I don't think Simon is gay, but your article doesn't engage with the argument that you're opposing. 90% of the article is barely concealed disgust towards Afrikaners (I'm not sure why you need to call Afrikaans, Afrikaner Dutch. That would be like calling Cantonese, "Guangdong Mandarin"). 10% of the article is calling out racialism, but then it assumes that racialism or race consciousness is bad. You're a great writer, but you never seem to explain why race consciousness among whites is unacceptable, whereas it is permissible for non-whites.
This makes me think of a line in Hayes Inauguration address:
“Our government has been called a white man’s government. Not so. It is not the government of any class or sect or nationality or race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed, and Mr. Broomall of Pennsylvania rightly calls it “The Government of the Governed”. It is not the government of the native born or the foreign born, of the rich man or of the poor man, of the white man or of the colored man - It is the government of the FREE man.”
Unfortunately, Hayes betrayed reconstruction, but I still find it radical to say the country has no nationality, no sect, no class, no race. It’s for FREEDOM. And Freedom is NOT A PLACE.
Trump is always talking about his Wall, but America is better represented by a road.
Great article. I remember Hannah Arendt also outlines the reactionary nature of Boer society in the beginning chapters of her "Origins of Totalitarianism". How you read those federalist pieces and not want to tear your hair out from the inanity of it all is commendable. An anachronistic white man's dream of an agricultural-based society that hasn't existed ever.
The writer quoted from the Federalist and similar ilk tie themselves into knots to avoid saying the quiet part loud (white people are what make this country great). And the cultural ties argument does not make sense; take a 23&me test - it's just factually incorrect that there's some ethnic homogeneity between any of the citizens.
The country as "indelibly English"? What part? The history of anti-monarchism?
Also, the Federalist senior editor still need to make the argument for why a social order built around ethnicity is better than a social order built around ideals. AND they still need to show how the former is truer to American ideals.
Unfortunately, these same people think National Socialism is left-wing because it has "Socialism" in the title. What to do in times like these but repeat obvious truths. Repeat, repeat, repeat!
The founding fathers, even the ones who were more in tune with Enlightenment ideals, also thought white people were what made America great. For many of them, even Jefferson, being racist and liberal were not mutually exclusive. You could argue that they were only products of their time and that they never meant to draft such exclusionary laws. Still, the first Americans and their descendants would write and then enact deeply discriminatory laws that most people (no matter how prejudiced they are) would consider unacceptable.
So while you are correct that a social order built around ideals is much better than one built around race, the men and women who crafted those ideals were also very racist. It would take about 200 or so years to really change that.
J.J. I agree that there are clear ideals in the founding documents of the US. But this doesn’t really address the issue at hand. America, like Canada, is a country of people. After all it is a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people”. And people are not ideas. When we celebrate America’s (or Canada’s) racial and ethnic diversity we talk about people and their heritage and values. I have not read accounts of racial minorities in which the evaluation is done strictly by how well a group has adhered to the Bill of Rights. It is typically an appreciation of culture, food, music, values and faith. This a blind spot for liberals in that they cannot extend this appreciation to the majority, who become political theory pieces who only connect to others somehow through the Constitution.
We absolutely evaluate people based on how well they conform to the bill of rights. If someone comes to America and tries to impose fundamentalist religious law on the country, for instance it’s easy to call them unAmerican on that basis.
I think a better example of minorities not being evaluated in a rights framework but as people in a diversity class is captured in the dissenting opinion of the Obergefell Supreme Court case. The opinion asked why the ruling is not applied to plural marriages. Marriage was expanded, but not to all consenting adults. Is this consistent with equal protection? I am not aware of our leadership class critiquing summertime Pride parades for the potential discrimination they are willfully ignoring under the Equal Protection Clause. In fact the parades are a celebration and appreciation of a minority segment of the population. Celebrating one’s own rights while ignoring other’s is not something liberals extend to majority culture. This is clearly a blind spot of modern, double standards cultivate radical responses.
Opinion pieces in The Federalist are not government services either, but you are still critiquing it. You’re not really addressing the questions I brought up. Anyway I better get back to work.
