A question to the Europeans…

I'm English but have lived in Scotland for nearly 25 years, I do not feel the I have the right to call myself Scottish, I do have Scots ancestry via my grandmother.

In the "right" company I am considered an adopted Scot but most people don't think that way.

I think if you are born in a country that is your country, if it were any other way then the children of immigrants would not be considered as from the UK even if those children are born here and that would in my eyes be wrong.

Great question!

Personally, I think it's ok to have a national identity for one country and a passport for another. We have plenty of sports people who play for UK and Irish teams based on parents or grandparents.

I think they should be able to claim that ancestry, because I promise- children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents do have a "different" upbringing.

One of my grandmothers (mom's mom) was from the Czech Republic, the other (dad's mom) was from Australia. They raised their kids a bit differently than the typical US family. My parents don't have southern accents although they were born in the south. They cook differently. They wore different clothing than most people around them who'd been born to native-born US citizen parents. They had different mannerisms and beliefs. They really never fit in with their peers, and some of that spilled down to their kids (me and my brother) as well. DNA memory is a real thing, as is cultural upbringing, and I think my family were a little bit more "European" than the families around them as a result of those.

*Note: although this is all true, I would not go so far as to say "I'm European" if I introduced myself to someone, nor would I pretend that I know all about the cultures my grandmothers were born into. I'm only saying, they were not raising their kids quite the same as a native-born US citizen and therefore their kids didn't really fit in seamlessly with US culture.

In the first generation, yes, I think there is a right to retain a sense of belonging.
Australia counts almost 50% of its population as either new immigrants or their first generation descendents. In general, these kids are raised with one foot in each camp. They learn their parents' language, culture, faith and values at home -- and their [i]new[/i] country's language, culture, laws and values at school, on TV and through the media, sports and exposure in public places. This dual identity is often experienced as problematic, especially if some of the locals in their adoptive country are prejudiced against them.
Most European countries accept the first generation descendants as having a right to citizenship and a passport, and automatically accept them if they choose to return to Europe permanently.
I have a British passport, studied in London, and could go back anytime I chose. Despite many wonderful things about England (cultural diversity, architecture, language, arts, etc), it's not a place I'd want to return to. The sun only shines 12 days a year. The rest of the time it is grey and bleak. For 9 months of the year it's miserably cold. The cost of living there is astronomical. And the density of the population means that there are huge social pressures; one has to stay street smart and constantly on alert just to survive - at least in London. I dare say rural life would be a lot more relaxed.

Not all Europeans see this as a joke...I am European and I do not see it as a joke, but a rather good attitude to be inquisitive about ones own background Maybe it is the way we (Europeans, but even US Americans) are brought up: the national state and what it means are decisive. Hence, US Americans are not regarded as having to have that claim and are not regarded as Europeans anymore. However, there are also differences: after all, in Germany even descendants of Germans who moved to Russia in the 17th and 18th century and came back after the fall of the USSR in the early 90s, were recognized as Germans. However, in Imperial Russia and the USSR, they were - like all peoples within Imperial Russia and the USSR - always regarded as their own group, as Germans (whereas in the US they became Americans). And when they came back in the early 90s, they received citizenship. For me personally, US Americans of European descent could become citizens of my country again. I do not mind at all and would be even happy, too.

If they speak with an American accent then they are American. That is the way it works here.

All I can say is that attitudes vary.

There was once a Conservative politician called Norman Tebbitt who was Thatcher's right hand man. He said that the true nationality of British residents depended on which cricket team they supported. Why cricket? Because is the sport most played by non-white immigrants from the former colonies. The West Indies, Pakistan and India are all serious teams. According to the 'Tebbit Test,' you are not really British if you support Pakistan, even if you are second or third generation.

I disagree with this premise and I personally think that's it's fine to have a dual allegiance. Other disagree, even today.

Cultural identity is different from citizenship to me. So I've a lot of friends born in the UK but who have say Indian heritage. Obviously they have to choose as India doesn't allow dual citizenship. So uk citizen, Indian heritage and cultural identity.

Absolutely yes. National identity is deeply personal and subjective. I'm second generation Polish. My legal status is British and I am proud to be the granddaughter of a Polish airman who flew for the RAF in WW2 and earned the right to citizenship for his service. I am British through and through, but I have a name that is difficult to spell/pronounce, and a liking for pickled vegetables. I keep a Polish passport to keep in touch with my wider European family.

I love the idea of diasporas and the possibility of finding little pockets of home wherever you travel.

I would see it as a positive thing but I wonder if anybody ever does it at all. 😆 I noticed it's rather the other way around and people here love to claim Andy Warhol as ours even if he was born in the USA and probably didn't even care about the culture of his ancestors. I guess there's just a general consensus that this country is too insignificant and internationally unknown that people don't care about claiming it.

Oh neat question bijoux!

I've never thought of myself as any kind of hyphen-American just an American. It's nice to remember your heritage, but it shouldn't rule your current life.

Where my forebears lived has only ever been a matter of mild interest to me, considering that ancestry refers to where my ancestors were, not where I am.

I draw the line where they believe we eat anything "Alfredo", or where they believe Olive Garden is Italian food 😜

Following...

It's fine, I've no problem with that.

though I do find it weird if someone says that they're Irish, then if you dig deeper, it was their great great great, grandma going back to 1685 or something, and actually they have more genes from other places, and they've never been to Ireland either, well I think that kind of thing is a quite a bit of a stretch.

Hyphenated "Americans" are a bit ridiculous

I have Scottish-Irish [i]ancestry[/i] but that ultimately doesn't mean anything, I don't feel like I've ever been either Scottish or Irish, and never visited either country. I have only ever been [i]me[/i]. I am not even my [i]parents[/i]. It would be nonsensical for me to identify as either Scottish or Irish. It's already kind of nonsensical for me to identify as even "American" or anything else beyond merely [i]human[/i]. That I am human is an objective fact, everything else is subjective, suspicious and superfluous. There are both social democrat and fascist Americans, so which camp constitutes a national "American" identity? And how do colonial invaders get to claim to be American anyhow? Would the Asians who crossed the Bering Land Bridge during an ice age and are now considered to be the "natives" of the Americas also be considered colonial invaders too? Why do they not celebrate their Asian heritage, and in turn their African heritage, since that is where humans began?

Just being so attached to ancestry and tribal cultural histories (i.e., persistent divisions) in general is a bit nefarious, sometimes even bad things are done in the name of such things. White supremacy in the US ties into this penchant for instance.

Anything beyond individual and species identity in general is a distraction, and frequently an impediment to rational, necessary actions like managing the climate cooperatively as one planet, one species.