A discussion with rich historical perspective on who/what is "American"

[tobetrained]

@BlindRawFucker1 for myself, no knives to throw. Anyone across both continents are Americans.

But words can have multiple meanings too. Americans was a term designated by the British to those that migrated to their original American colonies, Canada was barely settled at the time and the Spanish/Portuguese dominated areas to the south of these colonies.

In this, It was a way to create a "they're not us" epithet applied to people who migrated by those that stayed in England/UK or even Europe more broadly.

It then became a term of achievement for those who came here starting in mid-19th century...in search for freedom. It is the rationale of this move that was the subject of the video and convo. What freedom had they been looking for and why.

[hntnhole]

33 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

America is a place, the United States of America is a country that was founded on an idealism.  

And, to hone the point a bit finer, unless one is a Native American, or of Native American ancestry, whose ancestors lived on this continent for millennia, we are all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, whether by choice or by force.  Americans of African ancestry are, obviously, closer to being "real" Americans than those of us with nothing but pale, Caucasian blood in our veins.   

The false contrivance that "racism" depends on - the notion that only Caucasians are "real" Americans - therefore implies that there were zero "Americans" living on this continent prior to the arrival of the Europeans.  

One wonders if the apologists can possibly finagle the contrivances even more obtusely.  

[tobetrained]

20 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Americans of African ancestry are, obviously, closer to being "real" Americans than those of us with nothing but pale, Caucasian blood in our veins.   

What does this quote mean?

[tobetrained]

Well, then, let's leave it at racism is racism. Extremism begets extremism.

[hntnhole]

On 2/18/2026 at 4:36 PM, tobetrained said:

What does this quote mean?

My apologies - sometimes I don't have a chance to get to BZ for a day or two ....

What I meant is a reference to the amount of melanin in the skin.   Caucasians have rather little, particularly compared to descendants of immigrants (or, as pointed out prior) the actual Native Americans.  If we accept that differing groups of immigrants (to this continent) tend to "stick together" in areas of the continent that most resemble their land of origin, we are able to understand that those folks are actually attempting to duplicate the climate where they immigrated from - thus making their new home feel more "homelike".  For example, the Northern States are mostly populated with folks from (or descended from) Northern Europeans.  By the same token, more southern areas of the US generally became home to those immigrants from areas closer to the equator, thus simulating what they're most familiar with.  

The entire point would be that unless one has Native American blood in one's veins, everyone of any racial group is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants.  In other words, barring Native American ancestry, we're all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, and none of us are any better or worse than any others based merely on bloodlines. 

As it happens, I'm a first generation immigrant; both my parents came from a European nation, and I'm not one bit different from every other emigree of any generation.  

Again, apologies for the delay, and thanks for the question.  I hope I managed to make that more clear.

[topblkmale]

On 2/18/2026 at 4:12 PM, hntnhole said:

 Americans of African ancestry are, obviously, closer to being "real" Americans than those of us with nothing but pale, Caucasian blood in our veins.   

 

On 2/18/2026 at 4:36 PM, tobetrained said:

What does this quote mean?

 

As an African American United Statian I was wondering as well but I would imagine it depends on the definition of 'real'.

 

[tobetrained]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The entire point would be that unless one has Native American blood in one's veins, everyone of any racial group is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants.

Not really, this is conceit of liberal politics simply to apply a bit of self-loathing. 

First, you're classifying all Native Americans into one homogeneous group, which they're not. Native Americans were a disparate set of many nomadic and semi-nomadic nations are some more sedentary states. Some where violent, some were peaceful. We don't have details as writing was not prevalent.

Second, you're picking an arbitrary timeline of what determines "american-ness." I'll point out here, the term was actually European. Native Americans had no classification for the Western Hemisphere,or  the Americas, as most knew not the extent of it let alone anything beyond to need a term. And, Native Americans are actually not native either. The human race is entirely African migrants.

Third, I would hope you would apply this logic -- your design on American-ness -- to places like India, the Balkan countries, and various Turk-dominant areas. Most of the populations there, like North America, are migrant interlopers with movements during the last 1500+ years, in our collective historical period. Not all these migrations were positive. The Balkans, for instance, is the location of many Slavic peoples which originate in the forest zone of central Russia.  Most were brought there as their namesake term -- as slaves.

Fourth, and most importantly, grouping people by the color of their skin or their ethnic culture in terms of some value -- here, "american-ness" --  is pure racism. It is multi-directional and can be self-directed to a person's own race.