More on American identity

The recent article by Eunjung Han in Nature on the subject of American ethnic identity continues to generate discussion here and there on the Internet. I don’t think the article will end the little controversies surrounding the question, however, because mere facts don’t always settle political/ethnic disagreements these days.

This piece at the Assistant Village Idiot blog points out some things that verify what I’ve believed and asserted. The writer tends to agree with both David Hackett Fischer’s and Colin Woodward’s assertions though as I’ve stated, I don’t hold those works as Holy Writ as some readers do. For instance the belief that broadly speaking the Northern colonies in early America represented distinct ethnicities in contrast to the Southern colonies. That’s an oversimplification, I know, but it is interpreted much that way by some who find it politically expedient to claim that the North and South represented disparate and incompatible peoples — both originally from Britain but irreconcilably different. There are also those who, following Fischer and/or Woodward, insist that the ‘Cavalier class’ in the South or the ‘Planter’ class represented a different people than Appalachia, or the Tidewater area, or the Midlands South, etc.

I think the differences, insofar as they exist or did exist are exaggerated, especially as they were scarcely mentioned as existing in earlier histories and commentaries from the literate classes in the pre-War South. They seem to have been discovered and emphasized only in recent times.

From the linked blog piece:

“Some things to note: Woodard’s Tidewater culture is not visibly distinct here, and the further distinctions of  Upland South, Midlands, and Greater Appalachia are visible, but not quite the same as any of the three authors have claimed.”

That much, at least, indicates at least a tiny chink  in the armor, but those partisans who see Fischer’s and Woodward’s works  as gospel won’t concur.

Another point of mine is that the ‘New England Yankee’ stock long ago migrated West en masse, though some did stay behind in isolated areas, and many ‘Yankees’  settled the Western mountain states, notably Utah, where many Mormon converts went in the 19th century. I know this in part because it’s documented in a couple of history books, but also from my own family genealogy researches.

Incidentally once settled in that area most of these emigrants held to conservative politics — except lately as they have become newish converts to multiculturalism and open borders universalism. The popular belief among many pro-South people is that the New England Yankees still hold sway in their original Northeastern stronghold, or that they mysteriously control the whole system, though I’ve repeatedly offered evidence that this is not so; New England is multicultural and the towns founded by my ancestors are mostly populated by upper-middle-class ethnic refugees from New York City, Boston and other urban towers of Babel. Most of my New England cousins, however, are probably in Utah or the Far West and they are hardly ruling America.

The blogger in the linked piece says this:

“That Utah was ultimately settled by people who were Yankees rather than one of the other American coastal nations has been noted before – first by their own extensive genealogies. Joseph Smith was a northeastern Yankee. Make of that what you will.”

Yes, there are stubborn misconceptions about the various branches of ‘Albion’s Seed’ and their interrelationships. Why are these canards still rife, and growing more stubborn, given the data that is available?

I don’t know the full answer; it seems America is becoming more balkanized ethnically, and I know that it doesn’t benefit us in this time of crisis for the house to be divided against itself. We rubbed along for a good while without these new internecine squabbles. Those of us who are of British Isles ancestry should be able to make common cause without exacerbating existing divisions or inventing new ones in the name of ethnic pride or revanchism.

Do I advocate for a particularistic cause myself?  Certainly I would like to see the English people, who are after all the core people of Britain regain a sense of identity that has been lost, suppressed by the globalist leaders of the UK. I’d like to see a resurgence of a healthy, non-divisive sense of pride in English achievements, rather than the English subsumed in the umbrella identity ‘British’. After all, can’t the Welsh be both British and claim their particularistic identity as Welsh? Don’t the Scottish claim their identity, and the Cornish? Why not the English?

‘British’ is a civic more than an ethnic category. Every immigrant in the UK claims to be ‘British.’

Regarding ethnic identity in America, the lines have been blurred even more, though the South retained more ethnic integrity until fairly recently because fewer immigrants settled in the South historically.

English colonial-stock Americans have more in common ethnically and culturally than today’s partisans want to admit.

People on the right often complain (justly) that those on the left are impervious to facts and that facts and data are immaterial to the leftist ideologues. There are such on the right as well. Too many postmoderns on both sides ignore facts in favor of ideology or politics.

 

 

‘The Britannic race’

From a few months ago, here’s an interesting piece on ‘The Britannic Race and its Predicament, from the British Observer UK blog. It’s pertinent to the ongoing argument about ‘Celts vs. Anglo-Saxons’ which seems to pop up everywhere on ethnonationalist or HBD blogs, as illustrated in my post from the other day.

I could quibble just a little about the preference of the writer of the piece to prefer the ‘British’ identity rather than differentiating between ‘British’ — a civic identity, inclusive of all the peoples of the British Isles — and the English. But I will let that go because many of the points the writer makes are valid. From the article:

“One issue that is particularly important to explain is this myth of ‘Celtic’ Britons and Anglo-Saxon Britons – the common statement is that the English are predominantly of Anglo-Saxon descent and the Welsh, Scots and Irish (and possibly Cornish) are more Celtic in origin. The truth of the matter is that the Britannic race is ‘Anglo-Celtic’, if we are to use such terms. In this instance ‘Anglo’ can be taken as a reference to all tribes of Germanic origin that settled in ancient and post-Roman Britain, for example the Belgae, Cantii and then the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, whilst Celtic refers to exactly that, the tribes we refer to as ‘Celtic’ such as the Brigantes, Cornovii etc… It is true, however, that there is a divide between the people of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Highland Scots and the English & Lowland Scots, but this is more a cultural divide than an ethnic or genetic difference, with Celtic culture more prominent in the former. The genetic differences between these groups are there, but they are reasonably subtle and only really noticeable in Ireland.”

Taking a good look at the Y DNA Haplogroup map in the article is helpful, and it relates to a point I made in my post the other day, about the apparent inability to distinguish, via DNA testing, between the various peoples of the British Isles. The map shows the similarities between the Haplogroup types amongst the various peoples of Britain and Ireland. To my eye, it looks as though there is a closer similarity between the Irish and the Welsh, based on this map, and likewise between the Scots and the English.

“But, the general theme is still the same – our genetic map spreads across all of the British Isles, the only difference being some tribal roots are more prevalent in one part of Britain or another. This is why delving back into particulars and separating ourselves between Celtic and Anglo is counterproductive, as it is fair to say we are a reasonably homogeneous ‘Anglo-Celtic’ ethnic group.

You may be asking why all this matters? Well, the particulars such as who’s got more of which Y DNA strand or who is more Frisian than Celtic really doesn’t matter – what does matter is the fact that an ethnic group is the sum of its parts, and the nation is the sum of its people, therefore the bedrock of a nation is its dominant ethnic group, all the more so if the ethnic make up of a nation is fairly homogeneous which was the case with Great Britain until circa 1948.”

The writer then goes on to elaborate on the modern era of mass immigration from former Commonwealth countries, which started in earnest with the arrival of the Windrush in 1948. And yes, contrary to what the modern multicultist propagandists assert, the old-stock people of the British Isles are a very homogeneous group, or were until recent decades as the cult aggressively pushes miscegeny in an overt attempt to change forever the genetics of the population of Britain. Britain was not, as is often said by the lying media and intelligentsia, a ‘nation of mongrels’, but there is a flagrant plan to make it just that.

“The genetic stock of Britain is being altered beyond recognition – natives make up 80% of the overall population (as of the 2011 census), which may not sound too alarming, but when one compares that with the 92.12% of 2001, just 10 years prior to the last census, the future looks bleak. Immigration is running at record levels, with approximately 600,000 people arriving here each year from all over the world, whilst around 300,000 people (mainly natives) are seeking pastures new as they see their own land decline like never before.”

It isn’t mentioned in this article, but it is apparent that the people behind this globalist agenda are particularly trying to suppress the English as an ethnic group, as contrasted to their allowing the Celtic nationalists (although they are not true nationalists, as with the Scottish Nationalist Party, embracing multiculturalism and ‘diversity’, likewise much of existing Irish nationalism) their political parties and movements, their parliaments and flags, whereas the St. George’s flag, the symbol of England is declared divisive and ‘hateful.’ I had an ongoing argument with a reader who identified as Scots-American who flatly denied that the English were being singled out for suppression. It’s amazing how much denial there is on this subject.

I see parallels in this country; there is an incredible amount of anti-Anglo, or anti-WASP rhetoric amongst Americans, and it gets a pass for the most part. Few Anglo-Americans feel compelled to say a word in response. Why? Is this just, in microcosm, the typical ‘cucked’ White response, to be silent and self-effacing if not self-hating?

I am all in favor of each ethnic group/nation having their own ethnopatriotism; I am not in favor of amalgamating the various European ethnicities, even those who are close kin, as shown by genetic evidence. Much of the inter-group quarreling amongst close kindred is motivated by past historical grudges (some groups have preternaturally long memories of battles lost, and perceived humiliations), and this really should change, considering that all Europeans are under the same threat.

 

‘Ethnic English America’ blog

I first came across this blog some years ago. It was started in 2010, according to the blogger’s profile. Unfortunately it appears the blog hasn’t been updated since.

The first post contains a statement on the purpose of the blog.

‘In order to create a free and independent Republic of New England, we call on all English Americans to join in the formation of a representative constitutional Republic of New England, representing government of the English people, by the English people and for the English people.
We stand for preserving the English people from biological and cultural extinction.

The founding fathers of the United States would be far closer to being English secessionists than to any of the other political groups of today.

The men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution were all English. They shared a common ethnocultural background, and none of them wanted racial mixing.

In order to accomplish these goals, all ties relating to the domination of New England by the multicult regime in Washington should be abandoned, as soon possible and forever.

It is absolutely essential to the cause of freedom, prosperity and individual liberty of the English people in America.
.
A country just for English Americans!”

Sad to say that idea is now more far-fetched, probably, than it was when first posted.

I wish it were otherwise, and I won’t say it could ‘never’ happen. Never say never, especially in this fast-changing world in which it seems we can’t be sure what tomorrow will bring.

