PDA

View Full Version : American "Whites": The Future of Ethnic Identity



SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008, 08:21 AM
Article reprinted from an email list:

The 2-basic strategies concept--although I would prefer less cryptic labels for them; perhaps the ethnic state (or ethno-state) strategy and the diaspora strategy. And I agree that the latter is the only feasible strategy for the USA and other New World countries. In the case of European nations (in Europe), I think it is still debatable. There, the theoretical possibility of reviving ethnic nationalism still remains, but there is lots of entrenched opposition that cannot be soon overcome, and in some countries immigration threatens to put the indigenous nation in the same position that Euro-derived peoples in the New World find themselves.

Above all, in order to become or maintain a cohesive ethnic group, you first need an ethnic group, and that requires an ethnic identity, and ethnic identity requires things like a distinctive language (even if it is not widely spoken--Irish is still an important component of Irish identity, as Hebrew was for Jewish identity even before the founding of modern Israel), a traditional homeland where one's ethny is or historically was the majority or at least indigenous population, a common religion shared by most members of the ethny, a distictive history and ethnic heroes, and other symbolic markers of identity. (Google: "anthony * smith" nationalism "symbolism OR symbols") US Whites as a whole do not share many of these markers anymore. 200 years ago, they did, but not today.

English is the "American" language, not the "White" language. English has become de-ethnicized as an identity marker. And most Whites have not adopted English or Anglicized surnames, which is one indicator of assimilation to a common ethnic identity.

White Americans derive from many homelands.

Off the top of my head, I estimate that Protestantism, if it can be considered a common religion in spite of its dozens of sects, barely represents a majority of Whites.

Ellis Island immigrants, of whom there are many, only share a common history going back a hundred years, more or less. "Old Americans" share a common history with each other (but not with the Ellis Island emigres) going back up to four centuries (although not all of that history is conducive to a sense of shared identity), and potentially longer if one considers that most of them are of predominantly British stock.

What we have in America is a condition of partial and interrupted ethnic formation. People, mostly White, came here from many lands. Africans, East Asians, and American Indians were all clearly regarded as outsiders vis a vis Whites even when they were full citizens before the law. At first, most Whites were British, and especially English, and the formation of "American" national identity was mainly a matter of getting people not to think of themselves as Brits anymore. Then came vast numbers of Irish and continentals. Their arrival entailed the harder task of assimilating them to a common "American" identity which was clearly a WASP cultural identity which the newcomers perceived as alien and to which some, such as the Irish, were hostile. Even with the help of the immigration cut-off of 1925 and the hyper-patriotism of two world wars and the early Cold War, this assimilation was partial--people learned English; began, reluctantly in the case of RC's, to attend public schools; ethnic neighborhoods slowly began to dissolve; different ethnies began to intermarry (evidenced by the rapid reduction in non-brown eye colors); people became loyal to their new "national" symbols--the US flag, patriotic "hymns," the Pledge of Allegiance (the national creed), and some lesser symbols.

Assimilation was vastly aided by being immigrants. Indigenous or "homeland" peoples are very resistant to assimilation; newcomers to someone else's homeland are normally much less resistant, whether for psychological or institutional reasons. (Some immigrant communities were more resistant than others to assimilation, most notably Jews and Germans, which suggests that institutional and not just psychological factors play a big role, although evolutionary psychologists argue that innate psychological factors also play a role, since possession of a territory has always been an important factor in both human and non-human survival.)

OTOH, they usually did not de-ethnicize their surnames or change their religion or entirely forget their country of origin or lose all of their affection for it and for their ethny.

Conversely, the Old Americans did not remain unchanged either but made some identity-related adaptations under the influence of the newcomers, just as both Old and New Americans (few of whom remember this particular distinction anymore) are now making identity-related adaptations to the full acceptance of Blacks, "Hispanics," Asians and others as full or "real" Americans just like themselves.

American "Whites" who resist making this last mentioned adaptation have often modeled their resistance on the pattern of US Blacks, but US Blacks have a very different history. After the slave trade ban took effect in 1820, new Black arrivals decreased, and almost ceased entirely after 1865, the reverse of the White pattern of immigration. Blacks don't even remember what languages their ancestors spoke. They all learned English and all adopted English surnames. They all became Protestants, usually Baptist or Methdist. They intermarried freely and no longer remembered what part of Africa was their ethnic homeland, not that it would matter after several generations of pan-mictic breeding and the adoption of English surnames. So US Blacks really are an ethnic group within the Black race, just as the Yoruba, Zulu, Masai, etc., are in Africa, whereas Whites are a collection of partially assimilated ethnic groups.

For US Whites, the process of "volk formation" was much slower for various reasons, and, well before it was completed, it was interrupted both by new waves of immigration and a powerful effort to redefine "American" (which was originally intended to be the new ethnic identity of US Whites) as an identity that existed independently of ethnic, religious, racial, or other identities. For US Whites, the original ethnic identites have been badly weakened, yet not extinguished, but the new "American" ethnic identity that was to supplant the old ethnic identities had ceased to be an identity that distinguished White from non-White Americans. So most US Whites, unlike US Blacks, lack a strong ethnic identity, either old or new; yet the weak forms or memories of old ethnic identity are still strong enough to prevent "White" from functioning as an ethnic identity for most Whites in the US.

Even for the few people whom it does motivate in ways similar to an ethnic identity, I would wager that there is a strong unconconscious association of "White" was various ethnic cultural markers. Put the pro-Whites in a context where multiple White cultures coexist in proximity--think of Europe, or more so the Balkans, where states have often been patchwork quilts of ethnicities- -then I think this whole idea of White cohesion displacing ethnic cohesion would vanish like a mirage. It would then become crystal clear what real ethnic cohesion is like and why only a common culture--not just a common race--can provide it. Americans can cling to this mirage only because our own ethnic identities have become so weak.

