ? My circumstances are hardly unique! Am I being classified as a German American based on a bare plurality of my ancestors ? Can I claim to be an Irish American based on a imperceptibly slighter feeling of cultural influence from those forebears, although less numerous than the Germans. Can I claim to be both ? Do I have to choose, and can I choose whichever I want. Do I count at 1 individual or 7/16 of an individual in that claimed total of 43 million German Americans ? I can see how these labels may have been of importance in the last century, particular in attitudes to the world wars. I don't think they are applicable or relevant any more. It is my assessment that 9 times out of ten when some such statistic is quoted in the media any, it is dubious provenance and inherently POV. If there is some scientific and NPOV demographic defition of some of these issues, then there should be some proper explanation of it here. Eregli bob 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the data comes from the Census which asks people what ethnicity they claim. Rjensen 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah exactly, and there is no sensible answer for me to give on the Census. Probably seemed like a good question 90 years ago but it is a stupid and unanswerable question for many people now.Eregli bob 05:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Census Bureau asks people for the ethnicity. After all ethnicity is only a social concept (it's not in your genome- the only thing you're born as is a human being, everything else is taught). This statistics merely means that 48 million Americans seem themselves as being of predominantely German ancestry. Also, you are not being classified. Perhaps you remember the 2000 Census- it asked people as what they see themselves. The Census Bureau is quite simply the most authoritative statistic we have on as what "ethnicity" Americans see themselves. It is the best NPOV "scientific" source. Remember that ethnicity is nothing more than a social constrcut- thus the best source we have is the most inclusive poll: The US Census. Signaturebrendel 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Eregli bob, if there "there is no sensible answer" then you can simply mark "American" and commonly you can refuse to answer the question on polls. If you didn't identify as a German-American on the Census, then you are not included in the 43 million figure. Signaturebrendel 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where in Germany

Are there any statistics that could be added to this page which state which parts of Germany most of these German immigrants came from, like immigration percentages from each of the German states, or just a more general idea of what were the main origins of the German Americans? I think this should be addressed in some way in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

This probably wouldn't be very accurate. In the nineteenth century, American census takers often did record the state (i.e, Bavaria) of the respondent, but who knows whether this was accurate, and if they wrote "Germany" instead, then we will never know. Milesnfowler 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Germans

Germans arent crazy,you know! People think theyre always violent! BUT THAT WAS LIKE 60 YEARS AGO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.48.140 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

No sane person thinks Germans are crazy -- on the contrary, almost every invention, from airplane, car, rocket and so on derives from GERMANS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.116.108 (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Is there any proof that the above is correct? 189.12.207.230 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)



by --84.157.241.160 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First, read the Wikipedia article about inventions. Inventions are hardly ever made by one person alone. Inventions are mostly based on other inventions and/or one or more discoveries from other people. Its how you define it. And don't forget there are also: re-inventions, improved inventions, improved formerly ditched inventions and theories... Is Leonardo da Vinci the inventor of the tank, the helicopter, airplane, parachute - because of his early raw drawings? Hmm...?
To the German Scientists and Inventors:
airplaine:
The (German) Heinkel He 178 was the world's first aircraft to fly under turbojet power, and the first practical jet plane.
The first turbojet engines were invented by two inventors from GB and Germany simultaneously and separately.
Two German inventors flight before the Wright Brothers with there aeroplanes several hundred meters - Karl Jatho and Gustav Weißkopf. But the first officialy recorded "controlled flight" was made by the Wrights.
Delta wings, neccessary for high-speed flight - invented by German scientists during WWII.
cars:
Daimler, Benz, Maybach, Diesel (German). Inventors of the modern car with gasoline engine. Inventors of the engine itself. All is based on other Inventions.
rockets:
Wernher von Braun, THE influential rocket scientist of the time, father of the modern rockets and human spaceflight. But there were sort-of rockets (Chinese gunpowder rockets, eg.) before. Von Braun didn't do it all by himself. Work is partly influenced and based on other Inventions and discoveries.
Sources Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica
Of course "No sane person thinks Germans are crazy." You cannot make statements like that about tens of millions of people so long as you have an ounce of inteligence-and yes obviously Germany is a highly developed nation. But please this discussion is making WP look quite amateurish. Signaturebrendel 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so if I draw a "spaceship" on a piece of paper, then I am the inventor??? How absurd! Weißkopf was the first to fly. Wright Brothers "controlled"? No, they just had better political contacts, and after WW I, the Americans changed their history books in a very anti-German, criminal way. Those days are over, back to the facts: Without Germans there would haven been no Atombomb (Oppenheimer), no nuclear fission (Otto Hahn und Fritz Straßmann, 1938), no airplane (Lilienthal, Weißkopf), no car (Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler), no fuel (Otto, Diesel), no coumputer (Zuse, Rechner Z-1), no chip card and so on and so on ...
Germany, the land of academics and poets, is the capitol of inventions, which is accepted world wide, without Germans neither the Americans (von Braun) nor the Russians (Helmut Gröttrup) would have gone to outer space - or defintely not that soon ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.79.236 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

