I think you misread my comment. I have nothing against immigrants. I am an immigrant as well, and I have lived in 4 different countries.
I also think it's a bit hard to say that he is "cursed" with his original nationality or "marked" for life. I don't know him but from his own page on the Niels Bohr Institute, he sure doesn't seem embarrassed or sad with his American background: http://nbia.nbi.ku.dk/members/jackson/ And why should he be.
I was simply asking why they call it the "Danish" 5 times in the article. I believe the answer is that they really want to stir up the idea of another Danish/Copenhagen school as opposed to the mainstream views in physics. That's it. And I doubt this little debacle will ever evolve into anything as important as the original Copenhagen school.
Now, I don't think it necessarily matters what nationality we identify with. To many people, nationality is a legal concept, not a matter of feelings. That view on nationality has the advantage of being clear. It's hard to know what people identify with. I am not even sure what I identify with anymore. A bit of different countries, I guess. Maybe none. As a legal concept, however, nationality becomes something that is objectively right or wrong.
As to who deserves the credit or blame (Denmark or the US), I have no idea. A huge part of what makes a great scientist is his upbringing, primary and secondary education. In this case, they guy got his entire formal education in the US, and spent several decades there before going to Denmark. Maybe it's not nation states that deserve credit. Did Argentina make Messi or did Spain? Or was is just genes and the fact that his family of football players? I don't know...
Agree this usage is odd. My guess is that they are used to describing people by their institutions: writing things like "Caltech scientists showed..." etc. is very common in such articles, to save readers from having to keep the names straight. And of course this identifier is uncontroversial the day after they got hired.
But who counts as Danish is obviously a thornier question. I don't know that "nationality we identify with" captures it, as it's mostly about what others think of the person. It doesn't line up perfectly with having been issued a passport either. And being Danish is also different to being American...
This applies to sub-national identities too: Wasn't the old-time saying (something like) that you could become a New Yorker in 6 months, but to come from Boston took generations?
I also think it's a bit hard to say that he is "cursed" with his original nationality or "marked" for life. I don't know him but from his own page on the Niels Bohr Institute, he sure doesn't seem embarrassed or sad with his American background: http://nbia.nbi.ku.dk/members/jackson/ And why should he be.
I was simply asking why they call it the "Danish" 5 times in the article. I believe the answer is that they really want to stir up the idea of another Danish/Copenhagen school as opposed to the mainstream views in physics. That's it. And I doubt this little debacle will ever evolve into anything as important as the original Copenhagen school.
Now, I don't think it necessarily matters what nationality we identify with. To many people, nationality is a legal concept, not a matter of feelings. That view on nationality has the advantage of being clear. It's hard to know what people identify with. I am not even sure what I identify with anymore. A bit of different countries, I guess. Maybe none. As a legal concept, however, nationality becomes something that is objectively right or wrong.
As to who deserves the credit or blame (Denmark or the US), I have no idea. A huge part of what makes a great scientist is his upbringing, primary and secondary education. In this case, they guy got his entire formal education in the US, and spent several decades there before going to Denmark. Maybe it's not nation states that deserve credit. Did Argentina make Messi or did Spain? Or was is just genes and the fact that his family of football players? I don't know...