Share Your Heritage

[Necron2.0]

We've given shout-outs for everything else, why not give some love for your roots.

Here's something from mine. My cousin is one of the ladies in the color guard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gLbxmvFQt4

[SotonShades]

Lets see;

Half of one of the north valleys in Wales are cousins to my grandma, or subsequent generations there-of.

My Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great granddad was a Romanii Gypsy.

On the other side of the family, my granddad's grandma's mother was a servant at a country house, when the Prince of Wales of the time (I forget which one) visited. He caused a scandal buy dancing with her at the formal ball being held. What was less well known was that he raped her later that night, resulting in my granddad's grandma. Oddly, that country house later became a school that my granddad went to, not knowing until many years later the ties his family had to it.

If you go back to the Battle of Bosworth (the place Richard III fell in battle before being tossed into the river Soar in Leicester, recovered and buried in Grey Friars, which later became a car park) I had ancestors who were high-ranking 'generals' for want of a better term on both sides of the War of the Roses, with a the main route of that side of the family coming from the third side, the Stanleys, who didn't commit their army to either side until they saw Henry Tudor was likely to win.

Also, there is a small village in Derbyshire, which a different ancestor used to be the Lord of, and the name of said village is my surname.

[Deadlift]

Ok then,
On my mothers side the family are all Traveling Showmen. Don't be confused with gypsies as that would get you into trouble. Basically my background on that side of the family is my Grandparents and generations before them used to travel with the fairground with their own rides making a living. Back in the 50s my Grandparents decided to stop traveling and sold their rides. They bought a house and Paignton pier which my Grandfather ran as a business. He steadily built his business up and eventually finished up by the time of his death with 7 amusement arcades and a pub.
My Uncle is also involved in the business (now reduced in size) and he is the Director. I started to work for my family at aged 14. I worked summer holidays etc. After finishing my HND I decided to not work with my family but took a job as an Engineer / Technician for a company called Nortel. I left in 2002 and have been managing the business ever since.

My Father is Turkish and he met my mother when she went to work for him in his hairdressing business. They were married for only 2 years. However I'm very close now to my Dad despite a few cultural differences. He hates the fact I use my mothers maiden name as my Surname, but when your running a business called J B Jones Amusements, it helps if your names Joseph Jones and not Karahan. I still embrace as much as I can from both of my parents very very different backgrounds and fascinated by both. Obviously my love of weight lifting is from my Father, it's practically the national sport after wrestling.

[DrLove42]

Not too much to tell.

Grandad was wounded at Dunkirk, and was there at the capture of the Nijmegen Bridge

[Psychosplodge]

We used to have vast tracts of land...
well not really.

Well without any effort I can get four generations to my city. After that it gets complicated. One side theres no records because of either bigamy or lack of marriage or some such at somepoint, and the other branch of that side had a relative raised by an aunt not parents so that adds confusion. The otherside nobody talked about it before the older generations died and no-ones been arsed to look.
In reality I've got an anglo-saxon surname, and live in a part of the country that was inhabited by both anglo-saxons and vikings so... probably just peasants :D*shrugs*

[Mr Mystery]

Erm...Righto...

Dad's side - Nothing massively interesting. Come from the highlands and islands. Used to have a family croft, but was inherited down a related family tree, and sold off in the early 90's I believe. I am a descendant of the first Policeman to be shot in Edinburgh (he survived). This chap also explains why my brother and I are significantly taller (6"+) than everyone else. He was 6'1".

Mum's side? Yeah. We're still looking into that one. May involve a Circus Strongman and a Gypsy Princess.....

[Wolfshade]

It all really started when Adam met Eve...

[Psychosplodge]

It all really started when Adam met Eve...

That's a terrible genetic bottle neck to start from for seven billion people.

[Wolfshade]

That's a terrible genetic bottle neck to start from for seven billion people.


Well if you go back to C16. You have more ancestors than people are alive so it keeps happening...

[eldargal]

Well there is a Mitochondrial Eve but there wasn't a bottleneck.

[Gotthammer]

The farthest back in my family tree you can go back is to an ancestor who was transported to Australia for stealing a book, so my family has a long history of being nerds.

[Psychosplodge]

Isn't that a variation of every Australian's family tree though? :p

[Gotthammer]

Actually having a verifiable convict ancestor is not actually very common - only around 1 in 10 arrivals in Australia were convicts while transportation was in effect, and 80% of those were men. Except Mary Wade, who has tens of thousands of descendants nowadays (having 21 kids will do that).

[Wildeybeast]

That's a terrible genetic bottle neck to start from for seven billion people.

Common misconception that because A&E were the first people, they were the only ones. The Bible makes clear there are other folks wandering around when they get chucked out of paradise.

As for my family heritage, nothing particularly interesting. Never traced dad's side and mum's side goes back away and there are some minor lords of this and that somewhere around the 18th century. My grandad was in the army football team alongside one Bobby Moore, which I think is kinda cool.

[Denzark]

British by birth, English by the Grace of God. I also believe in the Divine Right of Kings.

