Marriage and Race
September 20, 2009
IN THE previous entry on Jon and Kate Gosselin, commenter Karen argued that race was a likely factor in the dissolution of their marriage. Kate is white and Jon is half-Asian.
Mark, who began the discussion on the popular TV show, disagrees:
I wonder if Karen has actually watched the show, or at least some of the earlier episodes on YouTube? I agree that it’s not the best use of one’s time, but given the sweeping generalizations in her comment, maybe a closer look wouldn’t hurt – if only to help her understand that in the modern world, the race element may not be as material as she thinks it is. I grant her point that in many cases it is, and I’m usually far from enthused about interracial dating and marriage, but one has to make distinctions.
In this case, Jon is not a pure “Other” to Kate – he is, as Laura notes, half-Korean, half-white. But culturally-speaking he’s as American as any blonde-haired surfer dude. Just listen to the way he talks, how he carries himself. I see the inversion of gender roles in their marriage as far more relevant to their breakup than any racial differences. I don’t share Karen’s view of the “higher moral and spiritual purpose of marriage [as] preserving racial, cultural and religious tradition.” While certainly important in themselves, race and culture do not line up with morality and spirituality. And as for religion tradition, Jon & Kate professed to be “Christians,” albeit of the popular American variety. They had enough to work with to save their marriage.
Laura writes:
Mark states, “I grant her point that in many cases it is, and I’m usually far from enthused about interracial dating and marriage, but one has to make distinctions.” Yes, Kate and Jon both seem thoroughly Americanized.
I’m just curious. You say you are uncomfortable with interracial dating and marriage. If race and culture are not related to morality and spirituality, what makes you uncomfortable about interracial relationships? Is it just a visceral thing?
Partly a visceral thing, yes, but also rational. Prior to marriage, people should consider many variables to ensure compatibility — including race and culture, but other things as well. For instance, I’d be wary of a marriage where there’s a major cognitive gap (I mean to the point where it’s uncomfortably noticeable). Or if there’s a gap in social class that is unbridgeable, that would cause me to wince. Or if there’s a religious incompatibility, where you have an atheist and a committed Christian — that would be an “unequal yoke,” to quote Scripture.
It’s not that marital love can never flourish amid these kinds of differences, but that these differences (including racial) will likely contribute to aggravating ordinary marital tension when it comes. I just didn’t perceive that kind of difference between Jon & Kate. But again, that’s making distinctions.
I’m always skeptical about black/white marriage because I understand from observation that the gaps are likely to be so huge as to be nearly insurmountable. Even where there is not a significant IQ gap between the two, there may well be a psycho-social chasm in the way each perceives the world, where the white is universalist in outlook while the black is almost invariably into black identity. Add to this the fact that both sets of relatives will always look suspiciously on the other person, and you’re building the whole thing on a mountain of potential tension.
With such marriages, I could get past the visceral thing, but until proven wrong I would be wary of incompatibility* in a way that I wouldn’t if we were talking about a North Asian and a European, or a Jew and an Italian. I myself am Jewish, married to an Irish girl … mind you, we’re both evangelical Christians (go figure).
*When I say compatibility, though, I’m not using the language of morality or spirituality. Moses married an Ethiopian, and while there’s no record of God condoning it, he certainly didn’t condemn it … whereas he did condemn those who spoke out against it harshly.
To sum up: interracial marriage can lead to very real problems, but it’s not wrong morally or spiritually, as Karen implied.
Melissa writes:
If the Karen believes that the cultural attachments and practices of individuals may make for conflict in marriage, then I agree. But this does not preclude marriage. America is known, on the North American continent at least, as the “Great American Melting Pot” because of the frequency of intercultural and interracial marriages. It is not uncommon here although I grant it may be less common in certain places, certain times, and among certain groups. Not having left this continent, I cannot speak about marriages in other places.
If the question is not one of cultural practice but rather of race particularly, then I heartily disagree. I will not now or ever concede the existence of a race-soul, the peculiarities of which might then preclude the proper unification of souls. God created man in his own image, body and soul, indicating some level of unity among all men in body and soul. Race is irrelevant while cultural conditions and religion are not.
