The Lens:
What exactly does that mean?
In these United States, it seems there has always been a huge point of contention as to who, exactly, is an American. My best guess is that when we established the United States, it you were here when that happened, you were American (unless, of course, you were a slave or an “Indian” – more on that to come).
We have always had immigration. The first non-native settlers, after all, were immigrants, weren’t they? Immigration has been an integral part of establishing America as we know it. But, we have never seemed to like the infusion of new cultures (think “Paddies,” “Garlic Eaters,” “Chinks,” etc.). There were the slaves, of course, who ended up here but could hardly be considered immigrants.
None of this would really matter if not for the economic and social disadvantages faced by those viewed as less than authentic American (think darker skin color or different eye). To even the playing field, we had to categorize those at a disadvantage.
In doing so, we tried to clarify, or maybe define, who is American and what kind of American they are.
We added all sorts of labels to help in this cause. We have Asian Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Mexican Americans, and so on, and so on, and so on.
We even have one label that, to me, defies logic: Native American. (It would seem to me if you are “native” then you are just American.)
Here is where the clarification versus defining of “American” gets muddled.
We have the silly qualifier of “Native” because we don’t really consider Native Americans as just American. Native Americans didn’t establish the United States, so they aren’t the true or original Americans.
So, if Native Americans aren’t the real Americans, who are the real Americans? Who are these Americans who can simply call themselves American without any added qualifier?
I kind of think I could fall into that category. My family has resided in the continental U.S. (California) for generations. We could be in the group of those who didn’t cross the border, but the border crossed them.
I also have significant Native American ancestry – nearly 22%. Though these ancestors lived in Central America, we were still in the Americas.
So, can I simply call myself American and leave it at that?
Or do I have to consider my Dutch heritage as well. My great grandfather on my mother’s side emigrated in the 1850s. How many generations on that line would I need to have lived in America to be able to drop the “Dutch” qualifier. Or, do I need to use it in perpetuity?
It’s a hard question to answer – because I don’t know what “American” is.
In an effort to find out, I Googled “what does it mean to be American?” It would seem being American is about ideology and lifestyle, it is about subscribing to and living the American ideal. If that is true, what is all of the emphasis on ethnicity about?
I then Googled “what does it mean to be Mexican American?” The responses come up with what you might think – it is someone living in the US who was born in Mexico or has a connection to Mexico or its culture.
If you look at these two definitions, they are not related. One is about your commitment to the American ideal and one is about heritage.
So, when can someone just call themselves an American?
The Refraction:
Quite some time ago, I was the part-time Development Director at my sons’ school. I was looking for more hours to increase my take-home and was offered the job of Friday Secretary. For whatever reason, the regular school secretary only worked Monday through Thursday. When people would come in looking for the “real” secretary on Fridays, I would often joke they had they B-team (me) that day.
As I said above, all the qualifiers we added to being American seem to do with leveling access to the supposed truths of our Constitution that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The problem with adding qualifiers, even in a noble effort to level the playing field, we muddy our identity of simply being American (the ideology). The negative impact of qualifiers is that it dilutes our authentic relationship to what is being qualified.
Just by saying Asian America or Mexican American or African American, even if only referring to ancestral background, diminishes one’s claim to being a “real” American.
This does not just relate to being American. This is hideously prevalent in sports.
Think about all the hype recently over the Women’s World Cup. Now, think of the “World Cup.” Do you think of women playing soccer?
When we talk about the “World Cup,” we simply say, “The World Cup,” We don’t say “The Men’s World Cup.” There is no need to clarify that men are playing.
The implication is that the World Cup, which has men players, is the real deal. We need to clarify, or define, the competition when the players are not men, hence “Women’s World Cup.”
The same thing occurs in golf, (PGA, that is, Professional Golfers’ Association of America vs. the one in which women play-the LGPA) and Basketball (NBA vs. WNBA).
Secretary vs. Friday Secretary.
This is one area, i.e., a way to even things out without dilution, where there is really a very easy solution: Add a qualifier to everything. With the exception of Native Americans, we (or our ancestors) all originally came from someplace else. In identifying ourselves, we all start with “American,” then we add the qualifier – American of English descent, American of Mexican descent, American of Chinese descent. The only qualifier that’s a little unnecessary would be American of Native descent, but I digress.
In sports . . . NBA – Men’s, NBA – Women’s; PGA – Women’s, PGA – Men’s; World Cup – Men’s, World Cup – Women’s, etc., etc., etc.
Secretary vs. Friday secretary. Ok. Maybe it doesn’t work for this one. There were numerous responsibilities the secretary had that I didn’t (e.g., records retention/management). In this case, I really was the B-team, the diluted secretary.