Mderpelding has an interesting comment about how the South was NOT a nation, since it was multicultural and biracial.
It is good point, but it has a fatal flaw. Saying a nation is multicultural is like saying that America is “a nation of immigrants.” The fatal flaw is that ALL nations are nations of immigrants. All nations have multicultural ROOTS.
His second point is harder to dismiss so easily. Blacks were not considered PART of the Southern Nation, but the Southern Nation’s “way of life” depended on blacks. I am still mulling over that one.
While I am mulling that, there is a point here I want to address.
The point I made in “Defeatism is the ONLY Enemy was based on a discussion I had before of the book War Through the Ages. When I first wrote it, no one had any comment on it.
Another thing I have written about that got no relevant comments was the TRUE arithmetic of America’s population.
Forty years ago Eric Hoffer kept pointing out that the East Coast in America is simply Europeans living abroad.
Today, if there is a diffrerence between Blue State editorials and those in Paris, I haven’t seen it.
I have pointed out that the Puritans were AmericaEnglandBritain, where they lived in exclusive communities and set up the SAME isolated communities here.. The left’s first resident aliens. They never left
No one gets the point. “Nation” is related to the word “birth.” New England was born in a European religious community. It is now dominated by people who were born in European ETHNIC communities. The difference is that the latter contain a lot of people who want to be AMERICANS and not New Englanders.
There has always been a natural alliance between white “ethnics” and the South. Our common enemy has been the New England myth that they ARE America.
New EnglandAmerica, and that no one was here before the Mayflower, thinks it IS.
Red Staters do not see this. They keep trying to trace their attitudes back to the Old Testament, the way the Pilgrim father myth of New England taught them to do.
Which leads to another continuing theme here some people probably think is irrelevant. Red StateAmerica is doing exactly what the equally successful respectable right is doing. It is framing its entire self-image on the ENEMY’S terms.
Everything here interrelates. I do short pieces and hope YOU will tie them together FOR me. AmericanRedState is not Judeo-Christian; it is a matter of population, REAL population.
America was NOT founded by immigrants. As I KEEP pointing out, at the time of the American Revolution there was a higher proportion of NATIVE BORN white Americans than any time before or since.
This is not a useless statistics. This goes the basis of the word “nation.” The last, and smallest, wave of IMMIGRATION to America before 1776 ENDED over fifty years before..: When that last wave BEGAN, it was ALREADY true that most Americans descended from GRANDPARENTS who were BORN here.
As Adam Smith pointed out in the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the American population in his time and before was doubling NATURALLY ever twenty to twenty-five years. No country has been more contrary to the nation of immigrants myth than America, simply because of geometric progression.
Not Judeo-Christian Culture, GEOMETRIC PROGRESSION.
We were BORN here. That’s what the word “nacio” MEANS.
#1 by Dave on 07/17/2008 - 1:09 pm
The nation of Americanized whites brought in black slaves, a seminal fact for the future. Saudi Arabia, once a fairly homogenous group racially, is doing the same thing today all the Asians it is importing to do its butt labor.
These things have big time political consequences down the road. We can’t get lost in words.
European whites and American whites have taken the same road, their lands are no longer white. But all these white countries are trying to run a mono-racial policy at the same time they have made their societies multiracial.
This is a political time bomb. Mayor Guiliani kicks all the darkie street vendors off 125th Street so they can’t compete with the licensed franchises of NY City (a mono-racial policy) denying all these darkies (non-Americans) a means to a livelihood
The darkies can’t do the regulatory compliance required of a mono-racial policy. The simple reason for this is they are not white. This is why the public secondary schools have become a tragic joke. American high school is run on the mono-racial model of white credentialing and self-directed education. Doesn’t and can’t work for the darkies. They have to be taught by rote under a taskmaster with a stick.
Get it? Get how really and truly crazy the respectables and liberals are? They make no sense. They don’t access logic.
For white people to have a multiracial society the only way is to go is with Mother Nature and let the caste system based upon gradations of skin color grow freely. This is what the Old South really was and it is what Mother Nature demands in order to sort out the inevitable conflict within multi-racial society.
