User talk:Feureau/UserBox/AncestryAmerican

File:Barack Obama portrait 2005.jpg

Barack Obama, US Senator and an America. Despite not being the descendent of colonial-era settlers (or as you call it "Creole"), he is an American. Calling him a half-American, who is staying here at "Good graces... of hosts."- is quite unorthodox.

I put it this way, because otherwise the statement is weasel-worded. It is established social convention that one is hyphenated American if their ancestors are post-Independence immigrants, differentiated from the creole American founders/settlers (who are just American). Anybody who attempts to change the meaning of that for some feel-good transcendentalist approach of Americana, are anti-establishmentary and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about who is or isn't American. For instance, Protestant English Ontarians and Catholic French Quebecois in Canada are usually creole colonials who conventionally go by the Canadian/Canadien ethnicity/nationality. On the other hand, Ukrainians in the Prairie Provinces are most assuredly immigrants and of Orthodox religion. There are real distinctions; please don't blur them because Broadway and Hollywood productions tell you to. They don't represent majority American opinion, nor reflect reality. Pay attention to official government approaches. Both governments, Washington and Ottawa, understand and accept that they are the successor establishments of those who fought for independence in some way or another from London. They are not institutions founded by immigrant, hyphenated peoples who came on the good grace of said hosts. Understand where the line is drawn in North America, just as it is done in Latin America and Europe. There are Mexicans and Brazilians, no problems ensuing from such reflective and honest statements. Therefore, do not grant special cases which YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE. Provide sources other than the entertainment industry and sensationalist media to support contrary thought on this matter. I have made it clear to you, that serious and traditional academic, governmental perception and recognition is what matters most. Both Ottawa and Washington record ethnics of the countries they are head of; official government census is enough. Global consensus is enough. When foreigners criticize Americans, they are obviously not talking about immigrant culture. Nobody with a brain and standard education disputes this, but revisionists and social engineers want to play games. Who is right and has the law on their side? Follow convention, or it will be your ass. Don't blur the rules. Éponyme 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are the one being "Anti-establishmentarian." You have admitted yourself that McGraw Hill and other publications refer to the descendants of post-1777 migrants as American as well. Your presentation of American history is quite unorthodox. Perhaps you should create a "Daughters of the Revolution" user box. But in the above statement you are making the, no offense, strange and ludicrous assertion that only those who would qualify as members of the Daughters of the Revolution, a very small group of people, are American. Implying that the vast majority of Americans, including figures such as Dwight Eisenhower, Al Pacino, Alberto Gonzales, Barack Obama and the Astor family are not as American as those descendent from colonial migrants. I gurantee you that the majority of Americans (whose ancestors most likely came during the 19^th and early 20^th century century) do not see the "founding population" as their hosts. Remember the news said that there are 300 million Americans now, clearly the vast, vast, vast majority of them are the descendents of post-1777 immigrants. Thus you cannot accurately state that all true Americans or those who only see themselves as American are the decendents of colonial settlers.

Suggestion:

This user is a descendent of the coloianal American settlers.

Talking to self: Why I am having this discussion? No seriously, why am I talking to you?????Signature ^brendelNow under review! 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so tolerant, respectful one. If this were back in the olden days, you would be deported. Éponyme 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not, this is 2006. Besides this country has never made a habit of deporting upper-middle class European born US citizens (not even in the 18^th century were Saxons whom Benjamin Frankling so loved, deported). You are not my host in this country, nor were your parents the hosts of President Dweight Eisenhower (I Guess you'd think you could threaten Kissinger and Albright w/ deportation as well). Anyways, this userbox is most likely used by many who are the descendants of 19^th century immigrants-as are the vast majority of Americans, so if you want a userbox reflecting your blue blood heritage you'll need to create a seperate one. As for the publications that deal with the US population in the year 2006 (not the 18^th century), there are 300 million Americans most of whom are the descendants of immigrants that came after 1777. Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

Can you make a version of this box that says Australian? I don't know how, and I really feel it expresses how I and mnay other australians feel about our ancestry. Cathryn 10:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]