It is a slippery slope to slide down from an “us-them” distinction to immigrant bashing and racial prejudice. I am half Mexican and half American-Indian and married to a Finnish-American. I am keenly aware of the popular prejudices against Mexicans by Americans who know and understand little about Mexico and her people and history. My husband’s family is Sami (an indigenous people spread across the arctic regions of Sweden, Norway and Finland) and has experienced similar pain as a member of an ethnic sub-group. I am quick to anger generally and more so on this issue particularly. Because this is such a critical issue to me, I want to be especially clear about what everyone means and from where their argument is coming.
Laura writes:
There is no race soul. As long as there are human beings of different races, individuals will experience strong sexual and spiritual attractions to members of other races. There will always be interracial coupling and it would be unnatural if there were not. I agree with Mark that these attractions are not morally wrong. Much happiness has come from many of the marriages that have resulted from these attractions.
However, race is more than just a few physical qualities. Race creates culture and wherever there are different races there are different cultural ways. Moreover, culture itself is the embodiment of morality and spirituality. So interracial marriage can mean the meeting of profoundly different world views and traditions. Sometimes these differences are overcome harmoniously, typically by one partner subsuming his identity within that of the other, and at other times, they create a struggle to come together under one cultural identity.
Large numbers of interracial marriages means the dilution or transformation of culture over time. I do not think Karen was speaking of racial superiority, but the continuation of cultural traditions. Every culture and every race is entitled, indeed duty bound, to honor its ancestral past and to seek to preserve it in new generations. Sensitivity to these differences does not require any effort to eradicate the traditions of others. Ideally, it does not involve hostility toward other ways, but love of one’s own.
Karen writes in response to Mark:
Jon is of mixed race but his appearance is Asian. An American surfer dude is purely Caucasian and has no doubt in his mind about his racial identity. Imitating a culture can never make one a part of that culture. Mark could go to China/Saudi Arabia/Germany and learn the language perhaps better than many of the natives. He could imitate their style of dress and mannerisms but he could never be Chinese/Saudi/German because he does not share the genes and ancestry of the people. Racial identity is a core part of personal identity. In mixed race people, that personal identity becomes confused and they usually have to reach a decision to accept one race and reject the other part of their racial heritage. They usually identify with the race they physically resemble most. In interracial marriages the Asian/ African genes are usually dominant and the children are more Asian /African in appearance than Caucasian which is why mixed race marriages are a particular disaster for Caucasians.
Race and culture are very closely affiliated. It is impossible for Asians to preserve Western civilisation. In traditional society marriage has a transcendent purpose. The family is the preserver and transmitter to future generations of the values, culture, traditions, religion and attitudes of a civilisation. Civilisation is preserved by families and not by museums. Interracial marriage disrupts that link between past and future. Aliens may be good people but they are not Western people.
God created different races for different purposes. If not, he would have made all humans the same. Interracial breeding is not Christian. It destroys the created order. The Christianity of Jon and Kate is the superficial feel good one which seeks to offend no one.
Melissa writes:
While I can appreciate a love of one’s cultural and the deep desire to preserve it, I still also view interracial marriage as the progression and development of human culture. Just as there was once a deep rift between the Saxons and Normans in England, there are now just the broader English people. The Anglo-Saxon culture and people arrived from an intermingling of the Angles and the Saxons. The language, culture, and people of the region were enriched by these marriages and the world benefits today. Where would we be today without Shakespeare?
Laura writes:
The Angles and the Saxons were not of different races.
I know many Asian/white couples. They are my friends and neighbors. Their children tend to appear, as Karen mentioned, distinctively Asian. In fact when the Caucasian parent walks with his half-Asian child, it is often assumed the child is adopted, so strong is the difference in their appearance. As a result of having the physical characteristics of one race, these children often feel a strong sense of identification with the culture of whatever Asian country their parents come from, whether it’s India or Korea or China. This is natural and normal for them to do. These marriages may be happy and fruitful, better than other marriages in some ways, but they dilute the next generation’s connection to Western culture. Of course these children also feel attached to the West, which is the origin of one of their parents and which is where they have their home. But it is a more ambivalent connection. When interracial marriage becomes common, culture is not necessarily enriched. It can be lost.
