At the Atlantic Centurion blog, there is a piece titled ‘Anglo-American Diversity’, which deals with the American identity, and civic nationalism vs. ethnonationalism.
The way in which, under the Cultural Marxist regime, artificial civic nationalism has taken the place of organic nationalism, with the original stock of this country being declared to be no people, with no culture, is outlined in the piece. Also we are given an ironic summary of how the post-American generations are taught American ”history.”
Even if you buy that White people are bad and diversity is good, there is still a powerful ignorance being espoused. Though the founding stock of this country was overwhelmingly British, within that context there was substantial cultural as well as ethnic heterogeneity that continues to have an impact on American culture and society. Ironically, we wuz diverse. And in a lot of ways, we frankly still are.”
I agree, as I’ve written before of what I referred to as simply ‘American diversity’, the diversity that was present even within the Anglo-American population. There was regional diversity, encompassing differing customs from one region to the next, and within that category, linguistic diversity, with a variety of dialects of English being spoken. There were differing customs depending on one’s religious background as well. And there was ethnic diversity of a certain degree existing even amongst colonial stock Americans. Think of the Cajuns; they are colonial-stock, having been in North America since at least the 1700s, though they first settled in what is now Nova Scotia. They came to Louisiana when it was still a French territory and became Americans by annexation. They kept a great deal of their culture, language, and customs and yet, unlike most ethnically distinct ‘Americans’, they are very much a part of our country and are loyal Americans who are not in conflict with others as with many immigrant groups.
The fact that the Cajuns blended into our society while keeping a distinct culture and heritage does not mean that we can expect other groups to fit as comfortably — yet today’s variety of ”diversity” seems to imply that the more exotic and “Other” a group, the more desirability for our country. Pre-1965 ‘diversity’ is not the same creature as post-1965 diversity. We are seeing the fruits of that now.
One problem I have with the piece is that it ends with a paean to David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.
I don’t know Fischer’s ancestry; his last name implies some German ancestry. But if his work is mostly about the seed of Albion, it does us a disservice, in my opinion, by further encouraging divisions among English or British-descended Americans. In following many discussions of that book online, I see it being used most often as a way for especially Southrons to distance themselves from possible English roots, and identify as ‘Scots-Irish’ or ‘Celtic’, while claiming the South for ‘Celts’, saying baldly that the South, especially anything worthwhile about it, is the product of Celts, not those effete, evil Englishmen. Every virtue of the Southron people — their love of life, their sense of humor, their family closeness, their love of music — is proof positive of their ‘Celtic’ origins, so they claim. I listened to a podcast in which a Southron academic said that it’s obvious that the Southrons are Celtic (Scots-Irish) because they are fun-loving, rollicking people, generous, bold. This is hardly a persuasive argument against their Anglo-Saxon roots. It’s also very odd in that the Scots are not known as being exuberant, outgoing people; the old image was the ‘dour Scotsman‘, and the ‘thrifty, frugal’ Scot.
I’ve met and known real-life Scots and Irish and English people, and each group has its good qualities. Neither the Scots nor the Irish have a monopoly on the positive qualities. And believe it or not, it’s the English who are widely known for their distinctive sense of humor. Think of the writings of Dickens, or Shakespeare. Think of all the British film comedies from Ealing studios. Or the TV ‘Britcoms‘ Americans have enjoyed, including Monty Python.
So it’s absurd to try to assign humor or good nature to Celts (Scots, Scots-Irish or otherwise) only. But this is an example of the result of taking David Hackett Fischer’s tome as gospel. That book has driven a wedge between the distinct varieties of Angl0-Americans. The “Puritans as ultimate villains” thesis also owes a lot to Fischer’s writings, though maybe readers are taking his ideas beyond his original intentions.
Dividing Anglo-Americans, or at least old-stock, British-descended Americans, serves somebody’s agenda — but not ours.
Nevertheless, a good piece at Atlantic Centurion, though I differ about Fischer.