Why is it certain immigrant groups don't give their children American first names inthe United States?

[Spike-X]

"What is wrong with them? Why don't they want to be as American as they can?"

Because 'American' (or 'white', to really strip it down) is not the default to which all people aspire.

[numberthirty]

"What is wrong with them? Why don't they want to be as American as they can?"

Because 'American' (or 'white', to really strip it down) is not the default to which all people aspire.

Let alone that you can just as easily say(in a few parts of the United States), why do all these people insist on speaking English and calling this "America"?

[PretenderNX01]

Let alone that you can just as easily say(in a few parts of the United States), why do all these people insist on speaking English and calling this "America"?

Sometimes I wonder if the English would prefer we stop calling our language "English" after what we've done to it

I guess this all comes down to which parents think they need to assimilate to succeed vs which parents want their children to have a connection to their heritage.
I don't think it's 100% of any culture though and in a country that has a president named "Barack" I don't think that assimilation is as needed. At least we've moved past forcibly assimilating people's names upon arrival.

[PwrdOn]

There has definitely always been a trend throughout history of people copying the names of culturally dominant ethnolinguistic groups. This even happened with the Anglo-Saxons, there's a reason why what we consider to be "English" names tend to come from Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, and why you don't see that many kids walking around named Hrothgar or Aelfgifu anymore. The idea that people should always have "ethnic" names that reflect their personal heritage is a fairly recent invention and it can lead to pretty ridiculous results sometimes when second and third generation immigrants who don't speak their original languages that well try to give culturally significant names to their children. Granted, I never picked out an English name myself, but that was mostly just because I am so indifferent to what people call me that I never bothered to think about it, not because I have some kind of intense pride in my background or anything like that.

[FanboyStranger]

Seriously, that is not the condescending tone.

If you think about that the Irish not being able to get a job interview at one point was "how it was", you will start to see why "Why aren't these immigrant groups doing what they once did?" is a question that is headed down a rabbit hole.

There is a tendency among younger Irish-Americans to reclaim using Gaelic forms of names for their children. "Padriag" instead of Patrick, etc. In some ways, it's an effort towards a reclamation of heritage.

Family first names are something that are interesting among wealthier, long-lived American families. They are often as odd sounding as "foreign" names, but because they've been around for so long, the origins are lost to time and they aren't judged as such.

[DebkoX]

Why would or should they? Its their culture and they have every right to embrace it.

[Kees_L]

Why would or should they?

Exactly.

Its their culture and they have every right to embrace it.

Ehm, I don't think 'culture' or any belonging to it necessarily works as absolutely or onesidedly all that much.

It isn't so that not anyone could or would be showing their having culture, since anyone would (as far as culture could be deemed just that). Then again any having or showing culture (of whatever kind) could ALWAYS be to vary to whatever degree.

My forname or first name which is featured in my username is typically Dutch, but it also counts as being derived from the Latin name Cornelius. Wikipedia (the Dutch version) even lists it as being theoretically part of two Dutch forenames (being Jan & Kees) as having lead to the word "Yankee".

From just this first name of mine you couldn't know or derive where I'd live or come from, or any of my social status or religion or skincolor or whatever the hell I could prove apt to embrace or not or what I could be to adapt towards or not.

'Culture' isn't just this super-easily definible or static or onesided thing at all, but instead it could reflect a continuously shifting plethoric melting-pot of melting-pots, as depending totally on different factors.

If the point is for a group such as for instance a classroom to find something to point out as potentially funny or weird or mockable, they'll find it - or maybe the kid with the funky name would simply have too dope comebacks for any getting mocked. Then again anything appearing unique or particularly meaningful for one individual could be that just regardless of what just anyone would be to think.

Culture is also not something anybody could just be to hide behind, if specific actions or deeds or views are to mean anything at all. Anyone will be sharing just any bit or part to culture, just like how culture in itself would seem basically something shàred moreso than not.

Would be my guess.

[Bullet Sniper]

Is your thesis that some of these ethnicities are, unlike yours, just too stubborn and uppity to fit in? Because that really seems to be where your questions are leading.

That's not what i'm implying. I was only asking why do some groups adhere to a certain trend while others don't. My personal views on this are irrelevant. It's like asking why are states in the South, predominantly religious, while states in the Midwest or Northeast coast, not so much?

[Spike-X]

From just this first name of mine you couldn't know or derive where I'd live or come from

I could, and I did. "Kees, hmm? Probably Dutch."

[Kees_L]

I could, and I did. "Kees, hmm? Probably Dutch."

Curses! Foiled again...

But what does "Dutch" or "from Holland" mean?
Not being born there, nor any speaking the language necessarily, because my country's citizenship harbours more than one nationality both as different native tongues.
Neither skincolor, or any of the other traits I mentioned in my post. So yeah.

[Kees_L]

That's not what i'm implying. I was only asking why do some groups adhere to a certain trend while others don't. My personal views on this are irrelevant. It's like asking why are states in the South, predominantly religious, while states in the Midwest or Northeast coast, not so much?

Has it occurred to you that what you'd be or seem to imply would or could also be to vary in the eyes of another poster?

I guess that since you phrase your question as "Why is it some groups don't..." sounds as if you could be implyiing those groups better should instead.

Also, "a trend" doesn't necessarily equate to religious or cultural matters it could be noted. Whereas a trend would only need to exist or be showing, matters of culture could prove as depending on factors more intricately than that.

Which might lead to the situation that some questions might not be to get answered as easily as other questions.

