0 comment Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | admin
We discuss 'diversity' frequently in terms of the 'diversity' which is engineered change via mass immigration for the most part, today.
Michele Bachmann's speech about diversity, which I blogged about last night, referred to the 'diversity' that's always been part of America, according to the offical PC party line.
She is right, in a way, although not in the sense that she implied. She seemed to be saying that we've always had many races and faiths here, just as with our imposed diversity of today. We haven't.
It's true that there were American Indians since the beginning, and African-descended people since the 17th century with the first slaves in the colonies.
I fully expect that we will soon start seeing more fairy-tale history like that in many British 'historic' dramas, like the awful cable TV series about Merlin, King Arthur, et al, or like the Robin Hood series which had Moslems and blacks in Sherwood Forest. Soon our TV dramas and 'documentaries' will have Hindus and Sikhs and Somalis at the Alamo or on the Oregon Trail.
It troubles me that many people start to believe this stuff because they know no better, and because apparently it makes them feel good to think we have always had 'diversity' because it is our 'greatest strength.'
No, the diversity we had was mainly of the Northern/Western European variety, at the beginning. We all know that the English colonized this country, as well as smaller numbers of Swedes and Germans as well as the Dutch, who founded New Amsterdam (later New York.) The Welsh and the Scots were part of the English colonies for the most part.
The Cajuns of Louisiana were a special case in that most of them came to the Louisiana Territory in the 18th century, while it was under French control. So they never 'immigrated' to America, but came from Canada and other places within the French territories to Louisiana.
I count them as 'old stock' though most people consider that this means only the previously-named colonists.
The European-derived 'diversity' that we had in this country worked pretty well, despite the strains that occurred later on when large numbers of people from other countries began to arrive.
Even the peoples of British Isles ancestry seem now to be more divided than ever. Is it because the whole world is re-tribalizing? That might be a good thing, but it is still causing divisions within the ranks of Americans of colonial stock. Not one day goes by that I don't read divisive comments about English or Anglo-Saxon Americans. I can't count the number of comments I've read over several years by people of Scots or Irish descent, bemoaning their victimization at the hands of the English. Yet that was all long, long ago, and nobody today experienced it firsthand, any more than those descended from slaves experienced slavery.
We talk about secession as a solution to the deep rifts between North and South, but what about the other rifts among White Americans of British Isles descent? Can we all form our own little mini-states or fiefdoms?
In the UK, the Scots and the Welsh have their own nationalist movements, and are allowed to do so, but the English, seen as always the oppressors, are not allowed to have their own nationalist movement or ethnic status. Is that the way we are going here?
In this country, most of us who are not descended from recent immigrant stock are an amalgam of different Northern/Western European ethnicities. How, then, can we divide up along ethnic lines? And where is our place in the world if this country breaks apart? Where do those of mixed European ancestry fit in?
Even some pro-Whites say that 'American' is not a nationality or a people, only a civic identity, like 'British' in the UK. So where do we fit in the world, and if we try to continue as a unified American people, how can we put all the rhetoric of resentment and victimhood aside? It seems our people have been poisoned by all the decades of victimhood and grievance-mongering, so that many White Americans have picked it up and joined in the chorus of complaint.
The South has heretofore had a very strong identity, and the very reason for that is that there was, until recently, less 'diversity' there. Much of the South received few immigrants, especially those from very disparate cultures and peoples. There was a commonality of culture, and little dividing up along ethnic lines (Scots-Irish or 'Celtic' vs. Anglo-Saxon). Now that division seems to be growing. Can it be overcome?
It has to be, I say, or we don't have much on which to build.
But how is it to be done? It does not help that many people do not know basic history and simply believe whatever popular ideas or canards are out there. The divisions that seem so important to many Southerners seem to have been fueled in great part by David Hackett Fischer's ''Albion's Seed" which seems to be viewed as gospel by those who cite it. I think his book is the one most often cited for the idea of the 'Celtic South', and I think it is oversimplified, though that idea is promulgated through one (or more) of the Southron partisan groups.
How can we get past this oversimplified preconception? It won't be easy, because it is firmly entrenched, and it seems to be an emotional perspective that does not base itself on facts.
Other ethnic identities under the European category are also becoming more nationalistic. As I said, though, this may be good in an abstract sense, but it undermines any unity that we once had as majority Americans, and those of English ancestry are odd men out because we are seen as 'only' generic Americans with a non-identity. This is ironic considering that Englishmen founded this country, and expressly did so for their 'posterity', who are now the red-headed stepchildren in the land our forefathers created.
I am probably waging a losing battle at trying to fend off these divisions, and I do whatever I can by writing about this neglected subject. I try especially to find and to cite older sources so that we can see things from a clearer perspective than that of the 20th and 21st centuries, which seem to be a time of confusion, in all senses of that word.