[Psychosplodge]

Actually having a verifiable convict ancestor is not actually very common - only around 1 in 10 arrivals in Australia were convicts while transportation was in effect, and 80% of those were men. Except Mary Wade, who has tens of thousands of descendants nowadays (having 21 kids will do that).

tbf i'm surprised it's as high as 1 in 10 by now.

[jgebi]

My sure name is Polish from what I know and that comes from my dad and his dad etc on that side from my dads looking it's rather weird theirs some nuclear physicists and a duke or 3.

My mums side my granddad came to Australia to escape WW2 when he was 10 or so and then moved to NZ for some reason (silly if you ask me) and thats where he lives atm

[Wolfshade]

It is a bit difficult wiht mine or at least parts. On my fahter's side the scottish line or at least through the males is fairly straightforward thanks to the clan system which helps when records don't exist.

[Necron2.0]

In the particulars ....

Mom is half Spanish and half Native American, and that's pretty much an exact devide. Grandma's family came from Spain while Grandpa was of the Tewa Pueblo people.

My dad's mom was German, with roots back to the American Revolution (in the form of a turn-coat Hessian mercenary). My grandfather was adopted.

My cousin from the video is half Ute, related to me on my mom's side.

[scadugenga]

English and a touch of Cherokee on my dad's side of the family...and the longest side in the country (first ancestor came over in the 1600's.)

Mom's side is Irish and German. My grandfather was rumored to have been part of the Easter Uprising (unconfirmed as he died well before I was born) before leaving Ireland to come to the States, serve in WWI, (smoothed citizenship an' all...) and get gassed in the trenches. He survived, but had health and dietary issues the rest of his life.

Mom never talked about her mom at all. But then, my mom had all these crazy independent ideas about going to college etc. it didn't sit well with her mom or dad, much.

[eldargal]

Mother is Russian, her mother is Russian and her father is English.

Father is Austrian, his father is Austrian his mother is English.

Mothers father and fathers mother are cousins. Mothers F met Fathers M by virtue of being school chums with Fathers Ms brother and knowing that they were second cousins already.

That's the least complicated generation done with, shall I continue?:rolleyes:

[Necron2.0]

What about cultural artifacts? For myself I've always been fascinated by the iconography and cultural art that people grow up with, and how it shapes them and molds their world view.

I grew up (to a large extent) on military bases. From the outside every family's quarters were uniformly the same. Inside, however, I was surrounded with things like this:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/176/6/e/zz_final_1__by_necron2_0-d6ap8h9.jpg

...and this:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/133/2/d/navajo_sandpainting_by_necron2_0-d654nmi.jpg

As I got older I remember being shocked to discover the environment my friends were growing up in was nothing at all like mine.

[Deadlift]

Actually Necron I have some Native American art at home, my wife's parents both started their teaching careers up in Northern Canada "Yellow Knife" with the Inuit. They made many Inuit friends who they are still in contact with and we have quite a few carvings at home as a result. They also have a full Polarbear rug and Narwhale tusk but for obvious reasons they stay in their home in Canada.
My own background really is the bricks and mortar around me at work today, I'm the 3rd generation of our family in the Amusement arcade business and before that my family (mothers side) are all traveling showmen. As such we don't really have stuff like big wheels and bumper cars in our house. It's not big enough. My grandmother does have lots of art of Gallopers (Merry-go-round) and other fairground rides. But I think the best way we keep our heritage alive is in our language, we frequently use unusual words only people from our background would understand. As an example most of you guys would be known as Flatties, people with a non traveling showmen background and Kushti means "Nice"

Here's some Inuit stuff we have, my favourites.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab3/joenortonjones/a854e608265145fedf870e243328eb49.jpg

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab3/joenortonjones/d7717c8cd1494bda06a57f89d8137721.jpg

[SotonShades]

No real artefacts or heirlooms at the moment, though my granddad is determined to give me his gold chain, which is currently worth around a thousand pounds. Although we do have rather an odd coincidence around that kind of thing;

Not so long ago, when I was still living in Southampton, my watch broke and I needed a new one. Had a look round, not really liking any of the modern watches with faces wider than my wrist (possibly an exaggeration) but a beautiful mechanical gold pocket watch caught my eye. After a day or two debating whether a pocket watch was suitable in this day and age, I decided to go for it. Never in my life have I received so many compliments in such a short space of time; many people saying how lovely it was, how much it suited me and my personality, even getting a good number of tips at the restaurant I worked at because of it. After breaking it and getting it replaced (a few times) and returning home for a family get together, my granddad informed me that his father had been very well known around Leicester for being a dapper gent, and always carrying his gold pocket watch, which was of such incredible quality that many people relied upon him for the time, even over the clock tower that marks the centre of Leicester. Unfortunately, he was severely crippled in his later years and had to sell of the watch to avoid total poverty, but it is peculiar how driven I was for that pocket watch, without having previously known my family's connection to such items.

[Kirsten]

Well my grandfather was a leuitenant with the 9th Manchester in world war 2, he was awarded the Military Cross for rescuing wounded soldiers trapped between the lines under heavy machine gun fire. he was part of the invasion of Italy and Germany. I have his officer's sabre in my room.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

Grandfather (Mothers dad,) Maltese, lived in wales, joined the Ghurkers as an NCO, got busted for riding on tanks. Rescued POWs in Burma, Promoted to NCO, rode on tanks busted again. Never returned to Malta , even though he wanted his ashes spread there nobody ever made the trip.