Let me ask you this. Let’s say there was a small island inhabited by racially distinct people. Let’s say this island was discovered by a foreign people and suddenly the natives began to marry in large numbers with the new arrivals, who were racially distinct and whose genetic characteristics tended to dominate. The people rapidly begin to change in appearance. Do you think the island would remain culturally the same? Perhaps the island culture would become better in some ways, but would the original natives consider it better if essentially their former culture was gone? Interracial marriage can change a culture dramatically. The question is how much interracial marriage makes a difference and whether it tends to necessarily grow when it is not discouraged by prevailing attitudes.
Karen writes:
This explains the moral and spiritual purpose of marriage better than I can. It’s quite long but thorough and maybe it’s the first time some will hear this. I hope it will help others understand what I meant and what our own Judeo-Christian tradition tells us.
Ella Montgomery writes:
This is probably the first time I have ever written an strong criticism to a blog website. I was absolutely shocked about how underhandedly Karen Wilson from England wrote about her thoughts on race, culture, and spirituality and how that pertains to the current events surrounding the break up of Kate and Jon Gosselin’s marriage. Normally, I would simply sigh and go on to other things after reading someones delusional opinion, but in this instance, the level of sanctimonious air, and flippant judgment made solely based on a person’s racial identity, and in such a condescending manner, made me pause to gather my thoughts and respond to this British yokel about how backwards her views are towards this civilization of mixed races, particularly in this case Americans, and as Martin Luther King so aptly put it, “Judge a man by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin.”
All I can say is wow! So who deigned her to be the Pope to state as she puts it – interracial breeding is not Christian? Does not one hear some very powerful Hitleresque type of argument there? What pray tell did God make different races for if she thinks only the western European Caucasian race is able to preserve the culture of Christianity? She seems to say the other races were not meant to be Christian, (“Aliens may be good people but they are not Western people”) because that would destroy “the created order”? I am so insulted by her comments that spell such a lack of knowledge regarding her own Western history and civilization. We could begin with the history of interacial mixing throughout the continent of Europe by the hordes of Vikings, Romans, and other pagan and barbaric tribes, as well as Moorish intermarriages among the Spaniards, and even on up through the Anglo Saxons and Celts (heard of the Black Irish?) And as for the formation of the values of Western culture I would argue that some of the foremost thinkers and shapers of Western culture and civilization were from the Jewish race (shall I have to name them to someone who thinks in such Aryan terms?) Does she believe that Christianity began in Europe then?
And her diminishing of Jon Gosselin as an American because his looks favor his mother’s Korean ancestry, and further points out to Mark’s post concerning how Jon speaks and acts completely Americanised like a surfer dude: “An American surfer dude would be Caucasian and would have no doubt in his mind about his racial identity” – whoa! Has she ever seen American surfer dudes before? Heard of Hawaii? Are they not Americans? Wow! I am stunned by her judgements of mixed races and Americans in general. For Karen’s information: most of the poplulation of the United States has a mixed bag of heritage within their family trees, as most of the people who live in the United States came as immigrants from all over the world!!! We are by and large not Native Americans!!!! She really needs to get past her pure race worldview and see the many ways God has worked throughout the whole world to spread the message of Christ’s Gospel for the sins of ALL humanity, and that His gospel is to be preached throughout the WHOLE world, not be excluded from other races she considers to not be mixed with. What happened between Jon and Kate were from issues stemming from selfishness, and a lack of love and understanding of each other’s faults, this I believe can happen to any couple, and is certainly is not because Jon happens to be only half Caucasian, and thinks differently than his full Caucasian wife. It’s called shortcomings and sins, and I do believe Caucasians are considered sinners in God’s book, the last time I checked.
Albeit, different cultural values and traditions may dominate in different households, for Karen’s swath of placing all of the blame attributed to the breakdown of marriages and cultures solely because of the intermixing of different races, says pretty clearly she sees this causing a mongrelization of Western civilization, at least that is how I pretty much read her shallow explanation. I would strongly suggest Karen first do some introspection about her own country’s problems, (50% and over out of wedlock births, high abortion rates, decreased marriages) among the British natives by the way, lets take a look first at the straw in our own eye ….
