Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrendelSignature (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 24 September 2006 (never mind). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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)

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 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: <img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALARCOFLGAIDILINKSKYLAMSMONMNCOHOKORSCTNTXVAWV">
<a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a>

or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a>

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

Baptists: <img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALAKARCOFLGAILINKSKYLAMSMONENVNMNCOHOKORSCTNTXVAWV">
<a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a>

or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a>

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:

<img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALARCADCDEFLGAILINKSKYLAMDMIMSMONCOHOKSCTNTXVA">
<a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a>

or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a>

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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" 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 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 17:34, 22 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)