Tag Archives: civic nationalism

Teddy Roosevelt’s view of America’s founding stock

Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reality, quotes Teddy Roosevelt on America’s founding stock.

“[O]n the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already become an Anglo-Briton . . . It must always be kept in mind that the Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the great English race, which both before and after their separation have assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples. . .

I agree with much of what Roosevelt says above, but the last sentence is something I have reservations about. I’ve bolded the pertinent part.  Obviously Roosevelt was more of a ‘civic nationalist’ and judging by what he says about the Americans and British ‘making Englishmen of many other  peoples‘ he believed in the melting pot, and in the limitless possibility of assimilating many disparate peoples. He may just have been using a little hyperbole when he says many other peoples were ‘made Englishmen‘ by assimilation. But whether or not he meant that phrase metaphorically, it’s been treated as truth by many people in the years since those words were written.

Oftentimes the civic nationalists in both the United States and in Britain have expressed the belief that if only, say, Moslems ‘assimilated’, learned good English, and ‘moderated’ their religious beliefs and cultures, they will be full members of their host countries. Is everyone assimilable, given the right instructions in how to be a ‘good citizen’ of America or of any Western country? It’s an article of faith in the religion that is civic nationalism, but there seems to be little evidence that it’s true.

One more thing I noticed about the quote from Roosevelt about what makes an ‘Anglo-American’: it seems that his views have become widely accepted in America now; everybody who is of northwestern European stock and who speaks English as their native language is now, for a lot of people, an ‘Anglo’ or ‘Anglo-American.’ Well, that’s very inclusive and all, but doesn’t that deprive those who are actually of English or British descent of their ethnic identity?




America’s heritage and ‘ancestral stocks’

Clinton Stoddard Burr wrote a book, published in 1922, which is very pertinent today. In the foreword, he indicates just how important he believed the subject he wrote on would be in the near, and more distant future. It seems he was prescient:

“The author of the following discourse is an average citizen of this Republic who perceives that the American People are on the threshold of the greatest crisis in their history. This volume, then, is intended primarily as a study of the significant facts respecting the population of the nation. The time is ripe to co-ordinate the essential data derived from a multitudinous variety of national records, for the edification of the present generation and those to come.

[…]A wide vista of fascinating fields of historical, anthropological and statistical research is open to those of us who would gain a deeper insight of the problem that faces the American people today and in the future. The writer feels that in imparting these views his motive is wholly a patriotic one, and he can only invoke the reader to peruse these lines in the same spirit. We all know how futile are learned discourses in appealing to the preoccupied business, professional, trades or agricultural men of the nation. Yet it is just these influential elements that can bring pressure to bear on our lawmakers to save the United States in its great crisis.

[…]In fact it is high time that we should comprehend the primary cause of the loathsome plague of anarchy and Bolshevism. It is time that we should be alive to the fact that most of the hordes of immigrants who have been pouring into the United States from countries of Southern and Eastern Europe, from lands inhabited by races impregnated with radicalism, Bolshevism and anarchy, belong for the most part to the lower strata of humanity from those regions, who prove to be most susceptible to the wiles of the radical agitator. Surely this view, in itself, is a logical plea in advocating restriction of a certain class of immigration.

[…] All thinking people are awakened to the realization that we must choose our future entrants to this country from such as show assimilable qualities of mind as well as favorable physical attributes. The callous exploiters of cheap labor and the incurable sentimentalists stand alone in their misplaced loyalty to our fatuous boast in the past that America was the haven of the down-and-out, the dependent, the oppressed, the pauper, the foreign agitator, the unassimilable and what not.”

In our day, the ‘callous exploiters of cheap labor and the incurable sentimentalists’ are legion, and their voices are drowning out those of the thinking citizens of this country. However there is at least now a chance for the concerns of native-born citizens of this country, especially the posterity of the founders, to be heard. The State of the Union address, and the discussion around possible curbs on immigration, however, has brought a new onslaught from the Open Borders zealots and their immigrant or would-be immigrant clients. There is a new chorus of importunate voices asserting the ‘right’ of everyone to claim a piece of America. Brazen Hispanic spokesmen insist that this country is theirs by rights, and that we, the progeny of the original colonists and Founders, have no right to object. I wonder if Burr could have imagined such gall.

But back in 1922, as Clinton Stoddard Burr was writing his book, he describes how the recent (1920) celebrations of the Pilgrims’ Tercentenary jogged the memory of America, reminding Americans that this country was, in fact, settled by a particular group of people, and that the country bore the stamp of that group genetically and culturally.

“The [Pilgrim Tercentenary] celebrations commemorated…above all, our three hundred years of expansion over a vast continent; in the main an Anglo-Saxon conquest over savagery and natural forces. […] It must not be forgotten that English thought, laws and government permeated the land from the arrival of the Mayflower up to the present day. Anglo-Saxon civilization actually gained a new stimulus by the defiance of a weak and unscrupulous monarch in 1776, and today the Englishman and the American are approaching the goal of perfect mutual and reciprocal relations tending to the welfare not alone of Anglo-Saxon communities, but also of the whole world.

[…]The significance of three centuries of American growth was briefly, but aptly, described by the British Ambassador, Sir Auckland Geddes, in the following words: ‘We have, in fact, to maintain the heritage of freedom against assault from within and without, the priceless heritage of a great idea conceived by the Nordic people and slowly and painfully brought into practice in workable form in England, then brought here and developed and strengthened, then passed to British Dominions, then transplanted into countries that never have understood it. It is now in danger from its popularity. Even its enemies try to conceal their actions behind its phrases.’

[…]When one member of a household contracts a terrible disease, are not the other members of the household liable to contagion? Then why do we still allow the dregs of Southern and Eastern European nations to swarm into our community by the thousands every day, when we know that there are hundreds of potential Bolshevists among them who may not be discovered under our hurried and superficial mental and literacy tests?”

The book can be found here at Archive.org, where it may be downloaded or read. I recommend it to all who have an interest in America’s racial heritage. I may not agree 100 percent with Burr’s opinions — he’s perhaps too ‘civic nationalist’ and inclusive for me, but nonetheless the book is a refreshing change, a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere laden with lies about these crucial issues.


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.


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.