To say an Islamic fundamentalist imposing religious law is unamerican will itself be turned around on you to say you are unamerican. To label something unamerican is to be unamerican.
The American ideal has a set of fundamentally inclusive ideas within it. To exclude even in the defense of the ideal is necessarily to fall short of the ideal.
The constitution outlines a process through which ideas and policies can be adjudicated. America is not some anarchic place in which anything can be done to anyone in the name of American freedom and there is no procedure to contest or adjudicate it.
America only really started allowing non-White immigrants in 1965. So, while there was diversity in the sense we had Dutchmen and Germans and even Italians (yikes!), there was not the Diversity(TM) of the 2020s.
While this makes a convincing case that Afrikaners are likely to struggle to assimilate into American culture, in doing so it concedes the broader point, which is that the US has a culture beyond its legal constitution and values, and that culture is more compatible with some foreign groups than others.
On a related note, the character of the 18th century United States was overwhelmingly British. There were some Dutch, Germans and Irish, and of course African slaves, but it wasn't diverse by modern standards, or even necessarily European ones at the time.
And of course African slaves. And of course Native Americans. And people of all sorts of different Christian denominations, who were very much perceived as being extremely "diverse" within the context of the time.
One of my few private satisfactions, which I now divulge, is knowing that the fate of Americans such as yourself is to slowly converge upon the same fate as Yugoslavia.
I’ve always admired you for your commitment to conserving liberalism, and especially your championing of the North American middle class and its aesthetic and values.
However, I disagree that America is a “nation of ideas” or that a nation even can be that. All the dictionary definitions I can find for “nation” refer to people, not ideas. You are right that to SOME extent, America has always been a multicultural nation, but there was a clearly dominant British culture, hence English being the default language. The authors of the constitution didn’t speak much of ethnicity largely because they assumed theirs would be the dominant one, and had no real way of predicting immigrants coming from across the globe with fundamentally contradictory cultures, especially in critical mass as they have recently. The vast majority of these are not “refugees” and they’re not “coming here for freedom.” They’re merely opportunistic economic migrants taking advantage of the last administrations absurd gaming of the border policies, and the NGOs all over the world advertising a multitude of taxpayer subsidized public benefits. They need to be massively deported with no regard for impossible standards of “due process” and handled militarily as an invasive force if necessary. The amount of political gamesmanship to coordinate this mass migration to the USA and other western nations is both astounding and undemocratic, this is not some “right” the founders of the USA believed in, nor is it remotely consistent with any view of American republicanism or justice.
J.J. is analyzing a complex societal framework through the lens of race/ethnicity as a purely sociological and cultural construct. Is that not exactly what critical race theory is? How is it NOT critical race theory?
JJ, great work. To me (admittedly, I am a classical liberal conservative), America is a set of shared ideals.
*Anyone* can be American who values individual liberties, equal protection under the law, and believe that all men are created equal. (I'm not making an immigration argument here, so Internet People®️, calm down.)
America is an experiment in self-governance and was founded on shared ideas.
(Tip of the hat to the guy who called you a "Gay Canadian"? 🫠🙄)
When I was in high school I won a VWF contest with an essay on the subject that America is an idea. This was a group made up of fairly traditionally Republican veterans of WW2.
You are a gay Canadian.
What are you?
An American.
Gay as well?
I don't think Simon is gay, but your article doesn't engage with the argument that you're opposing. 90% of the article is barely concealed disgust towards Afrikaners (I'm not sure why you need to call Afrikaans, Afrikaner Dutch. That would be like calling Cantonese, "Guangdong Mandarin"). 10% of the article is calling out racialism, but then it assumes that racialism or race consciousness is bad. You're a great writer, but you never seem to explain why race consciousness among whites is unacceptable, whereas it is permissible for non-whites.
Well well… an ad hominem.
