Americans, a Question of Identity

Post Reply New Topic

In the early days of the independence of the United States of America, each of the thirteen former British colonies were thought to be quasi-sovereign entities under the Articles of Confederation. Almost everyone identitfied primarily as citizens of their home state; few identified primarily (if at all) as Americans. Even with the new Constitution, this concept of state identity remains: Powers not delegated specifically to the federal government are left to the states and the individual; the Senate gives each state (regardless of population size) equal representation; the Electoral College tends to give small states disproportionate influence (and works as winner-takes-all by state). Nowadays, with mass communication, ease of travel, and the commonness of moving from state to state, I imagine most U.S. citizens see themselves primarily as Americans rather than, say, Missourians or New Yorkers. For this reason, relics like the Electoral College, disproportionate influence in the Senate, and state-by-state variance in laws no longer makes sense; we're all Americans.

Now the question is, if you're from the U.S., do you primarily identify as American or as a citizen of your state? Do you think this should change our current federal governmental framework?

I identify primarily as a human being, then as a college student, then as an autistic, etc on down the line. I'm not a nationalist, so "American" is not too close to the top of that list, but it certainly comes higher than my state identity.

I wouldn't want to get rid of the bicameral legislature, but I see some room for reform in the electoral process. For example, instant run-off voting could help third parties become competitive- basically, have people vote several times at the poll, each vote being a contingency vote for if your favored candidate was eliminated in the prior round of voting. That way, people could support third-party candidates without the spoiler effect.

You also have some slight inaccuracies in the way the E.C. works- the Constitution allows each state to appoint electors in whatever manner it chooses, so it doesn't have to be winner-takes-all. However, the way votes are allocated via Electoral College is deeply flawed and distorts votes quite a bit, so that definitely needs to be changed. I did a statistical analysis of the electoral votes in 2000 and some of the results were quite disturbing, with electoral power sometimes not even matching up with the number of voters and often leading to huge discrepancies in the value of an individual vote. So the way we elect a President should probably be changed. As far as the legislature, I have no problem with the current system of allocating senators and representatives in a bicameral legislature.

That's why I said "tends." To my knowledge, every state follows the winner-takes-all method. Obviously this is anti-democratic.

Well if someone in this country or anywhere else in the world asks me where I'm from, I don't say America, I usually just say New York. And so far, everyone has known where and what that is so I've had no need to identify myself as an American due to the fact identifying as a New Yorker basically tells the person I'm not only from America but I live in New York state. So really it just allows me to be more specific I suppose if you feel that makes sense.

I am not talking about identifying yourself for purposes of geographic location; I am referring to more an emotional sense of identity: being more American than New Yorker, for example.

I am a human being from Oregon, therefore it makes me an Oregonian.

But as an American?

In Central & South America, if you say you're an American,
you will piss anyone within earshot off.

They will say that they are true Americans,
so if you go to Central or South America,
say you are from North America, aka "Norte Americano" for guys
and "Norte Americana" for women.

I'm Amurrkin, and I don't know what planet those other guys are from.

Would they get pissed off if you said "Soy de los Estados Unidos" to them?

"This complex new mastermind of society today ensures that we are all
kept track of by banking accounts, government ID cards, social 'security'
numbers, or birth certificates. These birth certificates are necessary to
ensure that all new people born between a met set of borders are owned
and controlled under the citizenship of that 'country'. As the doctor
welcomes you in to this brave new world through the hot gates that await
you, your name has already been programmed in to the system. You were
not given a choice. You have been bought by your country, and they will
earn more than your worth back by taxing you as you get older. This is
your 'Country'. Conditioned to love it from a child. Conditioned to wear
it like a badge. "

I don't want my country to be my identity thanks very much..

I think of myself as a west-coaster, a current Californiana and former Oregonian; 'American' comes far, far down the list in identifying monikers from there. I don't particularly want to be associated with places like Texas or Alabama.

I see a number of qualities of the existence of states to be good and desirable. I care less about the national government level voting elements of the system one way or another though.

My identity is more locally defined, to even a sub-state level.
______________
But come now comrades! The proletariate knows no borders! Unite and cast down the multinational corporate bourgeosixorz!

I think everyone has missed the point of my question. I'm not asking about identity as a human being or a cosmopolitan; I am referring to more closely relating to the country as a whole or to the state. The question is being asked because, if you identify more with your country as a whole than your state, things like the Electoral College and Senate may make less sense. Now, if you identify even more closely with the species, planet, or whatever, that's another matter.

that's been in existence for centuries...well not like that but nationalism dates back a while.

EDIT: Op I cannot say... On one hand AMERICA f**k YEAH, on the other hand looking at the history of America and present, then looking at the natural groupings of 'South Side' vs. 'North Side' then other stuff like that like ('Chi-Town is the s**t') and then "We all know Illinois kicks Texas' ass' (amirite ) then other stuff...and stuff like ethnic nationalism/neurodiversity/etc, and other things of identity politics......

"i dunno lolz"

Americans were more parochial before easily accessible and fast transportation. In those days, a person rarely ventured more than a few miles from his birthplace over a lifetime. Travel was extremely expensive. To outfit a wagon train to head to the gold fields in California in 1850 cost several years' wages. Indeed, over most of human history a person rarely ventured outside a small area, usually a plot of land on a lord's estate in European terms.

Trains and cars changed that. A new life was a few hours away, suddenly, or a few days. The giant cities of America's Southwest-Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas-have always been transient places, with people staying only a few years before moving on. Indeed, the American Far West has ALWAYS been a region of transient persons, with people following seasonal work from place to place. West of the Rocky Mountains, few people identify with a city or a state or a region. Indeed, the large Latino population tends to identify more with Mexico and their home region of Mexico than anyplace in El Norte.

On the east coast, there's more of a regional identification. Being a New Yorker or a Bostonian is as much a state of mind and way of presenting yourself than it is about residency. The cities of the West don't compare. The only place that ever came close was San Francisco, which for a century was the only East Coast style city in the West, but most of the old guard has been forced out over the course of a decade long housing boom. San Francisco was much more vibrant when a Tenderloin apartment cost $425 a month. Today that price is closer to $1425/mo. SF today is much more of a Potemkin Village than it used to be-all trust fund babies and West Coast Masters of the Universe. The rest of the West? Forget it. Unless you're in a gang, or are a Hispanic with your heart in Jalisco, you have little sense of place.

*snort*
speak for yourself. San Francisco is in the *middle* of California, with half of the Californian coast north of it and Oregon and Washingto north of that. The redwoods have a distinctive feel; the Illinois River valley has a distinctive feel, along with the area around it; Eastern Oregon/eastern Washington/norteastern California has a distinctive feel; Sonoma and Napa/the Russian River area have a distinctive feel; Portland and Seattle have distinctive feels. The Willamette river valley has a distinctive feel.

I can go on, but I can only say that the statement above makes me think that you haven't spent a lot of time on the West Coast outside of San Francisco.