MRS. JOHNSON writes:

What your commenter A.M. is alluding to regarding whiteness is not Godly or Christian and is historically and culturally deceptive in terms of how complex culture is among “white” ethnic Americans. 

There is quite simply no ‘white race,’ not even in America. There is certainly no ‘white Christian race,’ again not even in America. What there are are European ethnic groups, who despite varying degrees of intermarriage retain many of their ancestral cultural values. 

An example personally known to me would be the Bohemia-descended ‘whites’ of Texas. There has been a broad degree of out-marriage with other ethnic groups (white and otherwise), yet the Bohemian cultural values and traditions are quite preserved and well-communicated to each passing generation. Another example personally known to me would be the Norwegian-descended ‘whites’ in Western Washington. Again, despite a (lesser in this case) degree of out-marriage, numerous Norwegian folkways have been retained and continue to be passed on. 

My experience as an American has been that white ethnic identity is not about ‘whiteness’ or even ‘Europeanness’ as A.M. attempts to frame things. It is about the specific regional folkways of each white ethnic group. America is more than ‘Italian, Irish, Jew’ for ‘colorful white culture’. All the ethnic groups of Europe that have survived the centuries of genocide have ‘colorful’ histories, traditions and folkways. Most white Americans I have lived among identify as the specific ethnic/regional white culture they descended from, even if there has been a fairly high degree of out-marriage. The one ‘American-descended’ white ethnic culture, Mormonism, also has Mormons identifying with the specific ethnic European roots a disproportionate share of multigenerational Mormons have, depending which ones they have (usually English, Danish, and Swedish, and occasionally Norwegian.) 

In fact, it is primarily on the Internet that I find white people going on and on about a monolithic ‘white American’ culture that is vaguely ‘European-descended’ as what white-skinned people must identify with. The actual white people I meet in the course of an ordinary day are well-connected with their ancestral cultures and simply do not consider ‘white’ something that has folkways to absorb, because whiteness is just an artificial idea. This is evident in the way that America has developed a curious notion of ‘white enough to pass’, which currently embraces Jews, Italians, Irish, all Slavic nations, and some Asian and Latin ethnic groups on a regional basis (Chinese and Japanese in California, Mexican in Texas and Arizona), as well as the ‘Creole’ category in Lousiana. There is simply no way these dozens of individual cultures can be pressed down and parsed as a single monolithic entity called ‘white culture’. 

The tale of how whiteness-as-an-idol came to be something Western Europeans and Americans fell to worship is long, too long for this particular e-mail, but it is an idol and not a culture. White people (in my experience) see themselves as ‘Polish’ or ‘Scandinavian’ or ‘pretty English, or ‘but my thrice-great grandfather was Dutch’, or ‘German’– i.e., the same way that ‘minorities’ see themselves as ‘West African-descended-but-do-not-know-the country’ or ‘Apache-but-they-out-married-with-a-lot-of English-folks’, or ‘Mexican-back-to-the-Spanish-conquerings’. 

I truly have difficulty with this constant talk of the idol of whiteness, when the talk should be oriented around actual European ethnic folkways, along with Native American folkways (several groups of which were very influential in forming what came to be American political structure, in addition to the Greek, Roman, Scandinavian and English influences) and black American folkways (as there are numerous functional black ethnic groups with long ancestry in America both slave-descended and otherwise).

When it comes to out-marriage, the problem is not the out-marriage, but rather the idea that out-marriage is fine so long as paleness is preserved. No folkways need be preserved, no cultural connection to originating nations need be maintained. Both man and woman can throw away their likely quite different European ethnic traditions, just so long as their skin is the right color, because that is what pleases the white-god. 

This does not please the true God, of course, nor does it solve the complaint about lost culture. But it does create a brief illusion of affinity and a breath of the martyr’s delight many Internet white-idol worshippers are convinced ‘those people benefit from so much at our expense.’  The envy and greed for that of this world is a greater problem for white-skinned Christians who truly do only value a god that is skin-deep and not the Living God. It is a much greater problem than some notion that the false ‘white race’ is dying out. 

I have been following the posts about out-marriage and hope to have time to send a comment specifically oriented around the Christian aspects of dealing with out-marriage, because one can be open to multiple cultures, embracing that which is functional without forfeiting one’s own roots or those of one’s spouse. Conservative Christians must not be deceitful about history and culture ‘simply because liberal notions of cultural complexity are not complex and just a mush called ‘multiculturalness’. 

