Metanet Forums

I had a discussion a while back with a good friend of mine about the difference between Citizenship and Heritage and when it is appropriate to refer to someone by their citizenship and when it is appropriate to refer to someone by their heritage. It was interesting in that we had differing opinions but kept agreeing with each other on certain points and so I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say.

Here was the scenario:

My friend and I both know this guy who was born in the United States but is of Taiwanese descent. (Though at the time we thought he was of Chinese descent.) I said something about how our friend was Chinese. My friend began to disagree, saying that it was not fair for me to call him Chinese when he was born in the United States and therefore has United States citizenship and should be called "American" rather than "Chinese". I made a counterpoint, saying that although everyone in our friend group was born in the United States, it's fair to differentiate parties by referring to them by their heritage. Again, he disagreed, saying that he's an American citizen, and is therefore American.

Which is correct? It seems to me that although he was born in the United States, his heritage defines him more than his citizenship. There is a definite people in and around China's borders who look different from those who are in and around Swiss and Kenyan borders. There is not a definite American people (unless you want to argue Native American peoples), since we are all descendants of immigrants from other parts of the world. Furthermore, describing someone without using their heritage as a key factor is somewhat difficult. When describing a group of people, "Those Asian kids," is much more descriptive to a US citizen than saying, "Those American kids."

Is it more appropriate to label/describe/differentiate someone based upon their citizenship or their heritage?
If neither, in what context is it more appropriate to label/describe/differentiate someone using their heritage or their citizenship?

Your friend is technically correct - if he is a US citizen, then he has the right to be called American.

However, if all he eats is rice and noodles - with chopsticks, of course - and studies super-hard so her can become a Doctor, then it's pretty fair to call him Chinese. Sorry for the horribly racist stereotype, but you get my point.

My point is, where you live doesn't define who you are; what you do and how others know you does.
If I walk around all day acting like an Australian, I would be fairly offended if someone I knew called me English (though I was born in Australia, so it would be stupid). However if I was born in England, and walked around all day acting like I was English, then I could hardly be offended when people called me that.

Lenny wrote:
However, if all he eats is rice and noodles - with chopsticks, of course - and studies super-hard so her can become a Doctor, then it's pretty fair to call him Chinese. Sorry for the horribly racist stereotype, but you get my point.

Racist.

In fact, this thread is pretty racist. Your friend is American. He is racially Asian, but that doesn't make him Chinese or Taiwanese if he was born in America. Do you call all white people Britons?

Tough call. The guy is clearly both Chinese and American, so any response that respects that should be acceptable. If you were to insist he's not an American or that he's more Chinese than American, well, I wouldn't be backing you up in that argument.

Manus Australis wrote:There is not a definite American people (unless you want to argue Native American peoples), since we are all descendants of immigrants from other parts of the world. Furthermore, describing someone without using their heritage as a key factor is somewhat difficult.

But aren't most white Americans simply called 'Americans' without any mention of heritage?

SlappyMcGee wrote:Do you call all white people Britons?

Actually, most white inhabitants of North America are descended from the Anglo-Saxons, which were a group of Germanic tribes. So we'd be Germanic.

Really, I'm not sure it's accurate to say your friend is Chinese, if he isn't a citizen of China. If you are referring to appearance (which is what we base "race" upon), then he'd be Asian.

I think citizenship should be the appropriate label for a person. I mean, I'd rather be called Canadian than Germanic or Anglo-Saxon. However, if the citizenship of someone isn't known and can't safely be presumed, race would be the label I'd use.

I was born in America, but I still refer to myself as Indian.

bok_choy wrote:But aren't most white Americans simply called 'Americans' without any mention of heritage?

Ehhhh. Depends. What southpaw said (that we all come from different countries anyway) is sort of unique, so further identification is needed where it wouldn't be in, say, Germany. I think.

I think you guys are confusing national lineage and the worldview that has had an influence on you.