But the respectables and liberals are millenialists. They do not possess logic because their ideas stem from religious conviction about a future utopia.
No wonder the society they create is a god-awful mess. Can’t be any other way. They don’t know how to be consistent.
#2 by AFKANNow on 07/18/2008 - 2:40 am
Bob had a question in his reply, and I’d like to take a shot at addressing it.
Bob wrote:
in reply:
I suspect “the Southern Nation’s ‘way of life'” was based on a feudal social order, and a feudal economic system.
The average White Man in the South actually outnumbered the slaves, and had it worse than the slaves. After all, they had no “right” to protection, as the feudal Lords OWED those who were in fealty to them.
So, the Southern Nation – essentially, the transplanted Elite of London, many of whom journeyed to London annually – remained a feudal social order, and those who favored the War of the Northern Aggression looked at the black slaves as luxuries that were in the way of their imposition of an Industrial Age sensibility on a feudal, agrarian social order.
Ironically, Lincoln’s (Prussian!) policies – redemption of the slaves with money from the sale of Western lands, and their shipment back to Africa – would have worked in the South’s interests far more than Calhoun could ever have imagined.
#3 by Prometheus on 07/18/2008 - 4:12 am
If you have to tell people what their nation consists of, that that said nation doesn’t exist.
Whether the south had blacks or not is about as relevant as whether Australia had aboriginals or not.
There is an unwritten and unstated but assumed rule that says that “Australian” means Anglo-Celtic or similarily ‘assimilated’ white European. As for the aboriginals, well, they’ve always been there and been part of the lanscape, both literally and metaphorically. It is the anti-whites who write tomes to try and ‘prove’ otherwise, to prove that the nation is multiracial and one of immigrants.
Nations are BORN through natural progression and it is this natural progression which defines it.
Artificial multiracial states are carefully handcrafted and legislated, like Angeline Jolies family. All families have people who immigrated into it, so why is hers so artificial and contrived?
#4 by Pain on 07/18/2008 - 4:53 pm
Here is how I connect the dots:
If, as you say, New Englanders never naturalized, but remained EnglandBritainEurope, then they were self-consciously foreign. So even if their specific ethnicity changes from Puritan to Papist, the essential self-conscious foreignness remains. Don’t New England Papists feel as if they are foreigners in a foreign land just as the Puritans did?
Thus the key difference between “Red State” and “Blue State” is that the “Red” is native and the “Blue” is self-consciously foreign.
There is one more stage to this. That is the Yankee lust for conquest. New England has become Yankeedom and their colonists have taken over places all over the country, from Charlotte to California to Columbia. The ‘dom’ represents the sphere of Control and the consequential doom.
So Yankeedom seeks to propagate itself by introducing foreignness wherever it hangs its hat, multiculturalism here, 100 million Mexicans there.
The question I have is how much of the ethic of foreignness was native to New England and how much came from their marriage with Jewry, which has the identical ethnic ethic.
#5 by mderpelding on 07/18/2008 - 6:15 pm
The flaw here is in viewing peoples of the Antebellum South or the Pre-industrial north through a modern lens.
To whit…
A citizen of Maine was a citizen of Maine, not of the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. before the civil war was not composed of citizens, it was composed of states.
There were no U.S. citizens.
Now read section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Note the change in the definition of what constitutes citizenship.
Now, for your objection, and I quote…
“It is good point, but it has a fatal flaw. Saying a nation is multicultural is like saying that America is “a nation of immigrants.” The fatal flaw is that ALL nations are nations of immigrants. All nations have multicultural ROOTS.
I think that I said that a multiculture can’t be a nation.
Note the first sentence…
” Mderpelding has an interesting comment about how the South was NOT a nation, since it was multicultural and biracial.”
My point here is that there is no such thing as a multicultural nation.
A nation, by definition, must be homogenous.
By all objective criteria.
Of course, I am speaking from a political point of view.
The old South may have been homogenous because slaves had no political power.
So we could say that The South was a nation.
But really, there was no “The South”, there was only a confederacy of certain states.
Until the fourteenth amendment.
There were no U.S. citizens until after the civil war.