Much as many conservatives have fallen into the liberal trap of feminism, allowing liberal axioms to be the beginning of the proof, so also have conservative Christians fallen into the same trap regarding life and history in a nation formed from, well, multiple cultures of multiple skin colors. Whitewashing is no solution. A properly nuanced approach to Americanness and its roots in multiple cultures is. 

In any case, I do thank you for posting many different views on the matter.

Laura writes:

You are welcome.

I’d first like to address a couple of the smaller points Mrs. Johnson makes. She mentions that white culture is only discussed and promoted on the Internet. It’s important to point out that many important subjects and worthy views are only aired on the Internet. The popular media is virtually closed to genuine debate on certain topics. You will also only find in-depth criticism of feminism and liberalism in general on the Internet. So the fact that the white race is defended only on the Internet  is not proof or disproof of its distinctiveness or existence.

Secondly, the topic that was discussed here over various posts was interracial marriage. Inter-ethnic marriage, though mentioned by at least one commenter, is another issue. Certainly groups and nations with strong ethnic traditions have strongly discouraged marriage with outsiders. The English and the French both once condemned intermarriage. The 1945 movie Johnny Frenchman, which I saw the other night, was about just this subject. A young Cornish woman falls in love with a man from Brittany. Relatives and townsmen on both sides are up in arms about the alliance but, after various dealings with each other, become reconciled to it.

Mrs. Johnson condemns “the idea that out-marriage is fine so long as paleness is preserved.” That was never the view expressed here. The conversation did not truly consider other forms of intermarriage.

And, the point was, of course, that whiteness is more than paleness. Here again, we come to a major difference in views. Mrs. Johnson says it is ethnicity that is real; whiteness is not a significant cultural phenomenon.

As I mentioned before, the races are a biological reality. There are significant genetic similarities within racial groups. They include facial characteristics, skeletal structure, skin color, age of sexual maturity, other sexual characteristics, cognitive traits, and psychological similarities. Africa is culturally distinct not simply because it represents certain ethnic traditions, but because of its racial character. The same is true in each case of Europe, Asia, South America and Australia. Ethnic groups and religious traditions have been extremely influential, but that does not mean race is not another dimension of culture.

The Internet is not the only place where the white race is considered more than a biological entity. If you look at settlement patterns, you will find that Americans generally live not in ethnic enclaves, but in racial ones. This is not mandated by the government. If a young white man applies to college, his race will be taken into consideration. The United States government requires that employers consider race. The Census Bureau asks the race of each individual. Voters consider the race of candidates, as was amply demonstrated in the recent election. Open any American history textbook and you will find that  the white race, as well as other racial groups, are considered major actors on the stage of history. That’s because they are. Only blacks were indigenous to Africa when America was settled and most came to this country involuntarily. It was only blacks who were enslaved and only whites who owned plantations and farms where they worked.

It was whites who settled America, founding its earliest political institutions. These whites were mostly British, but they quickly included other Europeans. Hostility between these European ethnic groups has existed, but only sporadically and was not a major factor in the country’s development. The Supreme Court was never asked to decide whether Italians could be admitted to Anglo-Saxon schools. These groups brought ethnic distinctions, as well as traits common to Indo-Europeans wherever they have lived for thousands of years. The Indo-Europeans, another term for the white race, originated in the steppes of Russia and began to migrate into Europe, the Near East and Asia around 3,000 B.C.  The Indo-Europeans would eventually subdivide into ethnic groups and nations, but wherever they settled they have exhibited some racial unity in the cultures they have formed.

One could use the same argument Mrs. Johnson uses to argue that America as a cultural phenomenon is not real. The view that being American is culturally different from being Canadian is just a form of distorted thinking and national origins are no part of personal identity nor should one have any feelings toward one’s country because it is no more than a question of citizenship.

Laura adds:

It is very true, as Mrs. Johnson says, many whites do not consider themselves white in any meaningful way. The fact is, others do view them as white. Other racial groups have strongly asserted their racial identity and they have done so in relation to what they consider to be the white race. Whites also have asserted the identity of other racial groups. For instance, the historian Conor Cruise O’Brien strongly argued that Thomas Jefferson should not be a hero of American history because of his racism. Many icons, symbols and traditions of American history have been questioned, disparaged or even eliminated, not because they are American or because they represent some ethnic group, but because they are white. 

