Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 21 September 2006

American (ethnic group)

This article contains only a small bit of information already covered in the article, Demographics of the United States. It only states that 7.2% of Americans chose to self-identified themselves as being ethnic Americans on the Census. Not only are these responses to the 2000 Census already covered in Demographics article but it is also impossible to further expand this stub. All that is known about these 7.2% of respondents is that they marked "American" as their ethnicity when presented with the Census form in April of 2000. Any further stipluation would be of speculatory nature unfit for WP. Signature 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. I would emphasize that this article is not about "Americans" generally, but rather only about a group of people who self-identified as being of "American" ancestry in the 2000 census. The information in this article is already mentioned, approrpriately, in use of the word American, demographics of the United States, and maps of American ancestries. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, it is very important to "emphasize that this article is not about 'Americans' generally." Signature 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Minor point: we don't even know that 7.2% identify themselves as "ethnic Americans", all we know is that 7.2% choose "American" as their "ancestry or ethnic origin". Not much to go on at all, and certainly doesn't justify an article. Also conflicts with the ethnic group of Americans (regardless of ancestry or origin) that might or might not be worth writing a different article about in the future. RandomP 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps a scholar will someday study these responders and other like-minded individuals (and maybe one already has), but this wouldn't be the appropriate article title. -Acjelen 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete At a guess this refers to those Americans like myself who are of mixed Eurpoean blood so don't identify with any particular ancestry, but that's just a guess. Beyond that, the rest is OR and speculation. Fan-1967 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The creator and principal defender of this article has been blocked for some pretty vitrolic personal attacks, so I will summarise his arguments: (1) Some people choose to write 'American' as ethnic group in the United States Census (2) there are articles on WP about hyphenated Americans (3) The people who write American are clearly descendants of the original colonists, and deserve their own article (4) Those who disagree fall into three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories a.Liberals with White Guilt b.Hyphenated Americans who dont understand what it is to be American and c.Communist Europeans. (This is not an exaggeration.) The article as its stands is therefore pretty OR and quite unbelievable (the districts with majority "American" respondents are mainly in the rural South, and there are no citations explaining why this is so, for example, and how it squares with the assertion that ethnic Americans came over before 1776). Its unsalvageable, and should go. Hornplease 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One should also note that many of the 7.2% who marked "American" as their ethnicity on the Census are also "hyphenated Americans" as many are likely to be European-Americans (the descendants of European settlers) as well. Fact is we don't know who these 7.2% are; thus we can't say anything about them. You're right the arguments supporting this article are OR and nullify each other. Signature 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete YechielMan 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I guess that there are no ethnic groups and no races, because we all came from somewhere else and intermixed with others. This becomes moot, even though there are articles for other ethnic groups and hyphenated (immigrant) Americans. How you fail to see the difference between original people and subsequent additives, is beyond me. The barbarians who came to Rome may have assimilated to Roman culture and took Roman wives, but were not the Roman people themselves who founded Rome. Do you not understand such a comparison? The mere fact that the Trojans (or Greeks) were originally squatters on Etruscan (ooh, Indians--anybody?) land does not nullify the concept of a Roman people, as they were established in existence. There is no regard for traditional thinking in Misplaced Pages--you lot are actively hostile to the recognition of the New World's version of the Roman experience with all the parallels before you and admitted in common discourse. I guess I may have to phone up my Appalachian-based American grandma of mostly Virginia descent to inform her that she doesn't exist. Our ideals are "gone with the wind", which you are apparently blowing to knock our house down. It is you who have no perspective on the American experience. My coworkers agree with my every argument and supplement with their own personal experiences of abuse at ignorant godchilds like yourselves. Their heritage likewise dates to the colonists who fought in the Revolution to define their future and give you the place to bash them for it, as you are doing now by dismissing their existence. Know then, what stereotypical portrayals of Americans come from and why. George Bush's cowboy image is only one of the original American getups that we have--another is the planter and another is the mountain-man. I and all patriotic Americans would object to you categorizing George Washington as a British or English American. He was the Father of my country and all the ethnic colonial intermixture is encompassed within the American identity, but the Dutch and Germans strangely have chosen to identify with their previous roots as if Romans thought of themselves not as Romans but still as Trojans (what Trojan Empire?!). Ask any pro-American history buff, or military re-enactors of past wars and any soldier who bears the American flag. Don't tread on me. You are bringing the conflict onto one who never thought it possible that there could be this convergence of ignorance in one place and one time, with regards to American history! There are no smokescreens here but the ones you lot are drafting to eradicate something that exists beyond paper. Get lives, people! Éponyme 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates