Do we need a new name?

Ar, there is an article by Wayne Allensworth, about Naming the Historic American Nation. The subtitle: To Combat Dispossession, Middle America Must Find a New Name.

This piece would seem to be directed toward those of us of old colonial stock. I don’t know that my readers are necessarily part of that group, but I know that some of you fit the description. But Allensworth is directing this piece at a wider group, not just those who are of the original founding stock of this country.

He does grant that Anglos, that is, English colonists, were the founders of this country and the ‘core’ people of the country.

“The American core, then, is Anglo. That founding core went on to assimilate, sometimes with some difficulty, waves of other Europeans. “Americanization” was the program whereby other Europeans were forced to conform to an Anglo-Protestant foundational culture. The founding stock plus those that assimilated became the American people—what calls “The Historic American Nation”—the core that defines the nation in the political and cultural sense.”

I will go along with the writer’s premise for the moment, although I’m not clear on his definitions.

The author uses Russia as an example of a country with a definite ethnic identity, based on culture, religion, shared history, and so on. Still, even Russia represents a number of ethnicities, even though the old Soviet Union is gone. Russia for a long time promoted its multiculturalism, its many nationalities within its borders. But its history is not of the ‘melting pot’ variety so cherished by the government of this country.

The Founding Fathers of this country, almost all of whom were of English descent or ‘British’ descent (if British can be called a nationality) but they definitely had a shared culture and a sense of a shared history. Now, thanks to centuries of immigration of many disparate peoples, we are more fragmented, not a unified people.

The main thrust of the article, however, is that we as a people are “under assault”, facing dispossession, and that in order to ensure our continued existence as a national unit, we have to have more of a common identity, and we must, in the author’s opinion, find a new name for ourselves.

So what should we call ourselves?

“Core Americans” is one possibility. The term “foundational” has come into use as well in describing both black people with a long historical connection to America, as well as to the core American group. “Foundational Americans” is an accurate description of the core group.

I’ve used “Middle Americans” as a name for us, as it has been used before to describe those of us attached to the heartland.

We had this discussion on my original blog: how should we refer to ourselves? Some people used the term ‘legacy Americans’ or ‘heritage Americans’ and ‘old stock Americans’ or ‘colonial stock’, but those labels did not apply to everyone.

I don’t have a ready suggestion for what we should be called. The word ‘American’ has been stripped of meaning once anybody and everybody can cross our ‘borders’ and call themselves American. Many Latin Americans object to our use of the term ‘American’, saying that everyone in both North and South America is an ‘American’, and that we in the USA are arrogant to appropriate the label for ourselves.

And sadly, many young people born in this country ridicule the name ‘American’ by slurring it as ‘Amurkan’ or ‘Amur’can‘, which to them, seems to typify ignorant, loutish people who they see as being many of the American-born of this country.

The term ‘Amerikaner’ seems to have gained some traction among some of the younger people on the right, as a term which would include people of mixed European ancestry. It sounds very Germanic to me, but to many people that’s a plus.

Maybe a new name for the core people of this country would help in solidifying an identity. However this country is so sorely divided in so many ways, I am not sure that a new name would make a big difference.

I’m interested in hearing opinions from readers, if you have any input to offer.

3 thoughts on “Do we need a new name?

  1. What do I internally think of the True Old Stock as?

    Well for me the puritan Yankees are the people who produced so much theology in the name of being the exemple to the rest. So the Sacred People or the Promised Messiah People or Race.
    This would be super inflammatory to the antagonists. Manifest Destiny.

    The name American or continentals was dependent on it being used in the Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere. Now that so many people all across the world speak English it is problematic.

    I never liked the name American with it being Italeo-Teutonic in origin. I want something specifically English and religious. Sorry Squats Irish “super Patriots”.


    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi Puritan, thanks for replying.
    Your idea is interestnig and yes it would be inflammatory. to the antagonists.
    I don’t have an idea of my own to offer. Since it seems that the current population of the USA have so little in common with us or one another I wonder if we all could agree on anything.
    I don’t know whether I agree with the writer of the article that we “need” a new name in order to preserve ourselves as a people. Right now it seems like we just need to focus on getting through this situation we’re in.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.