Aside from this particular comment that caused me to rant completely out of my usual character, I would like to say everything else on your blog I find mostly intelligent and well written and I look forward to reading your material often.
Laura writes:
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your discussing this difficult issue.
This was originally a discussion about Jon and Kate. Truthfully, I am unwilling to speculate as to whether Jon’s heritage caused any identity problem for him. It’s impossible to know. This has become instead a general discussion on interracial marriage.
I would like to point out a few things in response to the comments above. First, it is not evil to feel a sense of protectiveness toward one’s own culture and one’s own race anymore than it is evil to feel protective toward one’s own children. When I seek to protect my children from harm, that does not mean I seek to harm the children of others.
It is unfair to call Karen Hitleresque. She has expressed the common view of almost all of our ancestors. They believed it was okay to feel protective toward their culture and toward their race. Were some of them racist? Yes. But, for most I would say hatred of other races did not fuel their attitude toward interracial marriage so much as love of their own.
Again, individuals of different races will always feel strong sexual and spiritual attractions toward each other. This is normal. Nothing will ever stop these attractions from arising and they are not evil. The question is how society at large views interracial marriage in terms of the sustenance of culture and the welfare of the next generation.
The interracial couples I know have been among the most loving parents I have known. It would be an absurdity to say that they as individuals do not have the best interests of their children at stake. They do. The question for me is not whether they are good and decent people. They are. The question is whether society should encourage others to follow suit.
Karen responds:
Just some comments on Ella’s entry:
“We could begin with the history of interacial mixing throughout the continent of Europe by the hordes of Vikings, Romans, and other pagan and barbaric tribes, as well as Moorish intermarriages among the Spaniards, and even on up through the Anglo Saxons and Celts (heard of the Black Irish?)
There was no interracial mixing in Europe as all the native races are Caucasians. Anglo Saxons and Celts and Germans are different tribes of the same race. The Moors were the first alien race and they settled in Spain, principally the southern state of Andalusia. They changed the culture of Southern Spain which remains different from the rest of Europe to this day. Some consider that Spain is not really European with its bull fighting, flamenco (like Arabic music) and Moorish architecture. There is a distinct difference between Andalucía and the rest of Spain and some Spanish people refuse to go there, considering it an alien place which is not really part of their country. Thus alien immigration leaves permanent changes, good or bad.
Does she believe that Christianity began in Europe then?
No. Christianity arose from the Jewish Middle East. However no other civilisation except Western civilisation has made Christianity the basis of its culture. Western civilisation is the product of its Judeo Christian inheritance and Greek philosophy. Christianity is for all peoples of the world but no other civilisation is founded on Christianity. Asian civilisations are based on Buddhism/Confucianism and Hinduism. African culture is based largely upon animism, Arab culture on Islam. Some peoples in Asia, the Middle East and Africa have become Christians but they are Christians living in non-Christian cultures and many of them are living under persecution. India has many Christians of different denominations, but it is not a Christian country. It is a Hindu country and Christians living there have to balance their religious beliefs with the dominant Hindu culture which often creates a conflict. Korea has a large number of Christians but it is not a Christian country. Nigeria has the largest and most Orthodox Anglican community in the world but it is not a Christian country and the Christians suffer daily and unremitting harassment and persecution by the Muslims.
For Karen’s information: most of the poplulation of the United States has a mixed bag of heritage within their family trees, as most of the people who live in the United States came as immigrants from all over the world!!! We are by and large not Native Americans!!!!
The founders of the USA were Scots and English settlers who established the USA as a European Protestant state on similar lines to Britain. Hence the true American is the WASP. Other European peoples were allowed to immigrate to the USA but until 1965 these were largely Caucasians and Jews who shared the same cultural and religious heritage. After 1965, ethnically and religiously diverse peoples were allowed to immigrate to the USA creating a “melting pot.” Non-Caucasians can be very good Christians and the Gospel is indeed meant for them but they cannot preserve Western civilization as they come from an entirely different civilisational heritage.