By the way theire where several people probably flying before the Wrights, witch where actualy not the first controlled flying because the mesurement was to have weeles on the plane, witch the wright brothers did not have. There flight was organised by the Smithonian Institut so it was a kind of political first flight. Before them their was an other German in Germany a Guy in New Zealand and some others. Theire real gol was they made aireplanes popular and constructable by every body who was realy interested. A typical American goal. They invented the flight industy. The first military Helicopters where too used by the Germans in WW II in Greece.

The strength of Germany came out as reaktion on France in the 19 th Century between 1850 and 1950 germany was strongest when German Schools, Suisse and Austro- Hungarian Schools where the best world wide. This was too, because of the industrial revolution witch was made to an inward element not an element of free trade witch destroyed Englands scientific power and is destroying a lott of the US now. This German " Sonderweg" was the main reason for their Sucsess in this time, but the reason for the wars too, because England and France could not exist with an ever stroger Germany besides so France looked for Russia as an allie and England for the moneyforce of the US by standing by when the FED was created 1913 not just a coincident that the war started 1914 without the FED England would have not survived the first year of this war financaly. Johann

As a German I can't quite agree that the vast majority of all inventions was really made by Germans, as stated. What about the lightbulb, the record player, gun powder, the telephone, the telescope, wireless telegraphy, the internet and many other things? I think that germans have made their share to technical progress but it's not quite the capital of progress, particurarly today, since many graduates of engineering schools and technical universities in Germany are going abroad. Besides, I don't know of any german who made a controlled flight in an untethered, motorized aircraft prior to the Wright brothers. Gamgee 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sheer german-being doesn't mean you have "the objectivity". Patriotism in modern germany seems to be quite political incorrect, so no wonder that you try to badmouth your own country. Which is kind of funny, but Ok. Otto Lilienthal is THE inventor of aeroplane - at all. The first menmade aircraft in history was a glider constructed by him. And the Diesel like the Petrol Engine where both german inventions too, so the Wright's just had the "idea" to put both inventions together. It's an idea, but not really an invention in the scientific way. It's a good idea and no one mocks, but its not only their work. The Internet has no "root". Some independent computer networks were established all over the west. Like the CERN in Switzerland, the BTX in Germany, the ARPA in the US and so on. Later they were connected to the INTERconnected NETwork and so on. The lightbulb has two inventors, which worked on it the same time. But Edison was the first to get an worldwide patent on it. The other guy was an german, an american court admited later that the german guy is allowed to name himself the invetor of the light bulb too, what Edison tried to prohibit. The Phone was invented by Philip Reis from Berlin, the Computer by Conrad Zuse from Berlin too and the first TV coverage ever was (well) a speech of Adolf Hitler cause they invented the TV too. And alot other stuff. And they still do, maybe not in east germany. So save your time and find a way between pure nationalism and self-hatred, my german amigo. Dont be so fussy! -84.155.98.121 10:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

half of all nobel prizes of science were given to germans in 2007, dont know where gamgee got this submissive attitude from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.75.133 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

