Hi MauriceWinn; Re: "If you look through that list from the 18th century until now, you'll see that what I said is right. Apart from the Great Depression and into WWII, when growth understandably slowed somewhat, and the post-war baby boom, which is not exactly news, the population growth of the USA has been very steady indeed. It has been a relentless, gradual growth, slowing as a percentage as the decades have rolled by."
My comment was intended to speak to the issue we were discussing at the time, immigration. Immigration to the US has not been a gradual process.
Re: "Are you sure about that?"
Yes, I live here, you don't, though there are sections of the country where being just "American" would be considered normal. Like that small town where the OK city bomber grew up in upstate New York.
Re: "But I doubt that applies to the English-Americans."
There are relatively few Americans who admit to being "English-American" (i.e. descended from long ago English immigrants, as opposed to very recent ones). By "relatively few", I mean few compared to the actual numbers who are genetically so descended.
When you tell people that you're "English-American", they look at you like you're about 50% Nazi, LOL. People here tend to exaggerate their non English features and accent their ethnicity. It's like they think that you're making yourself out to be superior by not being "ethnic". This would be the definition of "ethnic" which means living outside one's "national boundary", as for example, definition 1c:
dictionary.reference.com
For that matter, a typical American "white" person has far darker skin color than would be typical for a "white" person from England. The term "blue blood", as used in the US with respect to Americans, means descended from moneyed British ancestors. The implication is that the skin is so light in color that the veins are very easily seen. Few Americans would claim that sort of racial purity, even if they possessed it.
-- Carl |