A melting pot implies the dissolution of bonds and characteristics and the transformation from one state to another. This is what is happening to the Western world now. But a country cannot remain a melting pot as this is an unstable state. It will be a melting pot until a well organised ethnic group with a strong identity seeks to take control. At the moment the Chinese are financing the USA and buying a large amount of its assets. An eminent Russian predicts the breakup of the USA.
…. attributed to the breakdown of marriages and cultures solely because of the intermixing of different races, says pretty clearly she sees this causing a mongrelization of Western civilization, at least that is how I pretty much read her shallow explanation
No civilisation has ever survived racial mixing. A people who want to survive and not disappear, as most of the tribes of the Near East in the ancient word have done, must remain ethnically distinct.
…. different cultural values and traditions may dominate in different households
If this occurs, it means the end of a civilization. If you think this is correct, then you are supporting multiculturalism and thus the destruction of Western civilization.
Ella writes:
I truly appreciate both yours and Karen’s comments. I had to really think this over, but it has been an interesting process to come to personal conclusions on this matter and go through the exercise to write in response. I am glad we could have an honest forum for this discussion. Here are my final thoughts to you and Karen.
Laura said:
The interracial couples I know have been among the most loving of parents. It would be an absurdity to say that they as individuals do not have the best interests of their children at stake. They do. The question for me is not whether they are good and decent people. They are. The question is whether society should encourage others to follow suit.
Does that mean if a couple of mixed race falls in love and decides to marry, society should either strongly be for or against that marriage because of it being a racial matter? [Laura writes: It is very likely some members of minority ethnic groups will disapprove of it and resent it if society at large is not disapproving. See my remarks in “Marriage and Race, Cont.” about black women and Asian men feeling left out of the marriage game. Disapproval is not the same thing as hostility or violence. No one wants to see a revival of criminal acts of violence against interacial couples. That is, and always has been, wrong.] I realize that the family members involved may have their opinion, as you say this is something that was strongly discouraged in the past by our ancestors, and of which I do agree that the phenomenon of more interracial marriages have been occurring in current times to a greater extant than before mostly due to the progress of modern transportation. Communities were more homogeneous when people did not cross the oceans as often as we do nowadays. So I could say it is a natural result from airplane travel, we can have that to blame or to thank and to contend over.
As for Karen’s remarks, I agree overall the ancient European tribes were White, I won’t quibble over technicalities, as I think I have read there were migratory populations throughout a larger area which encompasses the definition of Caucasions to include IndoEuropeans which include Asian Indians, and regions of North Africa, and of course, the Jewish people were a race originating from the Middle East. But I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough to split hairs. Let’s just say Europe’s primitive tribes were mainly white people, so skin color is the same, but the cultures and religions were still extremely diverse up until the Roman conquest which did cause an enormous and permanent change for these tribes, and the outcome? That too probably could be argued to death, although I do think the Romans contributed great technological improvements to barbaric living conditions for most of the people they conquered. Also, the Romans in turn were the ones who we can blame or thank for Europe becoming a Judeo-Christian culture when they enforced the religious conversion of their empire from polythiestic paganism to Christianity. Was this good or bad? I would think it has brought about tremendous improvements as well ideologically for raising the status of women, the poor, the crippled and children, spurring centers for debate which became universities, enabling the Bible to be recorded, compiled, and later printed for public consumption, encouraging charity and so forth.
I beg to differ concerning South Korea not being considered to be a Christian country. Again, I think you are making Christian mean white, which is where I am having a real problem with your argument. If a country is by majority Christian, in which case South Korea is, I would call it a Christian country. Their culture previously may have been based on Confuscism/Buddhism philosophy but now it is very much based on the Judeo-Christian religious ideology. Perhaps the actual difference you hold is that Western civilization has a greater direct influence from Greek philosophy, but that is also changing among Koreansand other Asians, most of the younger people in Asian countries are adopting Western education and culture in dramatic ways. The challenge here is stereotyping, Christian does not mean ethnic race. You can be White and not be Christian. Afganistan, and other central Asian countries have populations of White people probably from the interbreeding from Alexander’s Greek army, but they are not Christians.
I do not dismiss your concerns for the dissolution of Western Civilization, I am also extremely concerned as I follow current world events.