An anon IP is edit waring over what exactly? Can we discuss it here and work this out? Any chance? I am not clear on the issues, but MadJack has been a voice of reason in my opinion. Unless the anon IP can make a case in here, I will defer as above. Thanks! --Tom 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the edits being reverted back and forth are:
  • "POV" tag, which I'm restoring because of lines like "Americans of German descent live in nearly every American county... [county??] German-Americans and those Germans who settled in the US have been influential in most every field, from science, to architecture, to entertainment to commercial industry", "Therefore, Germans were present at the creation of this nation" ("this nation"?)
  • removing John D. Rockefeller from the infobox, because he only had partial/distant German ancestry and therefore isn't exactly a good representative of a typical German-American. Putting in Bruce Willis instead, but I have no qualms about him being removed particularly.
  • Removing "German Americans are citizens of the United States of German cultural or linguistic ancestry" - no source, and that's not correct either
  • Removing "Nearly 50 million people in the United States identify German as their primary ancestry, the US Census Bureau reported in July 2005, ahead of Irish Americans. Although the actual numbers are assesed to be well over 60 million" - It's sourced to [4] - but that source say that there are over 60 million of people whose ancestry leads to German-speaking countries (i.e. Austria, etc.), not to Germany.
  • Removing the line "And still others are prominent celebrities and complete the impressive list of famous German Americans" - you can understand why. Removing "Elvis Presley" from the laundry list - he had very distant German ancestry again, not a good representative for an opening paragraph.
  • Replacing "German origin" with "German birth" for people like Albert Einstein, who I don't even think should be mentioned, considering he had to flee Germany so he wouldn't get killed for being Jewish
  • Replacing "About 25,000 Americans of German descent became paying members of the pro-Nazi German American Bund " with "About 25,000 people became " because that comment is unsourced and I don't believe is factually true
  • Replacing "Americans are of German ancestry" with "Americans have German ancestry" - more indicative that these 50 million are not fully of German ancestry
  • Replacing the ridiculous "particularly those of Jewish belief" to "particularly Jews" in the paragraph about those who fled from WWII. Hitler certainly didn't care about anyone's "belief".
  • We've discussed this section - unsourced - "Many presidents of the United States have had some German ancestry; however, there have only been two presidents of primarily German heritage: Dwight Eisenhower (original family name Eisenhauer) and Herbert Hoover (original family name Huber)."
  • Removing a few external links because they have nothing to do with German-Americans, only with Germany

Mad Jack 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual MadJ, it looks like you did your homework :). I guess we'll see if we get a response? Thanks again for your efforts! --Tom 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This non-stop reverting is getting a bit silly and is doing the articles no good. What's the best way of solving this given the anon editor has never made an effort to discuss the edits and he/she has a new IP every time they log on to the internet? --PTSE 12:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection of article. Mad Jack 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good for now. --Tom 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we semi-protect this? Thanks, --Tom 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have temporarily semi-protected this article. Please work out the issues on the talk page. Rmhermen 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Defining German American

Is there a consensus as to what defines a German American? A large number of caucasians (if not the majority) in the United States are of mixed ancestry. How do we define German-Americans in the 21st century since immigration from Germany has significantly slowed down? Do we go by German last names? It's pretty rare for anyone to be first or second generation German. Most came during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Just seeing what you guys think about this. For example, I'm mainly German-American (over 50%) but also have Scots-Irish and French ancestry. Would that qualify as German-American? Weigh in on this since we'll have to classify more people in the future --CommonSense101 07:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It goes by self-identification. What ancestry a person actually is, is really quite irrelevant - what they see themselves as -sometimes also what they are perceived as - is far more important (ancestry -aside from medical issues- only has the meaning people attach to it). So, the US Census Bureau measures just that - what do people see themselves as predominantely. The 49 million figure means that on the 2000 Census 49 million Americans said they identify as being primarily of German descent. You are right, the vast majority of Euro-Americans are of mixed ancestry - so the Census Bureau simply asks for their primary -most prominent- ancestry. You would certainly "qualify" as a German-American, if that's how see yourself. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
We definitely don't go by last names, that would be a blatant WP:V violation. Mad Jack 19:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No, we go by US Census Bureau data. Signaturebrendel 21:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say, even though i know alot guys which are "pure" german-american since generations, its not only about that. its about what they feel "connected" to, and if they call themself in a census "german american" you can assume, they feel connected to this herritage ;-) if you follow anything GENETIC back you will end up with adam and eve / or a monkey ;-) so can this definition only mean "culture and herritage" -> supports my argue

