Mr Drager, sorry I don’t know you well enough to call you by your first name. I have a confession to make, as it would appear that I may have misinterpreted the meaning of your name. I noted that you put your location as south island of Oz. I naturally assumed you were talking about Tasmania or as it was originally known Van Diemen’s Land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Diemen%27s_Land) . As this was the name given by the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1692, I simply assumed you may have had Dutch heritage. From there it was a logical jump for me to make to this:
Draeger Name Meaning -North German (also Dräger) and Dutch: occupational name, from Middle Low German dreger, drager, Middle Dutch drager ‘porter’, ‘carrier’; sometimes ‘guarantor’, ‘negotiator’. North German, occupational name for a wood turner, Middle Low German dreyer, dreger. ( https://www.ancestry.com.au/name-origin?surname=draeger )
As for your first name I again made some unfortunate assumptions. I concluded that since the English colonised Van Diemen’s Land in 1798, which was to become known as Tasmania, and become part of Australia in 1901 upon federation, you may have had English heritage. As most of you would know, but I will mention for clarity, Knuckles is an old Norman name.
Knuckles History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
Knuckles is one of the many names that the Normans brought with them when they conquered England in 1066. The name Knuckles came from the given name Nicholas. Nicholas derives from the Greek Nikolaos, which is made up of the words nikan, meaning to conquer, and laos, meaning people. ( https://www.houseofnames.com/knuckles-family-crest )
Therefore I jumped to the conclusion that that in an effort to blend the English and Dutch heritage the “S” was simply dropped from the Knuckles. As for the extra “G” in your last name it was very common for non-english names to be misspelt upon arrival to the colony. This was often the case with names that had accents above the letters as these were not in common use in the English language. I simply thought that you were a man proud of your heritage and was shocked that others may try and imply otherwise.
Steve
I love it! A beautifully nuanced blend of wit, satire & irony, crafted in an eloquent and elegant arrow to the heart (of the matter). I'm in awe of your communication skills.
It's all about perception. As you're undoubtedly aware, Australia is something of an abstract concept as well as having a concrete physical presence. It's the accepted name for the island that we all recognise, just as with Tasmania/(Anthony) Van Dieman's Land. It's also the name of a nation too. Like the "Estados Unidos" or Tuvalu. It also denotes a geopolitical region, especially when conjoined to the suffix "-asia", thus condemning much of the unfortunate Asia-Pacific region to some bizzarely arbitrary collective identity. NZ/Aotearoah, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, New Guinea (both nation & island) plus a substantial additional chunk of the Indonesian archipelago in a vaguely diminishing continuum that may or may not be contiguous with the Wallis line.
I identify as "Tasmanian". Always have, always will. Its where I'm from, where I've lived, loved, procreated & will probably die. Some north islanders have occasionally been a bit pissy about this. But I'm still Australian too. Politically & geographically only if Australia as a construct actually becomes more than an island and more closely resembles an archipelago. When I catch the ferry/aeroplane "to Australia" many north-islanders react negatively, as if there's some inherent implied criticism of their homeland. None is intended, but much is perceived. The slight is I suppose similar to calling a secessionist "good 'ol boy" a "Yankee".
A New Zealander would never describe themselves as an Australasian, despite identifying with that regional construct. They have a proudly distinct cultural, social, political, even linguistic identity. But to many outside eyes their cultural distinction from Australia is almost imperceptible.
As the average world citizen is blissfully unaware, much less actually know or even give a rat's about either the geographic location or cultural identity of "Tasmania" (why would they?), it's just simpler, easier and more useful for the uninformed or disinterested to identify as Australan. Occasionally with a surreptitious Tasmanian qualifier slipped in to smugly differentiate myself from the less civilised portion of my native land. At least some people have actually heard of Australia. A select few might even possess some vague notion of its global locality! I've always considered the concept of regionalism to be a much less arrogant alternative to either nationalism or racial ethocentrality.
That denizens of that region of the Americas that dwell in the northern continent, between the 2 great oceans & vaguely sandwiched between the Rio Grande river and the 49th parallel of latitude should attempt to monopolise an American identity is puzzling to this particular outsider. Dare I call it misplaced ethnocentrism? I think the 'en vogue' buzzword is cultural appropriation.
Did not Columbus, his crews, camp-followers & compatriots "discover" (& eventually name) AMERICA? His 1492 anniversary is recognised, both celebrated and bemoaned by the migrants and indigenous nations respectively of Americas on both continents. I don't think he ever made it north of Florida, spending most of his voyages exploring the Caribbean and souther continent's eastern coast.
Or Leif Ericsson 500 odd years prior? Or Bjarni Herjolfsson earlier still? The Beringian Mongoloid tribes about 16,500 years ago, the Frankish Solutreans some 10,000 years earlier still? Not to mention those controversial Austronesian/Melanesian indegenes in about 50,000 BCE.
OK. I get that the USA as a nation-state has been forged in blood. Bloody revolution, civil war, annexation, biological warfare, incremetal invasion of indigenous nations, international invasions of Canada, Spain & Mexico, offshore islands and such far-flung territories as the kingdom of Hawaii, Barbary States and the Phillipines (plus the odd purchase - Louisiana & Alaska) to fulfil their "manifest destiny". What I fail to comprehend is how a single nation-state, forming a mere fraction of the territory and demographic can unilaterally & illegitimately lay an exclusionary claim to the word. Despite the bloodshed & sacrifice.
I suppose this explains in part the average Canadian's resentment when described as "American". If one's northern neighbours reject the name, then perhaps there's an element of legitimacy in stealing it. Yet the commonly used hispanic collective noun for US citizens is "estadounidense", whereas many (perhaps most) consider themselves to collectively be Americanos. Given their numerical preponderance, & historical precedent, I struggle to see much legitimacy in contrarian arguments.
Amerigo Vespucchi's name isn't anybody's by right, despite it having been originally specifically applied by a Dutch cartographer to both continents of the new world. It's first anglicised usage was to collectively describe the indigenous nations of the 2 continents. Not the migrants, nor the 13 colonies, not the vast unexplored wilderness soon to be annexed and consolidated into the nation-state.
Similar to all the nation-states of Australasia, you Americans/Americanos both north & south and all of you estadounidense only get to share a single Olympic commemorative ring.
Incidentally I'm neither Dutch or English. Whilst not having any formal genetic investigation into my ethnic origins, I can pretty well surmise that I've blended Norse & Gallic blood: red hair, green eyes & low melanin levels are apparently genetically recessive & quite rare (<2%) & strongly indicative of Norse genetic haplogroups. Ethnicity aside, I've traced my cultural roots back as far as the remote, bleak & desolate island of St Kilda, the Lord of the Isles' ancient kingdom of Dalriata (Harris) & the Pembrokeshire coast. By any description, just another mongrel.