The melting pot analogy has been proven to be wrong for quite a while, immigrants to America may start out distinctive in their original culture, but by the first and second generation afterwards, the trend usually shows an Americanization including loss of fluency in the parent’s language. I have seen this time and again, the children who are raised here completely identify themselves as American and do not relate to their parents’ country as theirs. I would add though, that what is happening currently that is different for western countries for the first time, is that demographics and governmental policies are enabling cultures to undermine the Christian/Western traditional culture by giving immigrants special status, and financial support lobbied by special interest groups who are very aggressive with their agenda, and the silencing of concerned citizens who represent the Judeo-Christian majority who want to protect their culture. It is obvious that current trends show England, and most of western Eurpope is currently so low in their birthrate, that the immigrants particularly from the Muslim countries will be overtaking the majority within the next 25-50 years. Western countries with policies that provide welfare benefits to enable the foreigners to come and settle without any restrictions are causing a slow suicide of their own civilization. This is also a very real problem here in the United States. I am very puzzled by how something like this could happen, but I know it is not a racial issue, there are concerned citizens of all races that know what is at stake. The fault lies squarely on Western society’s own degradation in the breakdown of their morals and family values and the kind of government policies which have been anti Christian and cowering towards immigrants who have figured out the game and are rapidly gaining political power.
My question to Karen, is what will happpen to Britain’s culture now that there are numerous sharia law courts throughout England dispensing sharia law for family/civic disputes rather than British law. What will happen to the British people as they see more and more laws passed to protect the whims of Islamic intolerance and muzzling of traditional Christian rights, and what will happen when the once majority Anglo Saxon race of Great Britain has become the minority, subject to dhimmitude, and inferior status.
I think overall you and I can agree concerning the peril this world is in, and I do include other cultures because of the unique problem I tried to explain above. The world is much easier to traverse, and it is the import of an nefarious ideology along with government’s lack of interest to use defensive measures against protecting the rights of the Judeo-Christian populations that are at the root cause of the destruction of Western civilization, and sadly, last but not least, a racial one, the very, very low birthrate among the Whites.
Karen responds:
South Korea is like Japan, a country where about 50% of people have no religious beliefs. They also have the lowest birth rates in the world, but that is another topic. Of those who practice some religion, about 50% are Christian and the rest Buddhist. Thus S Korea is an Asian country with a large Christian minority. The secular society (Law and civil institutions) in the West is founded upon Christian tradition and principles. The secular and religious spheres are both Christian. In S Korea the secular society is Buddhist/Confucian whilst the religious life is split between Christianity and Buddhism. This is very different from the culture of a Western country. All races can be Christian but not all societies can because of their different cultural heritage. If attempts were made to Christianise all of S Korea, these would be resisted by the secularists and Buddhists in the same way that attempts to Christianise India were resisted by the Hindus.
Asians are adopting some of Western culture but they do this in a superficial way imitating speech and dress. They are otherwise wedded to their own traditions. They are Asians with a façade of Westernisation. Scratch under the surface and you will find an unreconstructed Asian. Their civilisations and traditions are older than Western ones and they will not abandon them in significant numbers.
Non-whites raised in America are superficially American. They will be Americans with whites and Asians/Africans with Asians and Africans. They change their identity to suit their circumstances. In India there are 2 different terms of identity for humans – the identity of one’s ancestry (the culture which gave birth to the individual) and the identity of one’s livelihood (the country where one works). The former is considered to be the true identity of the individual and the other the superficial and changeable identity. America is a place for making money while mother India is home. Americans may consider Indians as Americans and give them a passport but India declares them Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and also gives them a passport. If India offers better job opportunities than America, the NRIs will all go home. Liberal politicians have encouraged immigrant groups to be aggressive and assist in the wrecking of Western culture but it must also be understood that Eastern people can no more be Americans than whites can be Asians.
Britain faces major problems with all immigrants including Muslims. The country is overcrowded and its culture being eroded. However there is a difference between Europe and the USA. In America immigrants are considered to be Americans after a short time and are given full benefits of that citizenship. In Europe immigrants are considered to be Asians/Arabs/Africans with British/ German /French passports. There is no melting pot and immigrants are not integrated in any major way. They are aliens with a passport. The effects of immigration have not been fully considered by the population because of a previously strong economy which diverted people’s attention to consumerism and travel. However the financial collapse and subsequent economic problems are beginning to focus minds on the adverse effects of immigration and there have been riots of white British against Muslims.
