I just got back from the county library's genealogy department, having cleared some technicalities regarding my great grandparents and their marriage, but it brings up another question I've never drawn a definite conclusion with: in the case of someone whose ancestors arrived at different times, how would that factor into how that person identifies? An example: suppose two grandparents were born in the States, but another two were born outside of the States? To make matters more complicated, one from each marriage was born outside: grandfather in one pair, and grandmother in the other. Would I go with the ones that were here the longest, and say I'm a third generation American, or find something in between and round it to 2.5? Also, suppose they lived in a territory before it was formally a part of the nation? Would you include that in the history of that nation as well? While not technically American, this seems like it could go either way, mostly coming down to semantics. American citizen? American continent? Overall, I probably got a lot more information on my paternal grandmother's side of the family, which goes back a lot further than I'm interested in researching at the moment, more so since it goes into indigenous populations to the area, and I favor the "breadth" approach (meaning gathering data across generations, ie all eight grandparents, then sixteen great grandparents), and don't plan going too far back, like 1700s or anything. That's fine for saving in the archives, but for first hand knowledge, something I can easily retell without effort, is my primary goal, so maybe two or three generations before my grandparents.
Your historical nationality is essentially what you choose it to be, what suits best of what's available. I could identify as English, Czech, Swedish or Polish, but I predominantly identify as Finnish-Irish Australian, because those are the largest cultural factors in my life, despite being technical minorities in my geneology. I consider the direct cultural (and in certain cases, the social problems related to being of a certain group) relation you have to be the most important part in what you identify as. I find it pretty useless to calculate the percentage or anything like that of your technical geneology; what culture and what lifestyle was brought down to you are the ones that play the most significant part in your national identity and that of your family. There are also other problems you have to consider when you talk about your cultural geneology. For example, my ancestors prior to the mid 19th century lived in what is now the Czech Republic and had Polish ancestry, but spoke German and French as their primary languages and were staunchly in support of Austrian rule. That blurs the lines of what nationality they were, because although they were born and raised in Bohemia, they were hardly Czech in culture or belief.
I also have issues with "generations." My mom was born in Mexico but on my dad's side I am about 5-6th generation Texan (American) and much longer living within what was once Spain, then Mexico, then the Republic of Texas, then the United States, then the Confederate States of America, and, finally, the United States. My search is limited because I can't find anything past the 1800s on my dad's side and on my mom's side, well, let's just say a town flood destroyed most records so I'm SOL. I simply prefer the descriptor of "American" (if you want more, I just add "of Hispanic origin")
Ahhhh.... I'm like "American" for many generations on my fathers side, predominantly English and Scottish. My mothers grandparents were from Lithuania, came to Ellis island. My great great great grandfather was one of the last Mohawk tribesmen. I'm a mutt, but I just identify as American, the land of my birth.
Well, in my case, it's "just" Mexican ancestry, but sometimes I wish it were as simple as a one time immigration from some far away country, instead of one bordering the US, in a "grey" area that has changed in the past, and where citizens from both sides have crossed in several different waves. My question was when someone says, "I'm second, third, fourth generation" is it usually taking into account both sides? I'd much rather find the "common ground" rather than going all the way back from one grandparent, and using that as a reference point, since that seems a bit like pushing it. My paternal grandmother has ancestry in New Mexico that goes back at least two generations before her, and possibly much further, if the stories of having Pueblo ancestry have any merit at all. My mother's father was born in Texas, and raised in Mexico, while her mother was born in Mexico and then moved to Texas shortly after marrying. Neither of their parents were native to the area, having roots in Celaya, Gto. Finally, my deceased paternal grandfather was born in Mexico City, as were his parents, and I'm assuming those before. Right now, I'm more concerned with tracing family in the US part of North America. That said, I probably consider myself a Californian (or Mexicanornian, as the state is often called) before anything else! Ah, yeah. I assumed you were either "pure" or predominantly English, as that is one of the largest ancestries in the New England area. It's pretty crazy to think how the Irish, German, and Scandinavians were at one time discriminated against in the United States. It's like, how much more "white" can you get? If anyone is closet to the Anglo-Americans, genetically, geographically, and culturally, it's probably them. I'm a mutt as well, and won't even bother trying to figure out "race" at this point, but if you saw me, you'd see pretty obvious indigenous features.