Exactely, ethnicity, heritage, etc... are all social constructus. Biologically there are just human beings. That is why we go by self-identification - what do American identify with. Signaturebrendel 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
From majoring in physical anthropology I can safely say we now have the technology to determine if someone is biologically German without "social costructs" being involved (other than debating the word german itself and whether the genetically german are german ie austrians or only the political state of germany is german). but biologically, yes, incredibly detailed accounts of nationality can be achieved with modern genetics for example the surprisingly specific resutls acheived by Brian Sykes. On the other hand... I think the term german-american isnt biologically specific, and equally affected by the culture of the nuclear family, which still remains very germanic for some americans in foods, folktales etc. Cold polymer 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but actual ancestry isn't really important. Of course we can trace ancestry quite well with modern technology but ancestry doesn't have any meaning by itself. What matters is how your anectry is perceivied by others and how you perceive yourself. German-American refers primarily to a social construct: people's national and ancestrial identity. Ethnic or Ancestry groups are primarily social constructs that have in many cases linked themselves to ancestry (making it a entrance barrier). Group membership is thereby granted on the grounds of perceived not actual ancestry - it is perceived ancestry that affects people's lives, it is the meaning they and others assign to it. So long as a person is perceived as a member of a certain group and idenitfies as such, he or she is part of the group, regardless of actual ancestry. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Germans might be nowadays "one Nation" but thats a very new development. "The Germans" have very a different Herritage from Region to Region. Its single States are like whole own Nations in nearly all respects, although thats not so widely known in other Countries. You can see that even in their Faces. In the North they look like Scandinavians, in the southwest they look like French, in the east like Czechs and so on.. its a Country in Europes heart and it was allways a place where different Cultures mixed-up. Like a ancient version of the "Melting Pot" USA you could say... So, how will you examine now who is "German" and who is not? The only Country in Europe where that would be possible might be Iceland cause of its long isolation in the old days. So the definition of "German" MUST be one of Culture, not of "Race".

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.201.219 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Free advice (and worth what you paid for it, from one who isn't GA), and seriously intended:

  • Stay away from percentages and that kind of thing. It's offensive, IMHO, and implies a quantified difference between someone who is half-G and someone who is quarter-G. It can be inferred that a quarter-G is less of a G than a half-G or whole-G. Is that ever what you want someone to think?
  • Stay away from the US census (though you might sometimes have to cite it). Their questions are poorly framed (eg, some people just want to say "US American", and an additional identifier may be assumed to diminish their American-ness). It's ambiguous whether the criterion is ethnicity or culture. Some people don't want to self-identify to the government, despite assurances that it can never be used against them (as was done during both WW's). And perhaps some GA's consider the question in terms of the "percentages" point I previously made. The census numbers are not credible for a number of reasons.
  • If you have to have a number, make an estimate, or pick an estimate with some basis in fact, and just live with the uncertain accuracy. Heck, everyone else does. I'll believe the estimate or I won't - what do you care?
  • Why not define it something like this: A GA is an A with G ancestry of any percentage, or someone who claims to be GA by using the "argument" that it can't be proven that he/she isn't a G. That kind of "argument" sounds like it has an Irish flavor to it, but it works for me. And it effectively addresses all questions of ethnicity and culture mentioned above.
  • Off-target but on-topic, one notices that when two A's meet and discover mutual G ancestry, there's mutual gratification in the meeting. No matter that one's parent came from G and that the other has a single G ancestor that arrived in 1700. For a moment in time, they are both G. And that's a good thing.
  • <humor attempt> Now if you could figure out that stuff about a hyphen ... <\humor attempt>

Sorry to intrude, but I was just kinda rummaging through your talk page. Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Any "percentage"? Wow, you people are arrogant. Teach me the Coue method you guys use to repress your collective inferiority complex. Btw, percentages, start sounding ridiculous when you hear "I'm 1/32 German...Seig Heil!". Go find something better to do than imagining romantic scenarios of what was otherwise a big coal burning factory full of people Friedrich Nietzsche despised so much that he decided to leave the country for good. --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.195.241 (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

changed assimilation and ww1 to assimilation and ww1 anti german sentiment

Most of the section seems to be about the oppression germans faced during ww1 with little mention of assimilation OR ww1. Therefore ive added a part to the title. Perhaps 2 unique sections are needed? If the section was indeed intended to be about assimilation, there was little there about it before my edit but I'd be willing to move my part into a new section if somebody comes up with an assimilation related piece. Also: added an additional source http://www.amacad.org/publications/bulletin/winter2006/brinkley.pdf and a bit more about the man murdered in ill. and the minister tarred/feather in minnesota. Previously they were mentioned but very briefly with no real place in the paragraph. Cold polymer 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Badagnani 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7#List_of_German_Americans. Badagnani 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 12#List_of_German_Americans. Badagnani 08:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_Americans/Archive_1&oldid=1049870477"