In order for the body to function, it needs a skeleton of bones joined to a spine which must not be broken. Likewise a country requires a skeleton of institutions. Britain and Europe still have skeletal structures which although weakened still exist – the Royal Family and Aristocracy, an Established Church, an Army based upon a regimental structure with recruits drawn from local areas, an education system which trains an elite to run the previous British Empire (the empire has gone but the education system still exists) and a patriotic loyalty to Queen and country – and political parties aimed at the expulsion of immigrants (BNP, National Front etc). The USA does not have a strong spine. It has long ago expelled the Monarch, has no aristocracy and has an elite class based upon wealth rather than land and family ancestry. This elite is unstable and divided. It is of mixed ethnicity and loyalties. Some are patriotic and statist and the rest are globalists. The elite has ceased to act in the national interest. If things get tough in America, they will take their wealth and run away to their ethnic lands or whichever country they can buy their way into. Some of them have done it and others are doing it now. There is no established national Church. The army has no regimental structure and is largely made up of non-citizens who are essentially mercenaries fighting for the prospect of American citizenship. There is no American BNP or National Front. There is no institution which can fight for the unity of the USA except the white civilian population which is divided and largely under the yoke of liberal ideology. European countries are founded upon ethnicity. America and the Soviet Union were founded upon ideology. The Soviet Union collapsed and America is at risk of following it. However America is less prepared for collapse than Russia was because it has large numbers of homeless people, unemployed people, people with no medical care and people who are still deluded with liberal ideology. Russia did not have these problems and its people no longer believed in Communism, the ideology which sustained it.
Ella responds:
Once again, I disagree with Karen’s overarching comments about Asians and other ethnic groups that are not European as being unable to be identified as dynamic modern trendsetters in our society. The Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, African, Hispanic, etc., have equal respect and opportunity in American culture because we have built a rule of law that enables them to be fully successful to pursue their goals, and most of them are Christians in America. The sense of equality through hard earned civil rights in our country allows these people to be an unique people, not segregated by ethnic distrust and harsh divisions. Americans are dynamic in our willingness to come together, especially our youth, who have built strong bonds between cultural differences that are optimistic for the future of global business and transactions. We are not ethnic and statist in our loyalties but bound instead by traditions and ideals set forth by our founding fathers, and written in our constitution based on Judeo-Christian principles.
The European countries, who also claim to be Christian but have formed ethnic-based states, have repeatedly been at war among each other for global dominance, especially over fellow Europeans. I am convinced that basing one’s philosophy and politics on ethnic distinctions has caused a multitude of evils against others: Darwinism, Eugenics, Aryanism, imperialism, anti-Semitism, are such examples, and to this day, are dangerous to our civil liberties if they are adopted by government institutions. Islam also follows in this category with an ideology of people being either the kufar (infidel which is less human in status), or Muslim. Christians today do not go about using forms of violence and bloodshed to intimidate and subordinate others. Sadly, the occurrence of Muslim violence towards other people groups is happening in many different countries at a frightening rate, in both Eastern and Western culture, and our freedoms and security are directly impacted by it in very negative ways.
Karen says: Non-whites raised in America are superficially American. . . but it must also be understood that Eastern people can no more be Americans than whites can be Asians.
The delineation of East and West, as somehow the twain shall never meet, is hopeless and outdated. The youth of Japan, Korea, China, India, Philippines, etc., and etc, are the fastest growing factor in global business, wealth, and are setting trends in fashion, entertainment, and technology that is pro-Western in influence. America, China, and India are unique in that they are countries with substrates of ethnically-diverse cultures, and this has been a remarkable factor in the absorption of global-based business and increasing their economies when other countries have not been able to grow. The United States and India by the way, are the only two countries with increasing birth rates at this time.