Still, the prospect of a homeland for English-Americans in New England seems very remote now, as the demographics of that region seem to be very much inimical to the idea. As I’ve pointed out many times on certain blogs where people erroneously claim that New England is still the home of WASPs, under WASP dominance, the fact is that Anglo-Saxon Americans are now a minority throughout most of the region, except perhaps in the more remote rural areas. If we look at the map contained in the first post on that blog, which was from 2000, we see that some remote rural locales had from 22.8 – 45.6%  English descent. Now, some 16+ years later I would guess those percentages are reduced, what with the older generations dying (mostly English-descended people in the older age groups) and the influx of people from the teeming urban areas of New England: Boston, New Haven, or wherever. I have heard that the ‘refugees’ from the multicult cities are often affluent Jews as well as upper-middle-class to wealthy ethnic Americans who dominate the cities there: Irish-Americans, Italians, etc. Those groups are historically the ones who displaced many of the old-stock English-Americans starting in the 19th century.

As historian Samuel Adams Drake opined (in 1871) about living conditions in North Square:

“Nowhere in Boston has Father Time wrought such ruthless changes, as in this highly respectable quarter, now swarming with Italians in every dirty nook and corner. In truth, it is hard to believe the evidence of our own senses, though the fumes of garlic are sufficiently convincing. Past and Present confront each other here with a stare of blank amazement, in the humble Revere homestead, on one side, and the pretentious Hotel Italy on the other; nor do those among us, who [know] something of its vanished prestige, feel at all home in a place where our own mother-tongue no longer serves us.”

So the colonial stock English Americans were among the first to experience ethnic cleansing, and many left the region to go westward, as did my New England ancestors and many on the collateral lines of my family as well. Still, there is this persistent belief that there is a WASP aristocracy lording it over an Anglo-majority New England.

Maybe in some far reaches of New England there are English-descended populations whose numbers haven’t dwindled drastically. But the cities are multicultural, and we’ve all read of how even smaller cities like Lewiston, Maine and even Houlton, Maine (which was settled by my Houlton ancestors) are now the home of burgeoning Somali colonies.

Still, I am not trying to throw cold water on the blogger’s proposal. If only it could be reality, but there is the reality that English-Americans are fewer with each year, and with each new ‘immigrant’ or ‘refugee’ colony being seeded in the erstwhile United States.

The blog has a post about the Immigration Act of 1924, and that’s something that we need to be more aware of. Our forefathers did try to stem the wave of immigration that could have made this country minority-White long ago, if unstopped. They did make a brave effort, and this must be remembered as the anti-WASP crowd repeatedly charges Anglo-Saxon Americans with doing ”nothing” to preserve this country. Unfortunately the persistence and duplicity of the one-worlders and social engineers got the better of them. But credit where due: let’s repeat the words of Colorado Rep. William Vaile, who said, during the hearings:

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Added emphasis is mine.

Rep. Vaile was blessed in that he didn’t live to see this country ‘greatly changed,’ and not by our doing.

 

 

England, Britain: “What’s in a name?”

“What’s in a name? Names express ideas, and he who uses wrong names is not likely to have right ideas. Britain [is] a geographical name. England is the land of the English. It is important [we] never apply the names England or English to the land or people of Britain in the days before the land became England by the English people settling in it. If we do we take people for our forefathers who are not our forefathers.” – E. A. Freeman, 1879

English-Americans: Still English?

The above is from a pro-English Facebook group.

I know some would not agree with the idea expressed in it, but there’s no denying that one can only be English by ancestry, not simply by transplanting oneself to England. To be British is another matter; though I would not agree with the silly idea that the third-world transplants to the UK can be ”British”, still, British is undoubtedly a civic identity. After all, it encompasses the other nationalities who have long lived in Great Britain, nationalities who are considered British though they identify as Scottish, Welsh, or Ulster folk.

The very reason that the English identity is ”controversial” or politically incorrect in today’s multicultural, multiracial UK is that it is an exclusive rather than inclusive identity. I have heard that there are immigrants from the Moslem world or elsewhere who claim to be ”English” by virtue of residence in England, but to claim that is to deny the existence of a nation or ethnicity called ”English.”

Why do I emphasize this ‘British vs. English’ question? Because it’s important. Many Americans (excluding my readers, of course) are unaware that there is any distinction between ”British” and “English”. In the past I’ve been guilty of using the terms interchangeably, without thinking. Even one of my English readers (on the old blog) said he had done so. It’s unconscious, because the labels are not used precisely or accurately these days. And there is a difference. Just ask a Scot or a Welshman; they will likely tell you that they are Scots or Welsh first, though their civic identity is British. In few cases will they want to say they are English. The English, after all, were the oppressors in the minds of many, and past lost battles are kept in memory for many generations.

So there’s yet another reason why the English identity is destined for consignment to the memory hole, if the globalist fanatics have their way. But as long as I can, I plan not to comply with the politically correct edicts. The truth has to be kept alive.

And yes, though some of us have ancestors who left England 400+ years ago, our English genes are intact, and though culture plays a part, we are who we are in part because of those genes.