>>I find it somewhat interesting how Americans define "foreign". Doesn't that
>>require something "indigenous"? =)
>
>Hmmm... not sure if I should be offended by this... Despite the last name
>of "Merchberger" a healthy portion of my heritage is descended from exactly
>those who were here before the europeans arrived...
>
>American Indians, aboriginals, "red man", however you want to put it -
>there's a great deal in America that's indigenous, and you'd be amazed with
>the variety & quality of food that's available at a decent-sized American
>Indian pow-wow.
You know, I have always been curious why American Indians are the only
ones that can claim to be "true Americans" (discounting the fact that
"American" can really refer to anyone from North, Central, or South
America... but is commonly used to refer to those from the United States
of America).
My family has direct ancestry to settlers on some of the first ships (for
instance, I am related to Thomas Greene, the original governor of the
Maryland Colony). My family predates the United States, yet I have very
little American Indian genes in me, so I am always chastised when people
ask me what my heritage is, and I tell them "I am an American". How far
back is one supposed to go to decide their "heritage" 100 years? 200
years? Why stop, why not go back 1000 years, or 2000, or 10,000... heck,
I guess we should all just say we are from Java... or should we not stop
there.... that's it, from now on, I should tell people I am a proud
Ameobian... or maybe just an Enzymian. :-)
I stand proud... I am a good old pure bred American mutt!
-chris
<
http://www.mythtech.net>
Received on Thu Nov 08 2001 - 17:02:25 GMT