You won the argument.
you quite literally look like more of a faggot than jj does
Don’t talk like that
This makes me think of a line in Hayes Inauguration address:
“Our government has been called a white man’s government. Not so. It is not the government of any class or sect or nationality or race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed, and Mr. Broomall of Pennsylvania rightly calls it “The Government of the Governed”. It is not the government of the native born or the foreign born, of the rich man or of the poor man, of the white man or of the colored man - It is the government of the FREE man.”
Unfortunately, Hayes betrayed reconstruction, but I still find it radical to say the country has no nationality, no sect, no class, no race. It’s for FREEDOM. And Freedom is NOT A PLACE.
Trump is always talking about his Wall, but America is better represented by a road.
Thanks for the great read!
Great article. I remember Hannah Arendt also outlines the reactionary nature of Boer society in the beginning chapters of her "Origins of Totalitarianism". How you read those federalist pieces and not want to tear your hair out from the inanity of it all is commendable. An anachronistic white man's dream of an agricultural-based society that hasn't existed ever.
The writer quoted from the Federalist and similar ilk tie themselves into knots to avoid saying the quiet part loud (white people are what make this country great). And the cultural ties argument does not make sense; take a 23&me test - it's just factually incorrect that there's some ethnic homogeneity between any of the citizens.
The country as "indelibly English"? What part? The history of anti-monarchism?
Also, the Federalist senior editor still need to make the argument for why a social order built around ethnicity is better than a social order built around ideals. AND they still need to show how the former is truer to American ideals.
Unfortunately, these same people think National Socialism is left-wing because it has "Socialism" in the title. What to do in times like these but repeat obvious truths. Repeat, repeat, repeat!
The founding fathers, even the ones who were more in tune with Enlightenment ideals, also thought white people were what made America great. For many of them, even Jefferson, being racist and liberal were not mutually exclusive. You could argue that they were only products of their time and that they never meant to draft such exclusionary laws. Still, the first Americans and their descendants would write and then enact deeply discriminatory laws that most people (no matter how prejudiced they are) would consider unacceptable.
So while you are correct that a social order built around ideals is much better than one built around race, the men and women who crafted those ideals were also very racist. It would take about 200 or so years to really change that.
J.J. I agree that there are clear ideals in the founding documents of the US. But this doesn’t really address the issue at hand. America, like Canada, is a country of people. After all it is a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people”. And people are not ideas. When we celebrate America’s (or Canada’s) racial and ethnic diversity we talk about people and their heritage and values. I have not read accounts of racial minorities in which the evaluation is done strictly by how well a group has adhered to the Bill of Rights. It is typically an appreciation of culture, food, music, values and faith. This a blind spot for liberals in that they cannot extend this appreciation to the majority, who become political theory pieces who only connect to others somehow through the Constitution.
We absolutely evaluate people based on how well they conform to the bill of rights. If someone comes to America and tries to impose fundamentalist religious law on the country, for instance it’s easy to call them unAmerican on that basis.
I think a better example of minorities not being evaluated in a rights framework but as people in a diversity class is captured in the dissenting opinion of the Obergefell Supreme Court case. The opinion asked why the ruling is not applied to plural marriages. Marriage was expanded, but not to all consenting adults. Is this consistent with equal protection? I am not aware of our leadership class critiquing summertime Pride parades for the potential discrimination they are willfully ignoring under the Equal Protection Clause. In fact the parades are a celebration and appreciation of a minority segment of the population. Celebrating one’s own rights while ignoring other’s is not something liberals extend to majority culture. This is clearly a blind spot of modern, double standards cultivate radical responses.
Pride parades are not a government service and even if they were, you are open to participate in them, as many straight people do.
Opinion pieces in The Federalist are not government services either, but you are still critiquing it. You’re not really addressing the questions I brought up. Anyway I better get back to work.
We?
How islamaphobic of you
What do you mean?
To say an Islamic fundamentalist imposing religious law is unamerican will itself be turned around on you to say you are unamerican. To label something unamerican is to be unamerican.
The American ideal has a set of fundamentally inclusive ideas within it. To exclude even in the defense of the ideal is necessarily to fall short of the ideal.
