0 comment Thursday, August 7, 2014 | admin
This writer seems to be a one-man cottage industry, writing articles like this about 'American exceptionalism' and trying to commandeer the Founding Fathers in service of his Politically Correct America.
His facts are confused, probably purposely. He conflates 'White nationalism' with supremacism, and denies that the Founding Fathers saw any ethnic/racial aspect to American citizenship.
''White nationalism and minority identity-based political organizations both equally denigrate the American Dream. More precisely, these ideologies represent a tragic abandonment of the American Dream, and appear to arrive at the same conclusion that American exceptionalism simply does not exist. Their moral and factual foundations, however are infirm, and give hope that the silent majority of Americans will reject such pernicious ideologies and work towards a better future for our nation.
White nationalists often cite the fact that Thomas Jefferson included the phrase "of our common blood" in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence as evidence that our Founding Fathers intended to create a blood-and-soil state.
However, the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion.''
He does not explain how the latter is true, just states it baldly.
I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between 'supremacism' and nationalism to any of my regular readers; however, just in case there is some casual visitor to this blog that does not know the difference, supremacism involves subjugation or domination of another group or groups. Nationalism does not. Nationalists want self-determination for a given people. People like Malik, that is, descendants of recent arrivals to this country, seem very threatened by the idea of nationalism, since nationalism does imply a common descent, and of course most people of recent immigrant descent would not be included as part of the American nation, were it determined by blood and common culture.
I also object to the way in which he connects people like Sam Francis with odious groups like La Raza.
Most ethnonationalists do not want to rule over other peoples, but simply to have their own country, based on age-old criteria of descent and language and culture, and preferably, faith. There should be nothing threatening or sinister about that.
There is a growing effort to discredit nationalism in White countries by linking it to 'supremacism' and 'hate'. This is a malicious misrepresentation, and those who perpetuate it must know this -- or can it be that they just don't care to use a dictionary so as to use the correct word in its proper sense?
I am also fed up with having John Winthrop, Thomas Jefferson, and many others quoted to justify something (a creedal nation, open borders, egalitarianism) which they never believed, nor planned to promote. If ever I meet Winthrop or Thomas Jefferson in the hereafter, I plan to ask them why they wrote the sentences that have led to this mischief and misrepresentation. If only they had used different phrasings, different words, perhaps we would not have these manipulations of their writings in support of pernicious claims.
If it matters, it appears that the writer is of Pakistani descent. I say it matters because the writer thus has a vested interest in legitimizing the 'creedal nation' where people from every corner of the globe can stake a claim.
His facts are confused, probably purposely. He conflates 'White nationalism' with supremacism, and denies that the Founding Fathers saw any ethnic/racial aspect to American citizenship.
''White nationalism and minority identity-based political organizations both equally denigrate the American Dream. More precisely, these ideologies represent a tragic abandonment of the American Dream, and appear to arrive at the same conclusion that American exceptionalism simply does not exist. Their moral and factual foundations, however are infirm, and give hope that the silent majority of Americans will reject such pernicious ideologies and work towards a better future for our nation.
White nationalists often cite the fact that Thomas Jefferson included the phrase "of our common blood" in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence as evidence that our Founding Fathers intended to create a blood-and-soil state.
However, the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion.''
He does not explain how the latter is true, just states it baldly.
I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between 'supremacism' and nationalism to any of my regular readers; however, just in case there is some casual visitor to this blog that does not know the difference, supremacism involves subjugation or domination of another group or groups. Nationalism does not. Nationalists want self-determination for a given people. People like Malik, that is, descendants of recent arrivals to this country, seem very threatened by the idea of nationalism, since nationalism does imply a common descent, and of course most people of recent immigrant descent would not be included as part of the American nation, were it determined by blood and common culture.
I also object to the way in which he connects people like Sam Francis with odious groups like La Raza.
Most ethnonationalists do not want to rule over other peoples, but simply to have their own country, based on age-old criteria of descent and language and culture, and preferably, faith. There should be nothing threatening or sinister about that.
There is a growing effort to discredit nationalism in White countries by linking it to 'supremacism' and 'hate'. This is a malicious misrepresentation, and those who perpetuate it must know this -- or can it be that they just don't care to use a dictionary so as to use the correct word in its proper sense?
I am also fed up with having John Winthrop, Thomas Jefferson, and many others quoted to justify something (a creedal nation, open borders, egalitarianism) which they never believed, nor planned to promote. If ever I meet Winthrop or Thomas Jefferson in the hereafter, I plan to ask them why they wrote the sentences that have led to this mischief and misrepresentation. If only they had used different phrasings, different words, perhaps we would not have these manipulations of their writings in support of pernicious claims.
If it matters, it appears that the writer is of Pakistani descent. I say it matters because the writer thus has a vested interest in legitimizing the 'creedal nation' where people from every corner of the globe can stake a claim.
Labels: American Exceptionalism, Creedal Patriotism, Cultural Nationalism, Ethnonationalism