The Royal Family are nothing but an amusing figurehead for the English. They are a living museum and are not meaningful in any diplomatic or governing sense. If anything, they have generated an income for the tabloids. The education system for the youth of Britain has been dramatically affected by Muslim appeasement. It is unfortunate to hear that the teaching of historical figures such as the great Sir Winston Churchill has been scrapped from the British school curriculum. If history has to be revised so as not to offend any special interest agenda, then it only dims the light which has inspired the world. I think the youth should be reminded and taught of such great aristocrats who fought valiantly for Western civilization when Europe was faced with certain death if they were not victorious. Richard the Lion Heart, Charles Martel the Hammer, William the Great, should be remembered as heroes who saved Europe from Islamic take over, and certainly the elite as you mention should be reminded as well. I do believe the common man who lives in the day-to-day hardships created by bad elitist policies are the ones who will pay dearly for the sins of the modern aristocratic class of Europe. Their ivory tower lifestyles have been nothing but disastrous. They fritter and play as Rome is burning down via suicidal birthrates versus foreigners who are treated as non citizens and will not assimilate which are rapidly out breeding the Whites. Demographics in this case, is a form of warfare; history shows this.
The Americans have shown they have a very strong spine since the beginning when they did stand up to the king of England, and fought for their freedom from colonial rule based on tyrannical taxation laws and unequal citizenship. You admit then that the American people with their mixed ethnicity have formed a union based not on Anglo Saxon loyalties, and that is so. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This has enabled our country to achieve remarkable success on the world stage, more than any other culture in such a short amount of time.
The elite has ceased to act in the national interest. If things get tough in America, they will take their wealth and run away to their ethnic lands or whichever country they can buy their way into. Some of them have done it and others are doing it now.
This has been so for all countries’ elites for a long time, the Swiss banks have established a lucrative banking economy based on that. How much of that money and investments come from British citizens? Most corporations run on money that are no longer tied to just one country, we have become a fluid global economy, the fact is corporations hold the investments and assets of multi national currencies, national interest is based by international corporate laws, and the global market enables there to be no borders or national interest anyway. It still comes down to the values of character and trust; ethnicity is a moot point when you are competing at a global level.
There is no established national Church. I am sorry but this is in comparison to the British Anglican Church? The numbers of church goers throughout Great Britain have plummeted (a very troubling and telling factor of cultural demise). The Anglican church in America and particularly in Africa are dynamic and growing at such a rate that they will be a serious factor in African cultural issues. These are interesting times indeed.
I am indeed shocked by your pessimistic view of the US military, which by the way, pulled your country’s *** out of the furnace of WW II which would have been a communist hellhole had it not been for our men fighting and dying over there. Western Europe has proven to be a thankless elitist society precisely due to their destructive ethnic centric pride. There has been only one European citizen I have heard say despite the unpopular stand the US has taken in going to war against Jihad terrorism, that his country (the French) though he would not prefer to fight alongside the American forces, remembers the thousands of young American men buried on his soil who gave their lives for his freedom and is obligated. The ideological difference between communism and the American constitutional form of government has absolutely no similarities. The brave soldiers of our military have given their lives by choice for freedom and are in no way like the mercenaries you accuse them to be because they are not White citizens. Oh, and by the way the British government retains mercenaries from Nepal, the formidable Gurkha soldiers. I know they are renowned for their bravery and fighting skills, and they show remarkable loyalty to fighting with British soldiers, although they are Asians. The US are by far in better shape to face the future, I see no collapse unless we forget the Judeo-Christian principles and ideologies we have fought and died for. Your comments about the economic situation is so overblown, you must keep yourself informed from an actual media that practices truthful journalism instead of anti-American propaganda. We do not want a socialist system of healthcare, and nanny cradle to the grave care, as England and Europe has, because it takes away the choices and rights of the individual to decide for himself how to spend his own money, and options that can sustain his health without the government deciding the treatment based on limiting costs for government interests and so on and so forth. Your insults to Americans due to our color blindness only confirm my understanding that the ethnic chess game Europeans played, is lost. And by the way, I do wonder why you do not admit to the extraordinary amount of inter racial breeding among the British youth, is that something you as an elitist cannot bring yourself to admit? Truly sad.
I love my country, and believe in America’s culture of accepting anyone willing to come here to become a legal citizen to work and contribute with equal rights based on Judeo-Christian principles. This has been our history, and it is one that is worth being proud of.