You ask your question in relation to "certain immigrant groups", for which it could be a thing they'd want or feel obliged to both naming their children according to culture, next to proving fully willing to adapt to whatever new circumstances. The one doesn't necessarily strengthen or weaken the other.

Because it could be argued that even such groups naming their children as according to their own cultures could still be proving totally willing to adapt to whatever country its facilitations.

Why is it that those groups do so if such would be the case at all? Because why not.

[Shawn Hopkins]

That's not what i'm implying. I was only asking why do some groups adhere to a certain trend while others don't. My personal views on this are irrelevant. It's like asking why are states in the South, predominantly religious, while states in the Midwest or Northeast coast, not so much?

What are your personal views? Seems relevant to me.

[Bullet Sniper]

Has it occurred to you that what you'd be or seem to imply would or could also be to vary in the eyes of another poster?

I guess that since you phrase your question as "Why is it some groups don't..." sounds as if you could be implyiing those groups better should instead.

Also, "a trend" doesn't necessarily equate to religious or cultural matters it could be noted. Whereas a trend would only need to exist or be showing, matters of culture could prove as depending on factors more intricately than that.

Which might lead to the situation that some questions might not be to get answered as easily as other questions.

You ask your question in relation to "certain immigrant groups", for which it could be a thing they'd want or feel obliged to both naming their children according to culture, next to proving fully willing to adapt to whatever new circumstances. The one doesn't necessarily strengthen or weaken the other.

Because it could be argued that even such groups naming their children as according to their own cultures could still be proving totally willing to adapt to whatever country its facilitations.

Why is it that those groups do so if such would be the case at all? Because why not.

I never said that those groups should. I was only asking why they don't. It's like saying why are most people on CBR Canadian or male. I'm not saying that they should become non-Canadian or female, but I'm curious as to why they are like that.

And if it all came down to a sense of familiarity and convenience to other people who want a name that's easy to spell and pronounce, don't you think it's a little ironic that for that particular context, that ethnic groups whose first names aren't usually super-long to spell and write in latin alphabets like Jacques, Angus, Seamus, Giorgio, Carlos, Ming, Akira, Jung, Hertzel, or Emmerich, all choose English, Greek, Latin, or Biblical names for their children, but for others whose names are actually super-long and extremely exotic like Nahasapasa Peepamepetilon and Quetzalcoatl Teotl, they retain them.

[Mister Mets]

My parents chose my name because it exists in pretty much every language. However, the birth certificate includes an irregular spelling: Toomas instead of Thomas. So this is an interesting discussion for me.

"What is wrong with them? Why don't they want to be as American as they can?"

Because 'American' (or 'white', to really strip it down) is not the default to which all people aspire.

I don't believe he suggested it was wrong. The OP's comments were value-neutral.

I never said that those groups should. I was only asking why they don't. It's like saying why are most people on CBR Canadian or male. I'm not saying that they should become non-Canadian or female, but I'm curious as to why they are like that.

And if it all came down to a sense of familiarity and convenience to other people who want a name that's easy to spell and pronounce, don't you think it's a little ironic that for that particular context, that ethnic groups whose first names aren't usually super-long to spell and write in latin alphabets like Jacques, Angus, Seamus, Giorgio, Carlos, Ming, Akira, Jung, Hertzel, or Emmerich, all choose English, Greek, Latin, or Biblical names for their children, but for others whose names are actually super-long and extremely exotic like Nahasapasa Peepamepetilon and Quetzalcoatl Teotl, they retain them.

I suppose Nebuchadnezzar is a biblical name, but it hasn't been used much.

Not sure there are a lot of Nahasapasa Peepamepetilons or Quetzalcoatl Teotls in the US though.

[Kees_L]

I never said that those groups should. I was only asking why they don't. It's like saying why are most people on CBR Canadian or male. I'm not saying that they should become non-Canadian or female, but I'm curious as to why they are like that.

And if it all came down to a sense of familiarity and convenience to other people who want a name that's easy to spell and pronounce, don't you think it's a little ironic that for that particular context, that ethnic groups whose first names aren't usually super-long to spell and write in latin alphabets like Jacques, Angus, Seamus, Giorgio, Carlos, Ming, Akira, Jung, Hertzel, or Emmerich, all choose English, Greek, Latin, or Biblical names for their children, but for others whose names are actually super-long and extremely exotic like Nahasapasa Peepamepetilon and Quetzalcoatl Teotl, they retain them.

For an agreeable manner of discourse or conversation, for which others than yourself would need to become involved, it would be just as much up to them as much as yourself what would be appearing relevant. I would think it perfectly logical people would want to know how come you'd be asking what you'd be asking.

But more importantly I disagree that choosing names 'as American as possible' would be serving ease or comfort best. What is 'as American as possible', since it sure won't simply equate with English, as potentially proving a melting pot of French, Celtic, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, and what else.
Nor either would I think for a minute that 'assimililation' would be beneficial onto integration within any country at all.

It just won't have to be true that anyone - immigrants or otherwise - would simply be choosing the most impossible names for their kids for the sole reason of pestering or delaying the country of residence or any fellow citizens thereof. Even if you're not saying that, you appear to be implying something to that effect, as if for immigrants honoring their own culture would neededly have to be complicating things. It doesn't.

Whereas it could be they would want to integrate and be American both as naming their kids according to their culture - if only since such wouldn't necessarily be complicating anything.

Most any names will be proving both comfortable as well as accurately spelled (mostly), even should you think them weird. My name is spelled correctly and would simply translate to Neil, or more accurately Awesome Neil - since otherwise I might not think to answer to it.
Although my Christian name, by which I got baptized both as civily registered, is a Goddamn abomination. It will not be uttered.