Either White anti-amalgamationis ts can keep trying to turn White into an ethnic identity analogous to the Black identity, are they can try to revive the old European ethnic identities before it becomes too late to do so. Either effort is very difficult, either effort is guaranteed to appeal to only a small minority of US Whites, most of whom will remain permanent mental captives to the influence of the mass media and mainstream education (both lower and higher).

However, the latter effort has three advantages over the former:

1. There is a much greater richness of ethno-national symbols available for the various European ethnic groups than there is for a generic "White" identity. "White" has almost no distinctive cultural symbols common to all Whites.

And for the same reason, solidarity (cohesion) has the potential to be much greater for ethnic communities than for a multi-cultural "White" community.

2. In recruiting, ethnic identity does not face the wall of stigma that confronts those who would recruit for a White "national" (ethnic) identity.

This also applies to political influence--politici ans are far more willing to do something for the interests of an ethnic community than for a "tainted" WN group, whom they often are afraid even to accept donations from (and if you can't donate, you can't influence).

3. Because of the two reasons above, the total number of Whites who could be recruited to cohesive but distinct revived ethnic communities is greater, probably by far, than the total number that could be recruited to a single "White" community. The potential market share is simply greater.

In contrast to the above three advantages for ethnic vs. White identity, if the current US context leaves diaspora as the only viable strategy left to us (Rich's "priestly" strategy), then the White strategy--whether a multi-cultural White strategy or an effort to replace all White ethnic identities completely with a new, all-encompassing "White" identity--offers not one single advantage over ethnic community revival. I repeat: a strategy of White unity offers no potential advantage over traditional ethnic identities in a diaspora context.

Especially if we are looking at Jews rather than US Blacks as a model, it is very clear that Jews did not survive and often prosper by pursuing a pan-Semitic identity, but by pursuing a narrowly Jewish identity. Indeed, Jews not only remained separate from other Semites, but even sub-divided into Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities, which were not always on good terms with one another.

And that is the choice that confronts White Americans: do we pursue a Jewish model, or an African-American model? Especially since the "Civil RIghts" Movement of the 1960's, self-described "White Nationalists" have opted for the AA model. (So-called "Black Nationalism, " which--along with later influences from the 1960's Civil Rights and "Black Power/Black Pride" movements--provided the model for its WN counterpart, originated in the 1920's among the disciples of Marcus Garvey.) KMAC describes in detail an alternative model--the Jewish model that the Jews have been incrementally improving since ancient times. For our circumstances, I believe the Jewish model is the workable one, and the AA model is not. Indeed, after four decades of effort, not only has the AA model been an abysmal failure for WNs, the beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of Whites as expressed in some very high quality opinion surveys, have gone in the reverse direction from both WN preferences and from empirical reality and scientific findings. I don't see how any model could fail more abjectly, yet most anti-amalgamationis t Whites continue to consider it the only game in town.

Think of the "Little Europe" experiment that was launched a few years back. I haven't heard much of it in quite a while, which suggests it was something less than a raving success. Yet I think it was a very good idea in principle, but it had three major flaws. First, it should have been Little Ireland, England, Germany, Italy, Russia, Greece, Scotland, Poland or whatever--not Little "Europe." Secondly, it should have been coupled with language revival, the way the Jews did in Israel. Third, it should have provided for the intersection of ethnicity and religion. For example, instead of one Little Germany, there should have been at least two German communities- -a Lutheran LG, and an RC LG.

KMAC details in CoC how Jews have effectively used intellectual movements to further their agenda, usually by undermining the cohesion of the dominant ethny. I think we should learn from them, and the intellectual movement that needs to be created and promoted at this time is ethnic revival. We need to launch periodicals, speaking engagements, press releases, interviews over radio and television, newspaper articles, fund chairs of English, German, Greek, etc., studies in universities, ethnic lobbies, ethnic schools, etc. WN can't get this kind of publicity from the MSM, but ethnic revival can. (The feeble ethnic revival of the seventies got mainstream publicity in spite of ultra-libs complaining that it was "empowering White racism," etc. The problem is that that ethnic revival was largely spontaneous. Jewish intellectual movements always involve a lot of planning, organization, and work, and so should the advocacy of ethnic revival.)

Although we cannot publicize it in mainstream media, I recommend as a corrolary to ethnic revival, "depatriotization. " People should stop exposing their children (and themselves) to milieus where they will be exposed to patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance, 4th of July celebrations, and other patriotic ceremonies of the US. Ethnic symbols should be substituted for these imperial symbols. They should raise their children to understand that ethnic loyalty *is* patriotism. The ethnic state commands loyalty; the theocratic state may command loyalty too; but the imperial state receives, at most, mere obedience. This is normal and natural, and the next generation should be raised to understand it consciously and explicitly.

Ethnic diaspora is a strategy that works with the Zeitgeist of "diversity," "tolerance," and "postmodernism" rather than against it. We can't bring back the 1920's. One must think in terms of community survival in an environment of competing communities (both European and non-European) , not of "taking back America." Many European nations might still have time to pursue an ethno-state strategy. We do not. Time for Americans (and Canadians) has run out. If the Europeans ultimately fail as we have, it would be good for them if we have already provided a model of a workable diaspora strategy. At the very least, I hope they will realize that the Black Nationalism model so widely imitated by Euro-Americans is not the way to go.