I have mixed blood. Less then half of my blood is American. But I don't see myself as half-American, I see myself as American. For the most part: I don't think you can be half-American, a quarter-French, or a third-Japanese. I think you're American or you're not, you're Japanese or you're not, etc.

What do you folks think? I'd imagine a lot of you will disagree with me.

7208486 The thing is you're covering two different aspects. You have genetics and nationality. While you might possess those genes (the one mentioned in your post) unless you have duel citizenship you probably only identify as being a part of the nation you belong to.

I am mostly Scottish and Irish (this being my genes), I identify as an American (my nationality).

So in the case of MLP you could have a pony hybrid who is half pony and half griffin but whose nationality is that of an Equestrian.

Does that make sense?

7208492
Perhaps that's my point. I don't think French genes alone make you French (for example). And if you're not French, then I don't think you should call yourself "French" (with or without a "part").

Edit: To use an MLP example: If I were a Dragon, I might not accept Spike as part of my people. I might not see him as a Dragon (at least, before "Gauntlet of Fire").

He has Dragon blood alright! But he's Equestrian. He was born in Equestria and raised by Equestrians. He's lived his whole life in Equestria, with Equestrians. Not with Dragons. And his allegiance is to Equestria. Blood aside, there's not much Dragon about him.

7208486
American, is not a race or ethnicity. It's a nationality. It's identity is rooted, historically, in being a plurality of different cultures.

French, and Japanese, are both an ethnicity and a nationality. Each ethnicity is a roughly homogeneous culture group, and each one has a singular nation with which that group is identified.

White/Black/Other-Colors are not an ethnicity or a nationality. They are Races, and Race is a societal phenomenon. You are what others say you are. The "One Drop Rule" cuts both ways. Race is a terrible metric for defining humanity.

Therefore, you can be an American and a Japanese person by virtue of ancestry and current living position. But, generally, if you have French and Japanese parents, you can be French-Japanese (half and half). But, you can't be Half-American, since that isn't an ethnicity. It's a statement of residence/stated-allegiance.

To use your analogy: Spike is ethnically a Dragon. He's an Equestrian in the sense that he chose to live with ponies. Equestrian is the nationality, not the ethnicity.

7208506
I think I know what you're talking about, with ethnicity vs nationality. I can give you an example from American history:

You said "American, is not a race or ethnicity. It's a nationality. It's identity is rooted, historically, in being a plurality of different cultures." I disagree. I think there is an American ethnicity, at least, by your definition of "ethnicity". Are you aware of the term "WASP"? Short for "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant"?

As I understand it: In the 19th and early 20th centuries, America got a massive wave of immigration from Europe. Some immigrants assimilated; they became American and nothing else. Some didn't, some immigrants (and descendants of immigrants) retained a European identity. Those unassimilated Europeans invented the term "WASP", it was what they called Americans.

And they called Americans "Anglo-Saxon" for a reason: That's a fancy term for "British". America was a British settler colony, and Americans are the decedents of British colonists (that's why we speak English). And the Europeans knew that. In other words: The Europeans recognized that there was an American ethnicity, and American blood. And they recognized that they were not part of that ethnicity.

Here's where I think your ethnicity vs nationality system doesn't hold up: What about those immigrants who assimilated, who didn't retain a European identity? The ones who became American, and nothing else. Where do they fit into that model?

Edit: Turns out that the W and P in "WASP" was added in the 1950s. Previously, the term used for "ethnic Americans" was "Anglo-Saxon". But my point stands.

7208538 The country you are a citizen of doesn't change your genetics. If I moved to Africa and became a citizen of an African country, my Scottish/Irish genes wouldn't be replaced with the genes of the individuals who reside in that country. I would just be a Scottish/Irish man who is African.

Now if I were to then marry one of the natives and we had a child, then our child would be part Scottish, part Irish, part African (of the region that mother lives in) and a citizen of that African country.

Sorry, everyone my geometry isn't that good.

7208839
Of course, country you are a citizen of doesn't change your genetics. But I suppose the point (at least, part of the point) of my last post is this: There's a difference between an American, who happens to have Italian blood. And someone who lives in an Italian neighborhood, with other Italians. Who speaks Italian. Who has Italian culture. Etc.

In the first case: The man is not Italian in any meaningful since, beyond mere genetics. In the second case: The man could be called "Italian" in a meaningful since. He's got a far stronger claim to being Italian, then the first guy! In other words: You're talking about genetics vs nationality. I think you're overlooking a third factor: Ethnic community/culture.