''All...mixed up''
0 comment Tuesday, August 26, 2014 |
I was going to call this post ''Mongrel-Americans' but I thought better of it.
Can we imagine the previous President using such a term, or any White politician or public figure applying the word ''mongrel'' to black or White Americans? It's hard not to be dumbstruck by some of the statements coming from The One. Still, no matter how inane or tasteless or just plain weird his public pronouncements are, his followers eat it all up, and hang on his every word.
The FReepers' take on this is interesting; it seems most of them agree that Americans are 'mongrels', including themselves. Some of them boast that they are a mix of several different racial groups (Asian, various European, 'Native American' and African in some cases). Am I living a sheltered life in that I don't know many people who are as (ahem) ''diverse'' as these FReepers?
Perhaps the FReepers 'mongrel' self-identification explains their fondness for egalitarianism, race-denial, and political correctness generally.
Note that one FReeper even uses the hackneyed formula ''there is only one race: the Human Race" and is hailed by another FReeper for this clever and witty saying.
As to the Dear Leader's self-description, and his strange remark that all Americans are mixed up:
"I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."
Know more about what? Their ancestry? How can that be, since most arrived here as slaves, minus family names and a written history. I would say most knowledge of their ancestry would be shaky at best under those circumstances, Alex Haley's plagiarized ''family history'' notwithstanding.
My family is not ''all kinds of mixed up''; we're pretty well traced back to medieval times. By far most of my family's progenitors came from England. I suspect many Americans whose ancestry is undiscovered have more English roots than they imagine.
Somewhat related to this topic, over at Inductivist we read that in a survey, Americans of varying ethnic descent were asked how important ancestry is to ''be a real American.'' It appears that American Indians, blacks, and Irish-Americans think ancestry is very important to being a real American.
Those of English or German ancestry, on the other hand, are more likely believe that Americanness is not an ancestral thing. Groups with many recent immigrants and (pro-immigration) Jews are least likely to place importance on ancestry.''
Exactly what I would have suspected; however I am skeptical as to who these 'English' people are who believe that being an American is not a matter of ancestry. It sounds like the fabled 'Anglo elite' types so often cited as the villains by ethnic Americans.
Obviously I think that those of recent immigrant ancestry have much less invested in America, and they not infrequently carry grudges against old-stock Americans for perceived mistreatment, hence these people are less likely to identify with America's Anglo-derived culture.
The media and our 'leaders' seem to be pushing the 'mongrel' image of America as a way of marginalizing and neutralizing the historic majority, Anglo-Protestant Whites. And they seem to really believe that encouraging a blending of all races will make for a docile, easily managed, tan-everyman kind of society. It's hardly surprising that our current president was picked to symbolize the new, all-mixed-up ''America.''
Remember a few years ago, in that fateful year of 2008, when Nicolas Sarkozy admonished the French people that they had an obligation to mix themselves with other races? Does it not seem that this is the objective througout the West?
Tiberge at GalliaWatch discussed this speech at the time. Her comments are interspersed below:
(...) the objective is to meet the challenge of "métissage" - the challenge of "métissage" that the 21st century is confronting us with. The challenge of "métissage", France has always been familiar with it, and by meeting the challenge of "métissage" France remains faithful to her history. Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies.
Note: In the above sentence we see that he IS talking about racially mixing the BLOOD of his compatriots with foreigners (and we know that the foreigners in question are not Swedes or Italians).
In the course of centuries, France has always known "métissage", France has always been "métissée".
Note: This is insanity. France has never been "métissée" in the way he is using the word. He is attempting to equate the mixing of the Franks, Latins and Celts with the mixing of white and black or of European and North African Muslim.
France has crossbred cultures, ideas and histories. France, who was able to crossbreed these cultures and these histories, constructed a universal language, because France herself is universal in the diversity of her origins.
Note: I'm not certain what he's trying to say except that out of the racially diverse mix, comes something universal. That may or may not be true, but it is not the point. Why does he want to destroy the civilization that grew and flourished over the past 2000 years, from the Roman Empire, to the Second World War? What is his complaint about French civilization, other than he doesn't like it very much?''
We might ask this about all the hand-picked rulers of Western countries now. They are prepping us for accepting this blending away by convincing us, first, that we are already hopelessly mixed and that we in fact have no discrete identity. Once a majority of people have begun to believe that, then the elites are halfway to their goal.