Home » cultural Marxism » Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

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.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

  1. No more brothers wars……

    I love all my White brothers and sisters, regardless of their history and/or conflict. Never harm your kind!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Non-Whites don’t really have a culture. Their art and music are pathetic compared to ours. Except for some Far East Nations like Japan, China and Korea, the non-White world is a backwards dark age of superstition and magical thinking. Most “primitive art” is just magical totems and small idols for spiritual ceremonies calling the ghosts of their ancestors. This “diversity” garbage is pathetic. Western Civilization is White Supremacy. Anywhere Whites do not rule is usually a cesspool of filth and corruption except for those Far Eastern exceptions. Diversity just means “no White people”. Do not be fooled by the rancid lies. Our culture is THE CULTURE. Our Music IS MUSIC. We invented the tech and the forms. Everyone either uses it or copies it.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Lawrence Murry deserves to be commended for injecting the concept of Anglo-American history and identity into wider circulation via The Right Stuff.

    “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.”

    What you’ve said here is key and very important to understand. While I do agree the way Fisher lays the story of the origins of British colonial America out exaggerates the difference to some degree between the groups, how certain people have twisted them are certainly not in the spirit of Fischer’s ideas.

    The intention of Albion’s Seed was not to prove the Scotch-Irish are culturally Celtic. In fact if you read Albion’s Seed Fisher doesn’t even think the term Scotch-Irish or Scots-Irish is appropriate but prefers the designation of “Borderers” as in people shaped by the war torn areas on the border between the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Below are a few quotes directly taken from the chapter on the borderers in Albion’s Seed,

    “Many Scholars call these people ‘Scotch-Irish.’ That expression is an Americanism, rarely used in Britain and much resented by the people to whom it was attached. ‘We’re no Eerish bot Scoatch,’ Some preferred to be called Anglo-Irish, a label that was more commonly applied to them than Scotch-Irish during the eighteenth century. Others were called ‘Saxon-Scotch.’”

    “Two historians have characterized these people as ‘Celts.’ But this label is also very much mistaken as a rounded description of their ethnic origins.”

    “By the eighteenth century, the culture of this region bore little resemblance to the customs of the ancient Celts. The dominate language was English—unlike that of Gaelic-speaking Irish Catholic peasants, Scottish Highlanders, Welsh cottagers and Cornish miners. The borderers had comparatively little contact (much of it hostile) with these Celtic people. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was observed that “the Ulster settlers mingled freely with English Puritans and Huguenots,” but married very rarely with Gaelic-Speaking people of Ireland and Scotland.”

    The Jim Webb book Born Fighting is probably more off base.

    As far as the Celtic South stuff goes there has been a dent made in it particularly in the ethno-nationalist sphere. I’ve seen a few people revise and alter their views particularly after you can show them in period sources that the old south was not just a place filled with rampant Anglophobia as some have tried to characterize it.

    Below is a link to a Pro Cracker Culture book review that has an excellent response in the comment section.

    https://losingthecreek.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/book-review-cracker-culture-by-grady-mcwhiney/

    Liked by 1 person

    • I wrote the review that you posted (which is how I found this page). After reading much more on the subject, I’ve since come to fully agree that use of the word “Celtic” to describe the origins of Southern culture is inaccurate, and that it is a gross oversimplification to paint North vs South with an England vs Celts brush.

      It does seem safe to say that the particular ethnic mixture which comprises the South, historically and today, is more-or-less significantly different than other regions of the US, due to both the original stock and immigration patterns since. Accounting for those differences and how they might come into play will help everybody gain a clearer vision of how events in the US might shake out, with respect to both our rightist factions and the general population.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for your comments. It’s been years since I read Fischer’s book, so I defer to your more thorough knowledge of his views.
      It’s good to know that some of the misconceptions (that may have been based on distortions of Fischer’s ideas, not on his actual statements) are being countered somewhat.

      Like

  4. Yes you’re correct we think of the South today as more homogenous in terms of the background of its European descended population compared to other areas within the United States which I think is accurate. It was of course quite different even into the period of the early 19th century with old New England being a much more closed off and closer to a solely English descended society though not even completely even there. I’m sure the Puritanism and regional culture of East Anglia begin dominate made it different there than here in the South as Fischer points out.

    Also no criticism intended towards your blog. You are publishing and linking to good material.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s