Comment by Cupprum
Comment by Cupprum 2 days ago
Whats wrong with it?
Comment by Cupprum 2 days ago
Whats wrong with it?
> It's like going to a new place and identifying yourself as an "emigrant" instead of an "immigrant."
All immigrants are emigrants, and vice versa. You have to emigrate from someplace in order to immigrate somewhere.
Correct. So, you can emphasize your new identity as an "emigrant from A" or as an "immigrant to B." "Expat" goes one step further by not only emphasizing that you are an emigrant from A, but also that you are no longer a political participant or under the authority of A. It is not semantically incorrect to call yourself an "expat" if you are an expat, nor would it be semantically incorrect to call yourself an emigrant from A or an immigrant to B.
I'm attempting to pin down why some people might feel that someone calling themselves an "expat" has some negative connotations for the expat. It doesn't have anything to do with the correctness of any of the terms involved.
To say it a different way, I think people find it distasteful because it focuses on the political shapes you no longer are bound to, rather than who you are "now." It's normal to celebrate your cultural heritage, but it's kind of odd to focus on your status as a non-member of your former state.
I agree that it's about usage and connotations over time..isn't that what etymology is at the end of the day?
I agree with the above. It does imply a refusal to accept the fact that you are now living somewhere else (ie your new home country)
My take is that "expat" immediately indicates that someone has no intention to stay for good (unlike immigrants) and that they'll leave as soon as it's convenient because of course they won't stay here for good. It implies a mild disdain for the local culture - the person has no intention to integrate and, more often than not, will self-segregate into the expat bubble.
Really? I tend to associate it more with bourgeois folks who are well-off but certainly not wealthy, but most definitely want to remain in their own cultural bubble and do everything to avoid learning the local language or integrating with the society of their host country. “Little Britain” types basically. I tend to steer clear of them in my adopted corner of the EU.
It generally means that while you live somewhere permanently with no timeline on returning "home," you do not allow yourself to think of your new country as "home."
It comes across as a refusal to immigrate. It means that what you care about is that you are no longer living "at home," rather than caring about assimilating with your new home.
It's like going to a new place and identifying yourself as an "emigrant" instead of an "immigrant."
"Patriation" is about giving away authority so that the other country assumes authority. "Expatriate," then, would be that authority of the old country no longer applies, with no acknowledgement of your new circumstances.
Oh here's a good one; what if you got married, divorced, and married again? You would be an ex-husband or ex-wife, and it would be entirely appropriate for someone to refer to you as such in certain contexts, but it would be really off-putting...especially to your new spouse.
Imagine introducing yourself as an "ex-husband." If you're with a bunch of your ex-wife's old friends and associates, then it might make sense to introduce yourself this way under some circumstances...but usually, even then, it would be far more polite and in better taste to introduce yourself in some other way.
Much better to clarify your former relationship only when it's pertinent, and maybe even then "we lived together for awhile" might be a gentler framing. Otherwise, you are simply drawing attention to your divorce, and to what purpose?