Michele Bachmann's speech about diversity, which I blogged about last night, referred to the 'diversity' that's always been part of America, according to the offical PC party line.
She is right, in a way, although not in the sense that she implied. She seemed to be saying that we've always had many races and faiths here, just as with our imposed diversity of today. We haven't.
It's true that there were American Indians since the beginning, and African-descended people since the 17th century with the first slaves in the colonies.
I fully expect that we will soon start seeing more fairy-tale history like that in many British 'historic' dramas, like the awful cable TV series about Merlin, King Arthur, et al, or like the Robin Hood series which had Moslems and blacks in Sherwood Forest. Soon our TV dramas and 'documentaries' will have Hindus and Sikhs and Somalis at the Alamo or on the Oregon Trail.
It troubles me that many people start to believe this stuff because they know no better, and because apparently it makes them feel good to think we have always had 'diversity' because it is our 'greatest strength.'
No, the diversity we had was mainly of the Northern/Western European variety, at the beginning. We all know that the English colonized this country, as well as smaller numbers of Swedes and Germans as well as the Dutch, who founded New Amsterdam (later New York.) The Welsh and the Scots were part of the English colonies for the most part.
The Cajuns of Louisiana were a special case in that most of them came to the Louisiana Territory in the 18th century, while it was under French control. So they never 'immigrated' to America, but came from Canada and other places within the French territories to Louisiana.
I count them as 'old stock' though most people consider that this means only the previously-named colonists.
The European-derived 'diversity' that we had in this country worked pretty well, despite the strains that occurred later on when large numbers of people from other countries began to arrive.
Even the peoples of British Isles ancestry seem now to be more divided than ever. Is it because the whole world is re-tribalizing? That might be a good thing, but it is still causing divisions within the ranks of Americans of colonial stock. Not one day goes by that I don't read divisive comments about English or Anglo-Saxon Americans. I can't count the number of comments I've read over several years by people of Scots or Irish descent, bemoaning their victimization at the hands of the English. Yet that was all long, long ago, and nobody today experienced it firsthand, any more than those descended from slaves experienced slavery.
We talk about secession as a solution to the deep rifts between North and South, but what about the other rifts among White Americans of British Isles descent? Can we all form our own little mini-states or fiefdoms?
In the UK, the Scots and the Welsh have their own nationalist movements, and are allowed to do so, but the English, seen as always the oppressors, are not allowed to have their own nationalist movement or ethnic status. Is that the way we are going here?
In this country, most of us who are not descended from recent immigrant stock are an amalgam of different Northern/Western European ethnicities. How, then, can we divide up along ethnic lines? And where is our place in the world if this country breaks apart? Where do those of mixed European ancestry fit in?
Even some pro-Whites say that 'American' is not a nationality or a people, only a civic identity, like 'British' in the UK. So where do we fit in the world, and if we try to continue as a unified American people, how can we put all the rhetoric of resentment and victimhood aside? It seems our people have been poisoned by all the decades of victimhood and grievance-mongering, so that many White Americans have picked it up and joined in the chorus of complaint.
The South has heretofore had a very strong identity, and the very reason for that is that there was, until recently, less 'diversity' there. Much of the South received few immigrants, especially those from very disparate cultures and peoples. There was a commonality of culture, and little dividing up along ethnic lines (Scots-Irish or 'Celtic' vs. Anglo-Saxon). Now that division seems to be growing. Can it be overcome?
It has to be, I say, or we don't have much on which to build.
But how is it to be done? It does not help that many people do not know basic history and simply believe whatever popular ideas or canards are out there. The divisions that seem so important to many Southerners seem to have been fueled in great part by David Hackett Fischer's ''Albion's Seed" which seems to be viewed as gospel by those who cite it. I think his book is the one most often cited for the idea of the 'Celtic South', and I think it is oversimplified, though that idea is promulgated through one (or more) of the Southron partisan groups.
How can we get past this oversimplified preconception? It won't be easy, because it is firmly entrenched, and it seems to be an emotional perspective that does not base itself on facts.
Other ethnic identities under the European category are also becoming more nationalistic. As I said, though, this may be good in an abstract sense, but it undermines any unity that we once had as majority Americans, and those of English ancestry are odd men out because we are seen as 'only' generic Americans with a non-identity. This is ironic considering that Englishmen founded this country, and expressly did so for their 'posterity', who are now the red-headed stepchildren in the land our forefathers created.
I am probably waging a losing battle at trying to fend off these divisions, and I do whatever I can by writing about this neglected subject. I try especially to find and to cite older sources so that we can see things from a clearer perspective than that of the 20th and 21st centuries, which seem to be a time of confusion, in all senses of that word.
Labels: Celtic Vs Anglo-Saxon, Cultural Nationalism, Ethnic Conflicts, South