The constitution outlines a process through which ideas and policies can be adjudicated. America is not some anarchic place in which anything can be done to anyone in the name of American freedom and there is no procedure to contest or adjudicate it.
It's not that they "cannot extend this appreciation to the majority" it's that they are bigots who are prejudiced against the majority.
Bravo, J.J. You’re exactly the voice American liberalism needs more of today.
🤣
America only really started allowing non-White immigrants in 1965. So, while there was diversity in the sense we had Dutchmen and Germans and even Italians (yikes!), there was not the Diversity(TM) of the 2020s.
What about all the black people and Latino people and Native Americans?
Great article.
They can cope all they want, but, as Thomas Paine put it, “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”
While this makes a convincing case that Afrikaners are likely to struggle to assimilate into American culture, in doing so it concedes the broader point, which is that the US has a culture beyond its legal constitution and values, and that culture is more compatible with some foreign groups than others.
On a related note, the character of the 18th century United States was overwhelmingly British. There were some Dutch, Germans and Irish, and of course African slaves, but it wasn't diverse by modern standards, or even necessarily European ones at the time.
And of course African slaves. And of course Native Americans. And people of all sorts of different Christian denominations, who were very much perceived as being extremely "diverse" within the context of the time.
I'm not that convinced that the Thirteen Colonies were diverse in modern parlance just because all the different Christian denominations had beef.
Well you can believe whatever you want to believe.
These scumbag reactionaries don’t even hide it anymore how much they like apartheid
One of my few private satisfactions, which I now divulge, is knowing that the fate of Americans such as yourself is to slowly converge upon the same fate as Yugoslavia.
What country are you from?
They probably see the anti white racism of South Africa, and empathize because they face anti white racism here: not much else to it
Hart-Celler was, what, 1965 or thereabouts?
I am curious to see how much longer this idea will survive.
I’ve always admired you for your commitment to conserving liberalism, and especially your championing of the North American middle class and its aesthetic and values.
However, I disagree that America is a “nation of ideas” or that a nation even can be that. All the dictionary definitions I can find for “nation” refer to people, not ideas. You are right that to SOME extent, America has always been a multicultural nation, but there was a clearly dominant British culture, hence English being the default language. The authors of the constitution didn’t speak much of ethnicity largely because they assumed theirs would be the dominant one, and had no real way of predicting immigrants coming from across the globe with fundamentally contradictory cultures, especially in critical mass as they have recently. The vast majority of these are not “refugees” and they’re not “coming here for freedom.” They’re merely opportunistic economic migrants taking advantage of the last administrations absurd gaming of the border policies, and the NGOs all over the world advertising a multitude of taxpayer subsidized public benefits. They need to be massively deported with no regard for impossible standards of “due process” and handled militarily as an invasive force if necessary. The amount of political gamesmanship to coordinate this mass migration to the USA and other western nations is both astounding and undemocratic, this is not some “right” the founders of the USA believed in, nor is it remotely consistent with any view of American republicanism or justice.
I never expected the J.J. McCullough critical race theory arc but I am 100% here for it
How is this critical race theory?
J.J. is analyzing a complex societal framework through the lens of race/ethnicity as a purely sociological and cultural construct. Is that not exactly what critical race theory is? How is it NOT critical race theory?
I thought CRT had more specific ideas than that but can’t be bothered to care. What you described sounds more like “sociology.”
JJ, great work. To me (admittedly, I am a classical liberal conservative), America is a set of shared ideals.
*Anyone* can be American who values individual liberties, equal protection under the law, and believe that all men are created equal. (I'm not making an immigration argument here, so Internet People®️, calm down.)
America is an experiment in self-governance and was founded on shared ideas.
(Tip of the hat to the guy who called you a "Gay Canadian"? 🫠🙄)
When I was in high school I won a VWF contest with an essay on the subject that America is an idea. This was a group made up of fairly traditionally Republican veterans of WW2.
Though I agree with you now, I do wonder if sometime in the far future of 2400 ad if that's going to shift as America slowly becomes an older country
The US will cease to exist as a meaningful political entity capable of force projection, long before 2400 AD.