If any evil is committed against a group because of its race, it must defend itself in racial terms. Cultural suicide is not mandated by Christian belief and is ungodly. Just as it is immoral to attack others simply because of race, it is wrong to attack oneself  or one’s own because of race.

Jeff writes:

I much liked Mrs. Johnson’s comments on how intellectually weak is the focus on the “white race.”

Arthur Oaden writes:

 “It was only blacks who were enslaved and only whites who owned plantations and farms where they worked.”

 I do not believe that is true. There have been black plantaion owners in Louisiana as can be seen on this website.

“Antoine Dubuclet married Claire Pollard, a free woman of color and the daughter of Louis Pollard of France and Eugenie Decuir of Pointe Coupee, in 1836. The Pollards and the Decuirs were also wealthy sugar cane planters in Pointe Coupee Parish.” 

“Claire and her sister, Sophie Pollard, owned a plantation in Iberville Parish together. Adjoining their plantation was another one jointly owned by their husbands, Antoine Dubuclet and Pierre Durand.”

Robert B. writes: 

Mrs. Johnson is a victim of ethnic studies programs and their false history. The first statement she makes “there is no white race” is the left’s way of dehumanizing and de-legitimizing white racialism and whites in general. Alexander the Great’s generals revolted against him specifically because they wished to remain Greeks and thus white men. They wanted nothing to do with intermarrying with the Persian, Egyptian, and Indian royal families in order to solidify Alexander’s empire. As West Europeans began to conquer all of the known world 600 years ago, they did so with clear insight as to their whiteness and their perceived exceptionalism vis-a-vis the rest of the world–to wit, their technological and cultural superiority (which gave rise to the technological prowess) and their belief that God had chosen them to rule the world. While there was some infighting between the French and the English, that really only pertained to North America, the rest of the world was divided up in a very civilized manner. Indeed, it was none other than Cecil Rhodes himself (founder of Rhodesia, the Diamond industry in South Africa and the Rhodes Scholarships) who coined the term “The White man’s Burden” wherein, he wrote, that due to the obvious superiority of the white man, we owed it to the rest of the world’s races to civilize them and raise them up to our level.

The European community of Man has been at war for its survival against the rest of the world for thousands of years–beginning with the ancient Persians and their invasions of Greece, the Mongol Horde and, for the last 1400 years, the Muslims, who last tried to invade Europe militarily in 1529. The Siege of Vienna was lifted not by the Austrians, but by the Poles. The conflict ended in 1683–long after European colonization of the New World had begun. If they did not see themselves as white men helping to defend white Europe from non-white invaders, why did they lift the siege? In point of fact, beginning with Charlemagne, the Europeans fought numerous crusades to prevent the Muslim hordes from conquering white Europe. See here.

The Celts conquered India 3,500 years ago–it is they, the Brahmins, who instituted the infamous caste system still largely in use to this day there. The caste system is wholly built on skin color. The evil people in the “Rig Veda” are the indigenous dark skinned people whom they conquered. Today, even though Sanskrit is an Indo-European language and is not the language of the Dravidians, historical revisionists in India would like to claim that no invasion took place, even though the Rig Veda documents this invasion. Modern genetic studies have proven the invasions occurred, but also that they began much earlier than previously thought. See this.

Likewise, when the Celts invaded China at roughly the same time, they instituted a caste system there. European migration began into Europe from the Steppes long before 3,000 years ago–roughly 12,000 years go modern day Britons entered the British Isles. There were blond haired, blue eyed people living in modern day Mongolia thousands of years ago. More properly speaking, the Indo-European peoples were pushed out of Asia and into modern day Europe by Asian peoples. Ancient Greek writings make it quite clear that they were acutely aware of other racial types and their cultures and their strong belief that they were superior.

The Greeks are the undisputed inventors of Democracy–the word itself is Greek, “demos” meaning people. The whole idea of “suffrage”–the right to vote, comes from the Greeks and it entailed the idea that one suffered for the right to vote–that suffrage included the right of the government to call on you for military service and the responsibility of paying taxes to support that state–what we refer to as a “Republican Democracy.” That is what America was founded to be. The term “senate” came from the Ancient Romans–who also had a Republican Democracy based upon Athenian Democracy. The Senate represented the “ruling class” and was (originally here in America) removed from the masses in that they were not elected by the masses (as they were not in Rome) but were rather appointed by state legislatures. This is also true of the English “House of Lords”. The “House of Representatives” was and remains a deliberative body patterned after the English Parliament and therefore directly voted upon by the masses. The two bodies were meant to temper one another with the Senate acting as the cooler heads–this is no longer possible due to direct voting by the masses–what the Founders referred to as “mobocracy.” The over-riding modern influences on the Founders were the Reformation and the philosophers of The Enlightenment. Read the Declaration Of Independence to see what the Founders thought of the American Indian.