I was born in India, moved here when I was 4 back in '96. Then I got my Certificate of Naturalization in '98. English is my primary language, but I still hold to many of the customs of my heritage. I still consider myself American though.

If I was in a country out of the US, I'd say I was from the US. If I get asked where I'm from now, I'd say I was born in India and came to the US.

I think the term "African-American" is a good example of what you're looking for (not applying that to your example, of course). While it describes their heritage, it also acknowledges their citizenship.

In all seriousness, your friend is correct. The China-man is American, as he was born in America. What do you all call me? American? And why? Because I'm the "White Man"? Anyone naturalized here is American, and also of _____ descent, but he is not Chinese. Of Chinese (Taiwanese) descent, yes, but it's unfair to call him by his heritage.

In practice, this isn't how people do things, but how it should be done.

When you say that a natural-born American citizen is "Chinese" just because his ancestors were born in China, consider how it's impossible to call someone an American racially. The best that "true American" gets is Native American, because other than that, America is just a collection of every other race on the planet. If you identify people based on their racial background, you get the rather absurd situation wherein less than 1% of the US population is American, where clearly America bears closer resemblance to an obese and belligerent gangrene that huffs and puffs as it oozes its girth to suffocate every civilized nation beneath its bloated influence. Surely, Americans are greater in number than a paltry 3 million.

This sort of identification has interested me for a while now. On one hand, I feel that people in America call themselves American because they represent a certain cultural development, one that has been evolving within the boundaries of the United States of America. Being part of or adapting to a certain culture I agree would have one consider (and have others consider as well) that one is American. My friend is American, even though his heritage comes from Taiwan.

I think where things get muggy is when viewing his appearance. People of Asian descent adapted differently as a result of their environment and thus appearance seems to play a pretty big role in determining ones genetic history and a culture of people whom their ancestors represented but maybe not one that they represent as a result of their environment.

I'm sure when he goes to Taiwan they call him American, regardless of his appearance, because the culture he grew up in is alien to their own.

To an extent, but consider this - What if his most distant Chinese ancestors came over to America in 1500? What if he only had *slightly* slanted eyes due to a large portion of him being chinese, and the remainder being Full-blooded American? But wait! There's no such thing as full-blooded American, unless - As Suki mentioned - He's Native American, but then calling him Chinese/Native American is unwieldy, at best.

What if he were adopted by entirely white parents, directly from China, at birth? Would be be full-on Chinese? Same scenario, except they shipped the mother over here to give birth. What about a guy whose parents were naturalized in India / Portugal, respectively, but he in the US? Would you call him an Indian-Portuguese/American?

What if he were a really, really dark skinned white man, who was constantly mistaken for mexican? Would you call him a mexican?

I think that Blizz and Tsukatu have demonstrated the side I'm on pretty well, but yeah, I just wanted to add that I think your first post demonstrates one of the most obvious problems with this. You wrongly assumed he was Chinese when a) He was born in America, and b) His heritage is Taiwanese. You racially categorized this guy not on a culture he identified with from his parents, nor on where he was born, and it just seems pretty lame.

Smörgåsbord wrote:To an extent, but consider this - What if his most distant Chinese ancestors came over to America in 1500? What if he only had *slightly* slanted eyes due to a large portion of him being chinese, and the remainder being Full-blooded American?

To add to this: Does it strike anyone else as totally arbitrary where we draw the lines for race? Chinese, Thai, Taiwanese, Japanese, and Korean are all very close together but we consider them very distinct because they have different countries, but large patches of countries in Europe, Africa, and Central and South America have the same minor variations that branched from one predominant race yet still consider themselves the same race across country borders. Why don't we distinguish between Brazilian, Venezuelan, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, etc., in the same anal way we distinguish between southeast Asians?
If you want to play the genetics game, then I'm afraid we're all simply African. National identity is something established by the culture you grow up in. Far as I'm concerned, you can be any combination of races under the Sun but still be Chinese if you grow up in and identify with Chinese culture.