Fathers Mother Scottish - her dad was the first tank commander in the UK, fought in the Somme

Fatagn!

[Denzark]

Shoggoth - are you sure he was actually in the Ghurkas as an NCO, and not just working with them? The Ghurkas troops and NCOs are all Nepalese, the only Brits were the officers - maybe he was higher ranked than you thought?

[Wildeybeast]

British by birth, English by the Grace of God. I also believe in the Divine Right of Kings.

Or Queens, God Save Her.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

Shoggoth - are you sure he was actually in the Ghurkas as an NCO, and not just working with them? The Ghurkas troops and NCOs are all Nepalese, the only Brits were the officers - maybe he was higher ranked than you thought?

It's certainly possible. He would only say he was an lowest ranked officer I thought that was NCO??, he really didn't like talking about the war.

He spoke at least 6 languages that I knew of .

Fatagn!

[Deadlift]

Or Queens, God Save Her.

+1

So for us Brits and our Commenwealth friends who post in here, how many feel the Queen is importent to you. I know I'm a staunch Royalist and the idea of a Republic doesn't interest me in the slightest. This thread is about cultural and national identity and for me the Queen and the Royals are a big part of that. I can't put into words why. It just is.

[Wildeybeast]

True dat. I saw some treasonous rebel types on the news today moaning about her getting an increase in the money she is given from the income on her own lands. Time was they'd lose their head for such talk and the world would be a happier place. If they had their way we'd have some incompetent pervert/criminal like all these European types or a complete buffoon who is owned by big businesses like those colonial oiks across the pond. Give me a hereditary life incumbent who has been trained for the role since birth and possess a sense of duty and standards any day.

[TonyaPatrick]

Not to insult your heritage at all...but what real work does the Queen or the royal family do? Sure, I can see where they might be great for a certain amount of pride/morale. But the Prime Minister and parliament do all the real work anyway.

I am pround to be a "colonial". Imho, George Washington is the greatest man who has ever lived. A man who could have all the power someone could ever dream of at their fingertips and give it up. Now, that was a truly great man.


"If they had their way we'd have some incompetent pervert/criminal like all these European types or a complete buffoon who is owned by big businesses like those colonial oiks across the pond. "

I mean, really...there haven't been any skeletons in the royal families closet right?

[TonyaPatrick]

As a side note I love reading about English royal history mostly Henry VIII and the War of the Roses because of all the turbulence and cultural/religious upheavals that occurred.

Angela Merkel in Germany I think does a fine job at what she does :)

I am half German but 100% American :)

[Wolfshade]

Arguably contributes billions in tourist revenue who come and see the heritage.
The whole point of a consitutional monarchy is that they just act as a figure head so the elected actually do the ruling, not that we actually vote for the prime minister...

[eldargal]

There is a quote allegedly from Churchill that goes 'The monarchy isn't notable for the power it wields but for the power it denies others'. So long as we have a constitutional monarch no politician can gain the kind of power the US president has by default and not enough to become tyrannical. As to work, the Queen has something like 350 official engagements a year, possibly over 400 I forget. She hasn't had a day off since 1953 and she is intimately involved in the affairs of government even if she can't intervene in them. Her Majesty is the ultimate balance against the power of government.:)

[Kirsten]

There is a quote alledly from Churchill that goes 'The monarchy isn't notable for the power it wields but for the power it denies others'. So long as we have a constitutional monarch no politician can gain the kind of power the US president has by default and not enough to become tyrannical. As to work, the Queen has something like 350 official engagements a year, possibly over 400 I forget. She hasn't had a day off since 1953 and she is intimately involved in the affairs of government even if she can't intervene in them. Her Majesty is the ultimate balance against the power of government.:)

I agree with this, even though she isn't my queen. this was a discussion I had at uni with friends, and myself and another came to the same conclusion as EG.

[DarkLink]

I'm hoping to get my grandpa to dig out his diploma, so one day I can hang it with mine and my dad's, since we're all civil engineers. That would be pretty cool, especially if I have kids that get into civil engineering as well.

[Necron2.0]

For Darklink:

==============
A mechanical engineer, a software engineer and an electrical engineer were talking about God with respect to the human body. The mechanical engineer argued that God was a mechanical engineer, citing the marvelous machine that is the human body. The software engineer countered that God must be a software engineer, pointing to the complexity of the human brain and its teraflops of raw processing power.

The electrical engineer just sighed, "Guys, you've got it all wrong. God is obviously a civil engineer. Only a civil engineer would lay a sewage system smack through the center of a recreational area."
==============

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) Nothin' but love though, man.

[DarkLink]

We exist to tell architects "you can't do that".

[Psychosplodge]

I am pround to be a "colonial". Imho, George Washington is the greatest man who has ever lived. A man who could have all the power someone could ever dream of at their fingertips and give it up. Now, that was a truly great man.




Oh dear. Washington was a war monger who started a war with the French pre-revolution, and then a civil war when "The Crown" refused to let the "American Aristocracy" (Rich white landowners) expand onto land that would break treaties with native Americans.
He refused power because the revolution was about making him and his ilk richer, not about giving him responsibilities.

The hereditary constitutional monarch trained from birth instilled with a sense of duty seems far more sensible than spending $20billion to buy yourself the seat for four years.

[chromedog]

My mother's side goes back to a convict and later colonial explorer (he explored and surveyed the general region that I used to live in - and even has a bridge named after him. After a fashion. The name for the bridge comes from a local indigenous version of his name - "H" and "X" were not common sounds in their lexicon, so "Huxley" became "Ugly".).

My father's side is a mystery. His father was a slovak Romany, his mother Hungarian (surname: Szanto). He was born in Hungary, and fostered out to the Netherlands during WW2 (he was born in January of '39) - where he grew up and immigrated from. We have his birth certificate. It shows mother, father and the other usual details. Trying the usual (and unusual) channels to trace back further resulted in nothing but a dead end due to lack of records. What survived the Germans didn't survive the Russians.

Even the Mormon and Jewish registries were of no help. The Authorities in Budapest could find nothing even when furnished with a copy of what they verified was one of their certificates, and the relevant signatories.

Although I have recently been contacted by an apparent cousin (related to my paternal uncle). So some light shines amidst the murk.

[eldargal]

Oh dear. Washington was a war monger who started a war with the French pre-revolution, and then a civil war when "The Crown" refused to let the "American Aristocracy" (Rich white landowners) expand onto land that would break treaties with native Americans.
He refused power because the revolution was about making him and his ilk richer, not about giving him responsibilities.

The hereditary constitutional monarch trained from birth instilled with a sense of duty seems far more sensible than spending $20billion to buy yourself the seat for four years.
He is certainly one of the most overrated men in history.

[Wolfshade]

He is certainly one of the most overrated men in history.

I thought that was Einstein..

[Psychosplodge]

I thought that was Einstein..

Just because he didn't finish?

[eldargal]

Einstein is ftw.

[Wolfshade]

Where to begin:
The cosmological constant debarcle
The evolutionary, not revolutionary work of Reimann
Grand Unified Theory was first proposed by Faraday so again just some more evolutionary work
Wave particle duality was in Plancks blackbody raditaion paper
Brownian motion was first described mathematically by Theile 1880
Constant speed of Light - Maxwell/ Michelson–Morley
Special & General relativity - Lorentz / Poincare
E=mc^2 - Umov 1873 though he did think that there was a constant between 0.5 - 1 in there as a multiplier

etc...

[eldargal]

Yes but his hair is funny.

[Wolfshade]

So has Boris J.

[eldargal]

Boris J is ftw too.

[Deadlift]

Boris J is ftw too.

Yep, fingers crossed he will be PM one day.

[Gotthammer]

http://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p388/proteus_lives/Scan11205.jpg

[TonyaPatrick]

Hmm...a civil war huh? Because the British monarchy was SO caring and accommodating to the "colonials" right? That is just laughable.

If you have read any serious biographies of George Washington you would know that he suffered financially to a catastrophic degree while in the service of his country. He had to sell off enormous amounts of his own land to even keep his troops fed.

I understand that Britian has a constitutional monarchy but they have no power. Former prime ministers have wielded great amounts of power so I don't see how they function as a power check as previously stated. They should own no property - any property the crown has "inherited" was just taken at the expense of their people. Royalty has no redeeming qualities and no purpose in todays world.

[Denzark]

Anyhoo, back on topic...

@ Kirsten - if you are interested in getting your Grandad's sword refurbished, I can recommend them what stepped into the Wilkinson Sword vacuum...

[Deadlift]

Royalty has no redeeming qualities and no purpose in todays world.

I'm not trying to be condesending Tonya, not my style but I would like to add that our Royal family do a huge amount of charitable work on a scale that's truly mind boggling. They are able to do this because of their unique position and I disagree that they have no redeeming qualitys. Many people on the receiving end of these charities too I think would agree.



An important part of the work of The Queen and the Royal Family is to support and encourage public and voluntary service.

One of the ways in which they do this is through involvement with charities and other organisations. These range from well-known charities such as the British Red Cross to new, smaller charities like Kids Company, to regiments in the Armed Forces.

About 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as patron or president. The Queen has over 600 patronages and The Duke of Edinburgh over 700.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/the-princes-charities
Is just one of many.

I think many non UK residents think of our Royal family as just existing and living off the state. This truly isn't the case.

Sorry Den, couldn't let it pass :D

[Necron2.0]

Personally, I like the English Monarchy. I like the concept of it. I also still harbor the fantasy that someone in line for the English Throne will marry someone in line for the Japanese Imperial Throne to form the Anglo-Nipponese Empire.

[Denzark]

Sorry Den, couldn't let it pass :D

Fair one bud - I totally agree but had a Hamlet moment to stop me typing something that would get me my third infraction since 2009, you put it so much more maturely than I would have...

[TonyaPatrick]

Okay, your response was fairly well written and laid out, which I appreciate. Perhaps my comment about royalty was a little harsh. But, still these are people that will never have to worry about where their next meal comes from, they receive many advantages that most other people simply don't have access to. Mostly because of who their long, long, long. long, long, long ago relatives were. Charity is wonderful, and here in the US we have many private citizens/business owners who give enormously of their time/money.

However,I don't see how the anti colonial comments are okay. I do take umbrage with the idea that George Washington was a money grubbing, overrated historical figure. I mean, come on. George the Third had a much better opinion of him than that.

[Nabterayl]

Tonya, let me ask a sort of American question regarding your objection to royalty: doesn't American-style popular sovereignty entail the right to appoint a monarch? I mean, I think it's clear that the House of Windsor enjoys pretty widespread support.

EDIT: I'm not one to place Washington on a pedestal, EG, but of all the people to villify for the War for American Independence, you pick the Virginia war leader? :p

EDIT 2: Tonya, I think you'll find that our Commonwealth friends rib us a lot down here. It's all meant in good fun; don't take the "colonial" things too seriously. Lacking the virtue inculcated in the citizenry of an agrarian republic, they can't help themselves.

[TonyaPatrick]

Nabterayl, I would say you are right. If the British choose and support the monarchy then that is absolutely correct, they should have the right to appoint whoever they want to be in power.

I appreciate your comments. I was unaware that their was a general ribbing of us "colonials", so I will keep that in mind and try not to take things of that nature as seriously in the future.

I do tend to be a Washington history buff. To the point where I am going to name my Eldar general some amalgamation of his name and something Eldar-ish. It is ironic enough that American Revolutionary History and English Civil War/Tudor England history are my favorite parts of history to study and learn about.

On that note, as it is a rather neutral topic, and as we are talking about heritage so it IS somewhat related...what, if any point in history intrigues you, and anybody else that may read this thread?

"EDIT 2: Tonya, I think you'll find that our Commonwealth friends rib us a lot down here. It's all meant in good fun; don't take the "colonial" things too seriously. Lacking the virtue inculcated in the citizenry of an agrarian republic, they can't help themselves."

Lol

[Deadlift]

However,I don't see how the anti colonial comments are okay. I do take umbrage with the idea that George Washington was a money grubbing, overrated historical figure. I mean, come on. George the Third had a much better opinion of him than that.

No and that's fair enough, it's why I chose not to rib you any further than the others already had, again it's not my thing (most of the time) just ends up tit for tat. My wife despite being Canadian did actually study American political history as part of her Political Science major, I did intend on asking her, her thoughts on Washington but at the moment she's quite drunk with her friends and I just got home from World War Z.
Anyway my knowledge is limited as far as the war of independence goes, really John Adams is the only one of your early Presidents that I have read about to any great length.
My favourite to read about of your Presidents that shaped your country is Lincoln, he really is a heroic political figure from the past, damn fine vampire hunter too ;)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

[Denzark]

Okay, your response was fairly well written and laid out, which I appreciate. Perhaps my comment about royalty was a little harsh. But, still these are people that will never have to worry about where their next meal comes from, they receive many advantages that most other people simply don't have access to. Mostly because of who their long, long, long. long, long, long ago relatives were. Charity is wonderful, and here in the US we have many private citizens/business owners who give enormously of their time/money.

However,I don't see how the anti colonial comments are okay. I do take umbrage with the idea that George Washington was a money grubbing, overrated historical figure. I mean, come on. George the Third had a much better opinion of him than that.

OK Tonya, I'll bite. Say we got rid of the monarchy. All that privilege, pageantry, etc. Say the Queen became Mrs Windsor. Do you think at the same time we should take all of her houses, possessions and money from her? Or would that just be state-sponsored theft? Because if she lost the position but not the wealth she would still be living a life far beyond the imagination of the rest of the hoi polloi. If you think she should be stripped of titles and assets, do you similarly think that for texas Oil Barons whose riches are a matter of happenstance as to where their great grand-pappy settled being on top of black gold?

If you think every rich person in the world should be stripped to a base level you are merely a communist, which has been proven to be a failed system (as well as a bloodthirsty one with excesses in terms of body count far worse than WWII Germany).

If you care not for her riches, and just find our allegiance to her and affording her privilege odd because it is based merely on birth, that is because you are a product of your country, who diverged from that because your rich wanted more influence in their own ruling and thus money.

Probably as odd to you as I find segregating people on buses in the sixties purely based on the colour of their skin, and letting your citizens have easy access to firearms based on a 200 year old document based on saving you from vicious red coats.

Happy to take a monarchy debate to another thread, I think we should harken back to ancestry though.

I have met plenty of 'Irish' Americans, but only 1 lass who described herself as 'British American'.

Why is this, and what is the insistence on harking back to wherever your ancestors came from - especially as they abandoned it in the first place!?!

[Nabterayl]

I have met plenty of 'Irish' Americans, but only 1 lass who described herself as 'British American'.

Why is this, and what is the insistence on harking back to wherever your ancestors came from - especially as they abandoned it in the first place!?!
Two reasons, I think. One, there's a strong sentiment in this country that America is made better by keeping some form of our ancestors' culture alive. After all, it's not as if we have a very deeply rooted national culture to begin with. There are certainly some who feel that immigrants ought to assimilate fully into "American" culture, but there's also a strong countervailing current that feels that American culture is immigrant culture. I think most Americans, if you really pinned them down, would feel somewhere in between. Obviously there is no point to calling yourself part of a society and yet holding yourself out as completely separate from it; at the same time, I think it's also undeniable that our national culture has a strong tradition of incorporating some form of our immigrants' cultures.

Two, it can be a way of identifying with historic injustices. You'll notice that you won't meet many Norwegian Americans, for instance. We have plenty of folks derived from Norwegian stock, but they never faced the kind of virulent, systematic oppression that our Irish immigrants did. Odds are good that if you find an <ethnic> American, at some point in our history that ethnicity was a seriously persecuted minority. That sort of thing tends to leave its mark on a population for a long time, even after the actual persecution - and even its effects - have largely gone away.

[Denzark]

Interesting. I consider British culture to be immigrant based - a proper melting pot. Indigineous tribes, invaded in turn by Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman. Accepting of refugees for centuries - many big cities with jewish centres from them fleeing mainland European Pogroms. Mingling of Welsh, Scot, Irish. And now those from the Empire/Commonwealth.

I'm interested in the concept of historic injustice in Ireland - I thought the majority of leavers were fleeing potato famine and the harsh conditions imposed by mainly Irish aristocracy landlords - only the second and third tier lords owned Irish territory, land of worth was South of England...

[Nabterayl]

You're interested in historic injustice in Ireland just because, or is that in response to what I wrote? I was referring to the persecution that Irish immigrants faced when they arrived in America, which was pretty severe. It's certainly true that they were generally leaving terrible conditions, and perhaps America was better than what they left overall, but they had to fight damn hard to carve out a place in a society that supposedly welcomes hard-working lawful immigrants.

[Denzark]

Ah - I thought it was a beastly Brits comment - sensibility all mine having served in Northern Ireland back in the day hence interest. One thing I don't get is how (it may be a Hollywood stereotype) if Irish immigrants were down trodden in USA how come so many gravitated towards law enforcement - and the Union/US army etc - isn't that an arm of the establishment?

[Nabterayl]

I'm not super well versed in this part of our history, but as I understand it, there was a pronounced disconnect in the 19th century between Irish immigrants' attachment to their new country and their new countrymen's attachment to them. So you have a bunch of poor, relatively patriotic Irishmen ... good recipe for high Army representation. If I had to guess, I'd say that's generally a good formula for high representation in the police as well. Not that they all felt that way; during our Civil War, there were draft riots in New York that consisted largely of Irishmen.

Unlike a lot of our racial persecutions, persecution of Irish immigrants was largely religious on the surface,* as I understand it - the immigrants tended to be Catholic, and they were coming over at a time when "religious tolerance" was largely understood in the sense of "we barely tolerate your religion." When poor Irish immigrants could often only find jobs working for other Irish immigrants, you can see how it could foster a sense of identity.

* Of course, like most religious persecution, there were other things going on as well - the famines that drove Irishmen to America happened to coincide with a period of increasing industrialization, which meant that underneath the "religious" resentment was an economic resentment that poor, hard-working Irishmen were willing to take jobs for lower pay than Americans, what with being more desperate and all.

[TonyaPatrick]

I don't think the queen should have to give up her wealth. Its more just wondering at the place of monarchy in the 21st century. It should not be held against her that she happened to be born into privilege. She can't affect that anymore than someone being born into poverty. Definitely not a communist here.

Still not sure why american landowners/citizens wanting more autonomy was a bad thing, but I think we can agree to disagree on that point.

As to your last point I am German american. My father met my mother while in the service, she immigrated here to marry him. It might be that many Americans hyphenate their ancestry because one of their parents are immigrants like mine and thus hold on more strongly to their cultural identity.

[eldargal]

Okay, your response was fairly well written and laid out, which I appreciate. Perhaps my comment about royalty was a little harsh. But, still these are people that will never have to worry about where their next meal comes from, they receive many advantages that most other people simply don't have access to. Mostly because of who their long, long, long. long, long, long ago relatives were. Charity is wonderful, and here in the US we have many private citizens/business owners who give enormously of their time/money.

However,I don't see how the anti colonial comments are okay. I do take umbrage with the idea that George Washington was a money grubbing, overrated historical figure. I mean, come on. George the Third had a much better opinion of him than that.
A few points to consider:

Your president is an elected monarch.
Your president will never have to worry about where their next meal comes from because only the wealthy elite can hope to aspire to the office.
As member of said elite they have advantages that most of the populace will never have access to
Your conception of liberty stems from the British conception, there were few people more free than the US colonists under British rule. The War was not about liberty but about ending cheap British imports (tea in particular) which was undercutting the expensive crap smuggled in by various Founding Fathers.

As to Washington, he was not a bad person but he was overrated. His military skills are overrated, his skills as a statesmen are overrated. He stands out as a moral paragon because he was positively saint-like compared to his peers and it suited the early historians of your Republic to liken him to Cincinnatus and various Roman Republican heroes to add some classical flair and heritage to what was then a brand new state. In short he was a very impressive man but he is not the paragon of humanity he is made out to be.

Oh and constitutional monarchy is around 350 years old, republicanism is 2500 years old, so you tell me which is the anachronism.;)

Fun fact: The US nearly had a German king, Prince Heinrich of Prussia was invited to be king but took so long to respond the offer was rescinded before he gave an answer.

Nab, I'm not villifying him, I just think he is overrated.:)

[Kirsten]

I think it's also undeniable that our national culture has a strong tradition of incorporating some form of our immigrants' cultures.


well you wouldn't have any culture, or indeed a country, without immigrants. that is what the extremists in both the US and Britain deliberately gloss over, racism is such a ridiculous notion in western nations that depend on it, and have done for centuries if not millenia.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I'm a bit of everywhere me, England, Ireland, Scotland, Normandy/France (where my surname originates), German, and even Israel (very very far back, grandmother's side).

[Wildeybeast]

I appreciate your comments. I was unaware that their was a general ribbing of us "colonials", so I will keep that in mind and try not to take things of that nature as seriously in the future.

Yeah, sorry, I should have made clear that my comments about colonials, perverts politicians and presidents in the thrall of bug business was a light hearted jibe to indicate the fact that pretty much all head of states are ineffective wastes of money. I'm just glad ours has no political or personal agendas to push and has their power limited.

[Nabterayl]

Your conception of liberty stems from the British conception, there were few people more free than the US colonists under British rule. The War was not about liberty but about ending cheap British imports (tea in particular) which was undercutting the expensive crap smuggled in by various Founding Fathers.

As to Washington, he was not a bad person but he was overrated. His military skills are overrated, his skills as a statesmen are overrated. He stands out as a moral paragon because he was positively saint-like compared to his peers and it suited the early historians of your Republic to liken him to Cincinnatus and various Roman Republican heroes to add some classical flair and heritage to what was then a brand new state. In short he was a very impressive man but he is not the paragon of humanity he is made out to be.
On that we mostly agree. I don't think it's fair to say that none of the colonists' rights as Englishmen had been violated. On the other hand, I do think it's fair to say that the per capita standard of living in the colonies at the time of the Revolution was pretty much the envy of the world, and I find it difficult to support starting a war over mere principle. At this point it is what it is, and I think we've made a decent country out of it all things considered, but I likely would have opposed the Revolution at the time. That's inconsistent with my current stance on liberty, but the truth is, when somebody says, "You can kill somewhere north of 25,000 of your countrymen, or you can preserve your ancient rights," I'm not at all sure I would stick to my principles.

As for Washington ... I agree that he's overrated by the 18th and 19th century standards we teach our schoolchildren. But most historical figures are vastly overrated by that standard. To be sure, he swore like a sailor and was obsessed with his personal image and legacy, but simply being a more principled politician than most - which I think we both agree he was, even if that's a fairly low bar - is still worth celebrating. I also give him credit for managing to not bungle a war* which, I am sure we all agree, he was wildly underqualified to lead. On the other hand, everybody in the colonies was wildly underqualified to challenge the Royal Army, especially given the joke that was the Continental Army. I don't mean to undervalue the contribution of the French to American independence, but simply managing to survive and win enough to make the Revolution a worthwhile bet for the French is no mean feat. I seem to recall the Royal Army recently naming Washington its most successful foreign opponent on essentially those grounds. The Revolution was never going to be won by rebels killing so many redcoats that His Majesty's Government give up; that's not how you win revolutions. At the end of the day, Washington did what a rebel military leader needs to do to win that particular brand of war, and that's not something many rebel military leaders can say.


Oh and constitutional monarchy is around 350 years old, republicanism is 2500 years old, so you tell me which is the anachronism.;)
I'll give you guys credit for constitutional monarchy; that's a damn impressive cultural feat. But come on, even you have to admit that America is like, what, the second most successful republican empire in history? Last time anybody did what we've done was like 2,000 years ago. We're not so dime a dozen ourselves in terms of historical precedent.

* Not that he didn't come close, but still, there's a big difference between bungling a war and almost bungling a war.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

There is a quote allegedly from Churchill that goes 'The monarchy isn't notable for the power it wields but for the power it denies others'. So long as we have a constitutional monarch no politician can gain the kind of power the US president has by default and not enough to become tyrannical. As to work, the Queen has something like 350 official engagements a year, possibly over 400 I forget. She hasn't had a day off since 1953 and she is intimately involved in the affairs of government even if she can't intervene in them. Her Majesty is the ultimate balance against the power of government.:)

Sorry but I am a republican. But saying that always makes me feel uneasy because its been used for hate and violence. She should not have that power and Cameron who is 5th cousin to the queen should not be allowed anywhere near government to!.

I do not want any un-elected people involved with decisions that effect millions. Sorry but we need the monarchy to take a more Historical seat
. We need a president, We need an elected PM and not some guy rich / Trade unionists choose.
We need an elected Upper House. we don't elect about 75 percent of the government / officials in the UK and it is shocking. Are we children scared to make decisions so we need mommy queen to do it for us?

I'm not saying we should not have a monarchy I am just saying we need more choices. The Liberals promised us an elected upper house in this coalition? Where the hell is that?

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

[Chris Copeland]

My surname is Copeland. My understanding is that my ancestors came to America as immigrants by way of Canada and settled in the North Eastern part of the United States in the 1800s. My mother is of Czech and Polish stock. Her people settled in the little town of West, Texas sometime in the 1800s (West has been in the news recently because of the big chemical plant explosion there). So, my ethnic makeup is essentially English, Czech, and Polish (with whatever else got mixed in there over the centuries).

I live in New Braunfels, Texas. It was settled by my wife's ancestors (from Germany) in the 1800s. Her background is German (on her mother's side) and Irish (from her dad). So my kids are German-Irish-English-Czech-Polish-Whatever-Americans... I tend to think that my family's history is quintessentially American: we are the children of immigrants! Cheers!

[Deadlift]

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

I certainly don't think any less of you, everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it :)

[Alex Knight]

Heritage, easy:

English x 5 or 6, Polish, Austrian or German (Wagner), and possibly (unprovable) Native American. (Algonquin from what I am told.)

[Psychosplodge]

well you wouldn't have any culture, or indeed a country, without immigrants. .

I think you might be going too far the other way there if you're applying that to us Kirsten, considering till the 50's there'd been no large scale immigration since the Noman invasion in 1066. Certainly not on the scale seen in the last decade or two.



Sorry but I am a republican. But saying that always makes me feel uneasy because its been used for hate and violence. She should not have that power and Cameron who is 5th cousin to the queen should not be allowed anywhere near government to!.

I do not want any un-elected people involved with decisions that effect millions. Sorry but we need the monarchy to take a more Historical seat
. We need a president, We need an elected PM and not some guy rich / Trade unionists choose.
We need an elected Upper House. we don't elect about 75 percent of the government / officials in the UK and it is shocking. Are we children scared to make decisions so we need mommy queen to do it for us?

I'm not saying we should not have a monarchy I am just saying we need more choices. The Liberals promised us an elected upper house in this coalition? Where the hell is that?

People might think less of me for this or not like me and that's fine. I see this huge injustice to the British / Commonwealth people and I must say something I will no longer be a Subject, I am a Citizen and I want my rights for a fully electable government.

Fatagn!

You don't have to apologise for being wrong Shoggoth :D
If you have an elected upper house you might as well do away with it entirely as it would be fulfilling the same purpose as the commons. The current set up of appointed peers is too open to cronyism and corruption. I don't doubt all the former MPs finding themselves there will keep having the same arguments they used to have in the commons.
At lest hereditary peers had a sense of duty to the country and weren't in the pockets of the political parties or trade unions.

Presidents are a terrible idea as most of the country didn't vote for them ( bear in mind you're lucky to get 40% turnout). And you only have to look at the US system where obscene amounts of money are spent to buy a seat for four years. At least with a ceremonial figurehead there's no politics involved.

plus democracy doesn't work. They give people a vote for things like xfactor and the dancing things and look how well that works.

[Kirsten]

I think you might be going too far the other way there if you're applying that to us Kirsten, considering till the 50's there'd been no large scale immigration since the Noman invasion in 1066. Certainly not on the scale seen in the last decade or two.


not at all, you just think too modern. the norman invasion, just like the romans and the vikings, ha da huge impact on our culture. without that influence we would be a very different place.

[DarkLink]

The real problem with the presidency is that we've got a two party system. Otherwise, it's got all the advantages of a monarchy, without the inherent immoralities. And democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other methods that have been tried.

[Psychosplodge]

And democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other methods that have been tried.

Indeed, but doesn't mean it works...
Obviously a benevolent dictator like myself would be the best system...

[eldargal]

The real problem with the presidency is that we've got a two party system. Otherwise, it's got all the advantages of a monarchy, without the inherent immoralities. And democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other methods that have been tried.
Actually it doesn't, as you have a leader with a popular mandate who is head of the executive branch of government AND is c&c of the military. A constitutional monarch is head of the military and font of authority but has no popular mandate nor are they head of the executive. Look at Italy if you want an example of a multi-party system by the way, that is no guarantee of a better political outcome.

There is actually nothing immoral about constitutional monarchy, we are still a democracy and our civil liberties are amongst the best in the world (exceeded only by other constitutional monarchies in general). We may not vote for the sovereign but that is really irrelevant, voting doesn't guarantee a superior system.

[Wolfshade]

Of course the real solution is a true statesmen as Plato would call it, a dictator who does what is best for the state rather than the individual within said state. There is a real issue with popularly elected governments that they do what is popular, increase services and decrease tax, then as the term is so short ~4/5 years then you don't need to worry about the fallout of your works. A 10 year government would have a better chance of pushing through changes and letting the electorate see the outcomes of these.

Though "interestingly", over here the shadow party has been opposed to the rising of tax and cutting of services but has not gained popularity as they are seen as not being economically viable as they appear to have no real solution to the current situation.

[Learn2Eel]

Huh.

Anyway, I've got heritage from five different countries; England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and Mauritius. Technically German Jewish, I should add. Oh, and four of those come from my mom - my Dad is a pom.
I've got First Fleet Australian background, the subject of which was a deposed lord shipped here with his Mauritian servant. Dunno about my heritage any further back though.

[spaceman91]

Mines easy. England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. ( ask a Cornish man if he's English and he will tell to sex and travel )

[Psychosplodge]

So will a welsh man, but they'd both still be wrong :D