America is not a Proposition Nation. It was founded exclusively by the English and those English folkways, as illustrated in David Hackett Fischer’s seminal piece on the subject “Albion’s Seed” are still in force to this day. The contributions of the European ethnic groups are trivial by comparison. The number of non-English in America at the time of the Founding was infinitesimal compared to the English. The 1960 Census shows that at that time, before the prohibition of non-European migration to America was lifted in 1965, that 50 percent of all Americans were of direct and pure English descent. Yes, thats right, except for a few treaties with China and Japan, no non-whites were permitted to migrate to America, thus the notion that the idea of “whiteness” did not exist is a patent lie. In fact, the Federalist Papers make it quite clear that the America of 1789 was a monolithic mono culture made up almost exclusively of English peoples. It was John Jay himself (first Chief Justice) who wrote that (paraphrasing) that this proposed new form of government (the Constitution) could only work because we were one people (ethnically and racially), speaking one language and adhering (except for roughly 2500 Jews) one religion. They believed that Democracy was only possible in a state with one people. They had, as their examples, multiple European and Asian empires which ruled over multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-racial peoples that necessitated totalitarian and despotic governments to maintain power and control ethnic and racial strife. The Founders even made it clear that “this abundant land” was for theirs (meaning the people as they then existed) and their descendants to enjoy in perpetuity.

Lastly, the whole idea of modern “racism” did not exist even one-hundred years ago. The term was first employed by Karl Marx’ philosophical heirs. The ultimate proletarian was the nonwhite. This was the Communist belief since the whites had so easily conquered the rest of the world. In other words, the idea of being loyal to one’s ethnic group and by extension one’s racial phenotype was a given–it was considered natural, until the Communist One Worlders saw it as an impediment to One World Government. The first Westerners to espouse the idea of miscegenation were the American Quakers, who viewed it as a responsibility (but not for them) of whites as a way of uplifting the Africans in America. Of course in 1850, they were viewed as being somewhat insane for proposing such nonsense. I would postulate that whites, alone amongst the three main racial phenotypes, are the ones for which this represents a form of genocide. One generation of European genes in Africans or Asians will, over ensuing generations, be effectively wiped out, whereas one generation of African or Asian genes in Europeans effectively wipes out the ability to produce red heads, blue or green eyes and largely blond hair–not to mention all the shades therein. We are, in point of fact, the world’s minority. Once 20 percent of the earth’s people, today we are a mere 7 percent. It is our culture that gave birth to virtually all known inventions of the world–going thousands of years. This was only possible due to our belief in an absolute truth–that which gave birth to science. We are the only peoples in the world who had/have this belief. This is now and has been, under assault by the Left for sometime. Absolute truths negate the idea that man can simply make them up as he sees fit and change the world accordingly. This absolute truth, nestled in the belief in an absolute Creator above the laws of man, is what gave birth to our Constitution and the idea of rights that no man could morally take away. This is an absolute necessity to the whole idea of individual freedom.

Only a non-thinking fool would think race and culture have nothing in common–how else can one explain the divergency of cultures and their view of the world that dominate in each of the three main phenotypes? No where else in the world did the idea of individual freedom and of inherent equality come into existence except for Western Europe. No where else in the world does the idea of treating women as more than cattle exist. No where else in the world does the idea of humane treatment of animals exist–nor of humane killing and warfare, or of protecting children from those who would exploit or otherwise harm them. These are purely Western cultural mores. Though there are many national ethnicities in Europe, they should be seen as regional cultural norms and thus a subset of European culture as a whole–not a denial of “whiteness” in general. They all contain the same basic precept of what civilization means.

No other society in the history of the world, save Western man, saw the need to end human slavery and actually went to war to end it–beginning with the English in 1805. At the time of the American “Civil War,” slavery was legal on 7/8 ths of the world’s surface area–thats right. It is still practiced in Africa to this day, as it is, covertly, in the Middle East, India and China.

Please follow and like us: