So our ethnicity is important?

I expect all of you, at least those in the U.S (or what is left of it) have got your Census questionnaires.
I couldn’t help noticing that a prominent question or series of questions centered on our ethnic identity.
Of course race was also a question in itself.

Maybe I’m not remembering correctly but I don’t recall previous census forms asking about our ethnic or national origins. The questionnaire specifically asks about ethnic origins, and I think it added a suggestion thus:
— “For example, English…”

Then they asked for the respondent’s other ethnic ancestry, in specific terms.

For a long time I’ve said that many Americans simply don’t know what their actual ancestry is, except maybe in the vaguest terms. A great many claim (like Elizabeth Warren et al) to have ‘Native American ancestry’, almost always Cherokee, and oftentimes if they get DNA testing they are told that they have little or no Native Indian ancestry.

And how can the people answer the questions if they really don’t know their ancestry? There are also a good few adopted people who may not know their actual ethnic origins.

I suspect that there is more Anglo-Saxon or English ancestry among Americans than they realize, but then again if the Census goes simply by self-reporting or hearsay, the results will not be very accurate.

But then it seems with our total surveillance state, the powers-that-be may know more about us than we ourselves know.

It would be interesting to know how many sons and daughters of Albion are out there in the U.S.A.

Can a people change or be changed?

Can a people, that is, a kindred nation, people born of the same stock with the same history and culture, change from their ways and habits and become something different? Or is it possible for them to be changed into another type of people altogether, under the influence of an influx of non-kindred peoples, or a different philosophy?

I am asking this in earnest; not just posing an idle question just for the sake of it.

My original blog was about the American nation — and now many of the gloom-and-doomers who say America was never a real nation have me almost convinced — not quite, though. I honestly doubt the motives of those who say that America was always a polyglot boarding house, as Theodore Roosevelt spoke of (and warned against). Usually there is an axe to grind there, covert or overt. Usually it’s pro-Germanism or pro-multicult.

Jim Goad at Taki-Mag wrote a piece in response to that silly Scandinavian Airlines brouhaha in which the (literally) cuckolded Scandinavians plead that they really have no culture or character whatsoever, and beg for mercy or something on the basis that they are a nation of ghosts or ciphers who have no cuisine or genetic heritage, just an empty name.  Pathetic.

In the context of England and the English people, naturally I am not going to buy the idea that the English, too, are as lost as the Scandinavians appear to be. But for years now, a family member and I have had a lot of conversations about the seeming change in the UK and in the actual people of England — not paper citizens; not even those who are children or grandchildren of immigrants, like the Polish descendants who consider themselves English or British. A lot of people are prepared to accept this people or that people as the same as English (or British) because the families have been there for a generation or two, and they sometimes look fairly indistinguishable from the actual English. Or British (Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Irish). But they are not English. Or British.

After all the generations of immigrants to the U.S., there are those who despite long occupancy here, still cling to a language their ancestors of last century spoke, instead of English. Or worse they have lived here for generations and still hate ‘the WASPs’ or the ‘Anglos’ despite the longer tenure here of those they resent and against whom they bear grudges and resentments.

So even long residency doesn’t mean someone has assimilated or become a ‘real American.’ And just now there are lots of Americans who think exotic ancestry is worth more culturally, genetically, and in other ways than plain old Northwest European ancestry –especially if it’s Anglo-Saxon ancestry — which should be known as ”Oppressor-American” origins, according to some.

To return to the topic at hand, though, it seems to me, judging not just by the media coming out of the UK (movies, TV, music, etc.) but by individual peoples’ behavior, that the English have become sadly more like today’s Americans — which makes sense because we all take part in this same ugly pop culture, lowest-common-denominator. There was a time some decades ago when Britain (or England) appeared to be more ‘sophisticated’ and more ‘tolerant’ than America; America was ridiculed yet again for being Puritanical because many Americans were church-goers and liked their entertainment more wholesome. Europe was held up to us as an example of what we should be — Europeans were blase about sex,  saw nothing wrong with nudity and ”adult” entertainment. We were told that the French Prime Minister (which one, I’ve forgotten) openly kept a mistress, and the public didn’t mind this. Why couldn’t we be more like those open-minded, sophisticated French people? And the British, by comparison, were told they were too inhibited. Even the ‘reserved’ Scandinavians were famous, or notorious, for their sexual openness and kinkiness. In Scandinavia, we were told, sex crimes were all but unknown because the people had no inhibitions or ”hang-ups” in sixties’ parlance, about sex, hence nobody ‘needed‘ to commit sex crimes.

Long story short: fast-forward to U.S. (or what’s left of it) in 2020. Our ‘entertainment’ is rife with every kind of vulgarity and degradation and this is the new normal, both in the UK and in once-Puritanical America.

The English were once known as a reserved people, confident, intelligent, articulate, running a well-ordered society. Good educational system; hierarchical rather than egalitarian (which is good in my book) low crime, high trust, high level of honesty according to studies done, and so on.

Now it seems that the UK and its people are more similar to the American stereotype, with all that implies. Both our peoples have been subjected to the media mind-conditioning, and our countries both apparently being merged into this ‘New World Disorder’ which becomes an ever-more-burdensome yoke to be worn.

I can’t speak for other countries, whether or not they have experienced such changes to the character of the people. I know that the Scandinavians in the United States, most of whom have been here for generations, are apparently as passive as their cousins who stayed behind in the old country. Just look at the strange assortment of people they elect to ”represent” them. If they aren’t a people, as the spokescreatures at Scandinavian Airlines plead, then they should not be represented in Congress, should they? Do ghost-descendants of dead Vikings have rights?

Actually two fairly close relatives of mine have married Norwegians — people actually born in that country, not hyphenates, not ‘Norwegian-Americans’ whose Scandinavian-ness has been PC-whipped out of them. And they are likeable people, intelligent people. Maybe they are here because they didn’t fit in with their zombie countrymen back home.

All the same I like them. I would like to see everybody who has had their ethnic nature and their love for their heritage drained out of them, re-infused with that pietas and healthy pride.  That goes for fellow Americans, especially our Anglo-Saxon cousins, not just in the UK itself but in Canada, the old-stock Canadians, the Aussies (for whom I’ve also had a soft spot) and New Zealanders, even though they may be the farthest-left of all.

How does one classify brainwashing and mental programming? Manipulating people’s minds and emotions, tampering with the nature and essence of what makes people who they are? It should be a crime. It probably is, though it’s gone on, on a mass scale for a few generations now, unrecognized for what it is. If someone de-racinates you, takes away your sense of who you are, where you come from, what makes you a unique person as you are, or makes your folk and family and kin unique amongst the peoples of this world — that person, or those people who are doing this en masse to people are doing something heinous. It’s a theft, or even tantamount to a murder of a big part of who we are as individuals. Or as nations of people, distinct people who each carry the image of God in a unique way.

That’s being stolen from us and from whatever future generations may exist. Why is this so little acknowledged?

Realizing that many of our English cousins have learned not to like us, to view us as ‘ugly Americans’ who are gun-obsessed, dumbed-down, and crass (the Stereotype) they should know that we, too, are encouraged to dislike them for all sorts of reasons. The Powers want to set the kindred peoples against each other; they especially fear the Anglosphere peoples and don’t want us to cooperate or to work together or even sympathize with one another. This should not be.

But as to my original question: is it possible for us to change our very natures as it seems? Do genetics really count for nothing, and mental programming count for so much? Or have we really changed, we here in America, or the English, the Scandinavians? Can we recover who we once were? Is it dormant in our genetic memory, coded into our DNA? Answers, anyone?


Religion and ethnocentrism

At Ron Guhname’s Inductivist blog, he looks at whether religious people value their ethnicity more than the non-religious or secular. He includes various ethnic groups in examining the question.

People were asked how important their ethnicity was to them, with (1) being ” unimportant” to (4)”very important.”

Of the non-European ethnicities who were asked, the group with the highest ethnocentrism was American Indians, at 3.50.That’s what I would expect.

The lowest ethnocentrism score in that group being the Jewish people. That one is puzzling, in my opinion.

In the European grouping, the highest score was the Scots, though their score was lower than the non-Europeans’. Not surprising, given how ethnocentrism is falsely labeled ”racism” and criminalized in some places. It will be hard to find many European-descended people who will openly express that they value their ethnicity highly.

The apparent role played by religion in making people more (or less?) ethnocentric isn’t clear. Ron Guhname says that the more religious people have higher scores on the ethnocentrism scale.

Institute for Family Studies poll

The above poll from a few years ago, which is an American study,  supports Ron Guhname’s conclusion that religiosity does affect ethnic identity postitively.

So where are the English in the Inductivist poll ? Where do you think? Second from the bottom.

For whatever reason, the English and Welsh were lumped together. It may be that if the two groups were rated separately, the English score would be lower. I think (correct me, someone, if I’m wrong) that the Welsh are more ethnocentric than the English.

Is it possible to restore a healthy ethnocentrism and ethno-loyalty? I suppose only time will tell on that question.

The talking points for the one-world types

In searching for some other topic, I came across a blog post which sets out to discredit the belief that Anglo-Saxons have a common origin. The writer asserts, very early in his essay, that there is no common origin; ‘Anglo-Saxons’ or English folk are descended from a very mixed conglomeration of various peoples who wandered onto the island and became part of this congeries of peoples who blended into the group  now called ‘British’ (or ‘English’, if you want to be more accurate.)

Before I continue with this piece, I think that this kind of blog post is one that I am inclined to write. Why? First, because it has to do with our origins and our identity and who we are, biologically, culturally, and even spiritually. And we live in a strange time in which everybody gets to identify as part of an ethnicity or people or tribe or nation. This is, despite all the overdone rhetoric about how ‘we’re all one race: the Human Race.’ That statement is the stock response to the issue of the place of peoples and nations, or of nations vs. ‘One-worldism’, also known by some as ‘Babelism’.

Being of Anglo-Saxon, (or not, according to the author of the article) origin is a doubleplusungood thing, because our ancestors were explorers, enterprising people who ended up controlling much of the world, and in today’s convoluted thinking, that means that such a people must be punished and cut down to size. The reason? Being successful and dominant means there must have been oppression toward the subjects of colonial or imperial rule. The ancestors of many European people are automatically judged as bad and dangeroua, the sort who probably would return to oppressing the world if given a chance. It seems the one-worlders want to render those of English/Anglo-Saxon lineage weak and ineffectual. There is so much propaganda aimed at just this, and it operates among all people of European descent as well, but it seems as if the Anglosphere countries are a special target.

Hence you find these articles that tend to demean and dismiss the English and Anglo-Saxon in particular. There is a great deal of denigration of our folk online and in the real world to a lesser degree. I wonder if that Anglophobia is ‘grassroots’ or if it’s shills and operatives promoting this  kind of thing online.

But to give an idea of what kind of approach the writer takes to the subject at hand, he eventually comes to declare that actual genetic origins, (though he says the English have no common origins of any consequence), are in fact irrelevant; the peoples of Britain would consider anyone that lived in proximity to be part of their people, as one of them.

“…[T]hese ancient people did not distinguish biological heritage from cultural association. In other words, someone who lived and died in the fifth or sixth century Anglo-Saxon village of Oakington could have been biologically related to an earlier inhabitant of England, a recent migrant from continental Europe or a descendant of either or both – they were all treated the same in death.”

The writer then says that the Anglo-Saxons were ‘written into history’, as if to suggest a fiction was created; no such people existed in any real sense of the word:

“Biologically then these people were a mixed group who shared what we consider Anglo-Saxon culture. But they did not think of themselves as Anglo-Saxons.

The idea of the Anglo-Saxon is a romanticised and heavily politicised notion.”

Surely the writer should be aware that many groups originated in another part of the world, and that over time they encountered, associated with, and melded to some extent with other peoples. But does this mean that the resulting admixture was not considered part of a nation with considerable homogeneity? A factor that is usually downplayed if not denied is the fact that the peoples of the British Isles are not drastically different peoples, despite some ethnic conflicts that have persisted and been rekindled by the political agitators and the media. The writer mentions the Dutch and Danish as being genetically close to the English; that is factual. The Dutch seem to have been a very open and welcoming country, as witness how the Pilgrims, looking to escape persecution in their home country, went to Leyden, Holland for refuge, living for some years there.

The Dutch welcomed Huguenots fleeing France, and there was considerable intermarriage between those peoples. Does all of the above mean that the Dutch ceased being a people because they had intermingled with other peoples? No one seems to say that  — yet. But it seems there is a drive to deracinate the English, and to a lesser degree, other Europeans. And the word ‘deracinate’ reminds me that the etymology of the word has to do with ‘roots’. Today’s upside-down world expects us to disconnect from our roots, to become rootless, without the thing that sustains us and keeps ups grounded.

As I finish this post, I know that some people are not comfortable with my writing about these kinds of things; some people prefer more superficial and upbeat subjects. But this is the sort of subject I feel a certain urgency about on behalf of people on both sides the Atlantic.

Still I am open to writing about less weighty subjects if that’s preferable at times.

But since I seem to have a polemical tendency, this is primarily what I do, but not exclusively. I enjoy writing about cultural and historical subjects, the arts, the English language, biography, and so on. I’m open to hearing what interests you out there.



Do Anglo-Americans reject their identity?

At least one online commenter asserts this is true. Below is the comment from a blog, (with the commenter’s name blocked out):

This kind of thing turns up on blogs here and there; it must be a somewhat widespread idea. Another allegation is that (Anglo or WASP) Americans “have no culture’.

I don’t know who this commenter has spoken to, or if he has even been to our country; I also wonder what kind of sample of ‘Old Stock’ English-Americans he’s met or talked to.

We’ve been sort of written out of the script in our own country, as it were. Many people whose families were here before the American Revolution identify as just ‘American.’ Many English-Americans from the South identify with their state; Texas used to be like that. Texas, after all, was an independent country in its early history, and it did seem as though it were a world of its own. The South in general is, or used to be, distinctive. That part of the country, especially the Southeastern states, was settled by English Cavaliers, as contrasted to the very middle class colonists of New England. So not all English- or British-Americans have the same origins, which in part explains their varying cultures.

The Ulster folk who settled parts of the Southeast, the Appalachian mountains, are also a culture to themselves.

Do English-Americans have no culture then, or are their original culture and folkways gone and forgotten? My answer would be ‘no’, because I don’t believe that the old ways are dead, but they may be on life support in some places.

Another issue is that America is a country that emphasizes individuality at the expense of group identity, and this may be a natural tendency of Anglo-Saxons. Scots-Americans, including the Ulster folk who settled here, have their cultural events and I think they are more likely to express their identity than Anglos.

But for WASPs or English-Americans, the fact that we’ve been declared people without a culture or identity is not conducive to maintaining our identity. Speaking for myself, though, I have no problem telling people about my ancestry. I certainly would not consider it an “insult”as the comment writer I quoted at the beginning. I don’t know anyone who would.

It’s true that some Americans have an obvious hostility towards the people of Britain — let me correct that: I should have said ‘the people of England; that’s more specific and accurate. Online commenters, bolstered by anonymity, feel free to spill their feelings, sometimes in very unpleasant ways. The English royals are especially targeted for harsh criticism, but then there are many American women who dote on royalty and all the glamorous trappings.

Some Americans of English descent, because of all the negativity towards the English, may downplay their ancestry. And many Americans don’t really know their ancestry except in the vaguest terms. Because of propaganda many White Americans, including some Anglo-Americans, would rather be something more exotic than “boring” “whitebread” WASPs, as the stereotypes portray them.

Many people seem surprised to be told that so much of American culture, things we take for granted, are English (or British) in origin. Maybe people think that these aspects of our culture original to America, and were ‘invented’ out of whole cloth right here in America. It’s as if people think that when we separated from England, we had to invent a new culture from scratch, just to distinguish ourselves as a nation, to be different from our Mother Country. (Actually, there was a touch of this attitude in Noah Webster’s changing the spelling of many English words; Noah Webster thought Americans

A disappointment

Did Boris Johnson mean it when he made reference to getting immigration under control? It seems he didn’t mean it, as his recent statements contradicted what he was saying during all the Brexit confusion.

Even as he spoke about ‘getting the numbers down’ he made a deal with the EU that, for the foreseeable future, there will still be ‘Free Movement” between the UK and the EU, a policy which has guaranteed the entry of large numbers of immigrants.

The Labour Party has even more radical policy changes in mind:

The opposition Labour Party, for example, has voted at its most recent party conference to not just to allow Free Movement immigration from the European Union to continue, regardless of Brexit, but to extend Free Movement to other countries around the world, shut down all detention centres, and — perhaps not for unrelated reasons — extend the vote to all non-citizens resident in the country; moves Home Secretary Priti Patel believes could increase annual net immigration to an astonishing 840,000 a year.

Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 26, 2019

Imagine that many new arrivals in a small island nation like the UK. It seems that there is a housing shortage as it is. It seems as though there is some kind of mania compelling this obsession with importing immigrants en masse. And it’s the same in all parts of former Christendom. What will it take to bring some kind of common sense back before the situation is beyond repair?

The people make the place as I’ve said so often, and soon if the indigenous peoples of Britain and Northern Ireland are outnumbered and with their low birthrate, they may be headed for oblivion. This saddens me immensely; I think that the English or British have been people of high accomplishment, and they created a country that rightfully drew admiration for their achievements.

The one-world agenda has little to offer on the positive side, and it will mean a much less “diverse” world when everyone is thrown into the one-world ‘blender’, making for far less varied world than then one into which we were born.

And then the leaders of the leftist Welsh political party Plaid Cymru are saying they want to make their whole country, small as it is (population 3 million) into a ”sanctuary country” for the world. If that happens, Wales will slowly or quickly see the loss of their unique people and culture — and their country will be another overcrowded, overstressed country. But will there even be ”countries” in the former Christendom, or will we all be ”world citizens”, of no fixed character?

Or can a people preserve their ethnic identity in spite of no longer having a geographical territory to be themselves, and continue their culture, and their religion and folkways?

In considering that situation, which seems to be in the cards for so much of the Western world, I think of our Cajun people in Louisiana, who, having been colonists in Nova Scotia back in the 18th century, found themselves displaced, removed, and scattered. That event was in 1755, and it is still referred to as the ‘Grand Derangement‘. A good many of the displaced Acadian French people settled in Louisiana, as most Americans know. So many of the Acadians or ‘Cajuns’ maintain a strong sense of being who they are despite being a definite minority. But they and the local Anglo-American population of Louisiana are not at odds; they are not hopelessly disparate peoples. Most Cajuns are very loyal to America; there is not the sense of alienation, and no chips on shoulders or grievance mentality. For the most part there is little friction if any.

If only it would always work out that way. If.

Could this situation be replicated in Europe, or this country, as we head towards being minorities in our own native lands?

I ponder about this, and I have my own sense of what the future may hold.

I was just reading news commentary about the decline and ‘Grand Remplacement’ of ‘Old Stock Canadians’, which includes the French Canadian population, the Anglo-Celtic Canadians, and others (Ukrainians, Russsians, et al.) It seems as if we are all in the same boat, despite any ethnic or cultural differences among the European descendants. But can a culture and a sense of peoplehood survive in a “polyglot boarding house” as someone termed it?

It’s disappointing to witness Boris Johnson in his self-identified role as a ‘pro-immigration politician.’ But then I think few people expected anything different from him, with Brexit being the more pressing issue for many UK voters.

More myths and misconceptions

I’ve been reading a long thread on a popular blog; among the subjects that came up during the discussion, it seems that certain myths and misconceptions pop up, as so often happens. Will some of these myths never die?

For example: the idea that ‘Germanic’ and ‘German’ are synonymous terms. What I mean is that people insist that peoples broadly described as ‘Germanic’ (that would include the Germans, of course, but also Dutch, Flemish, Austrian, and also the Scandinavians and some — and I emphasize some — of the peoples of the British Isles.

Other myths that make their appearance on the thread: that the English are ‘Germans‘ because they are Anglo-Saxon, and both the Angles and Saxons were from an area that is now part of the (fairly recently formed — in 1815) country called Germany, then the English or British are Germans. And other people insist that because the Windsor royalty who now occupy the throne of Britain were originally part of the House of Hanover or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha families, they themselves are German, even if they concede the British or English people in general are not.

The English people, in that recent DNA testing seems to show a larger percentage of Anglo-Saxon genetics than previously thought, are apparently more Germanic in descent than they are, say, Celtic, though there are those who persist in believing that the English or the ‘British’ are ‘Celtic.’ Why is this so? My guess is that being Celtic is just “in”; people admire the image that popular culture and popular ‘history’ books have presented of Celtic peoples.

The ‘Celts’ in the British Isles are, of course the Irish, the Scots (who, however, have a larger percentage of Scandinavian/Norwegian ancestry,) and the Welsh, who are considered to be descended from the native Britons who were there before the Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans arrived. Some of the Britons, after being supplanted to some extent by the Germanic arrivals (Angles, Saxons, et al) went to what is now Brittany, in France; their Breton language is closely related to Welsh.

British people aren’t ‘Germans’, though they are Germanic. As to the British royalty, it’s true that they are not ‘typical’ British people, but neither are they ‘Germans’, though the Windsors are descendants of the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This article goes into more detail.

In any case, is there any hope of people letting go of their notion that the British royals are ”Germans” just because the House of Hanover was of German origin?

The fact is that European royalty, considering that the various royal houses of Europe generally choose their spouses from within that group, constitutes a sort of ethnicity to itself, being mixtures of various ‘nationalities’ within the smallish circle of European royalty.

And then we come to the popular assertions that marrying within the European royal lines spells ‘I-N-B-R-E-D’, which most Americans consider synonymous with defective, mentally challenged, and “ugly”, as many Americans say. I don’t see that this follows; I think Americans’ obsession with ‘inbred royalty’ is just an excuse to ridicule European royalty. We Americans, with this knee-jerk obsession with ”equality”, somehow find it necessary to ridicule and denounce royalty at every turn. This is something I don’t share with most Americans. I don’t see that our vaunted ”democracy” has served us very well; how could a monarchy be any worse than being represented (in theory, at least) by a lot of duplicitous crypto-globalist politicians? There’s not much to convince us that this is any better than a bad monarchy.

As far as ‘inbreeding’, I don’t know what degree of relationship is considered ‘inbreeding’; I’ve read that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were something like 6th cousins. This source says they were 5th cousins.

Whichever is true, the media don’t seem to consider the case of the Roosevelts as unhealthy inbreeding, though some royals are related no more closely than that.

I have noticed that the media seem to be pushing the theme of ‘inbreeding’ and trying to sell us on the idea of outmarrying, supposedly because it’s healthier, ”hybrid vigor” and all, new blood added to the stale bloodlines, etc. However ‘hybrid vigor’ does not seem to come into play with most human outmarriages/matings. I suspect the media is trying to push the Kalergist agenda, and they use that theme as a way of inducing people to comply. After all, we have to be equal opportunity spouse-seekers.

But as to the other genetic myths: there’s also the old urban legend about how the ”black Irish”, meaning those Irish-born people with dark hair and dark eyes, are descended from those men who were shipwrecked when the Spanish Armada was defeated by the English in 1588. This article casts doubt on that legend.

Most other sources seem to say the same; the story of Spaniards washing up on the shore of the West of Ireland and somehow fathering progeny there, enough to leave many dark-haired, dark-eyed descendants, just appeals to people who like a ‘romantic’ or spicy story. And the fact is, there are many dark-haired (and some dark-eyed) Irish people in the Western counties, and elsewhere. This seems to be from the predominant Celtic ancestry there, as in Wales, where there are more dark-haired people than fair.

But people do like these ‘colorful’ and fanciful stories. Maybe this is because people weaned on movies, TV, and fiction novels prefer stories to boring old facts.

Not that facts need be boring; I find reality interesting enough, and I read mostly non-fiction, though some think that preference is odd.

Another belief: those in the British Isles or America who have ‘Scandinavian’ origins as shown in DNA tests are descended from ‘Vikings.’ True, or not?

The fact is that the term ‘Viking’ is not an ethnic description as many Americans use it. Often the term is used interchangeably with ‘Norsemen’ or ‘Scandinavians’, at least those who lived in a certain era. ‘Viking’ was a term describing what these people did, not their ethnic origin or identity. Not every Scandinavian in the 8th-12th centuries was a ‘Viking’, though that seems to be assumed today. Still, the Scandinavians or Norsemen who became ancestors of people in the British Isles were probably seafarers/explorers/pirates, (Vikings) though this isn’t necessarily a given.

It’s tempting to think of our ancestors as ‘warriors’, adventurous, impressive people, and this may also explain the sudden popularity of the idea of Scottish or Celtic ancestry following the success of the Braveheart movie. It’s bad history, but apparently the image was something that people liked to identify with.

Again, this reminds me, too, of the sudden popularity of the ‘Celtic South’, the insistence, thanks to several popular books and a TV documentary, that the South was settled by, and mostly made up of, Scots-Irish people. Up until a couple of decades ago, Anglo-Saxons were considered to be the original colonists of the South, and the people who left their stamp on that region. But suddenly it was the Celts who made the South; they were the ‘real’ South, while the English settlers were downplayed. But some of our greatest heroes were of English descent: General Lee for example. General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was half-English but is claimed by the Celtic South promoters as ‘Scots-Irish.’

But even the name ‘Scots-Irish’ is based on a misconception. The people described by that term are not ‘Irish’ as in Celtic Irish, usually Catholic Irish, but Protestants with no actual Irish origins; they came from Scotland, or England, usually the border counties — to the six county province of Ulster, Northern Ireland. These are the people who for so long were in conflict with the Catholic (Celtic) Irish in Northern Ireland. They are ‘Ulster folk’ and they are also called ‘borderers’.

Still the misunderstanding of ‘Scots-Irish’ persists.

There are so many of these myths and misconceptions, and they seem impervious to being debunked or corrected. They seem to be passed around the Internet by word-of-mouth, or maybe people are all getting these ideas from certain sources. In this respect the Internet has seemed to be a very efficient way of passing along many misconceptions and falsehoods. And that’s in addition to being the most efficient source of propaganda ever.

#britain, #england, #ethnicity, #genetics, #hbd, #royalty, #vikings

English-Americans: last of the Mohicans?

A little over a century ago, Mr. Delos R. Baker pronounced Anglo-Americans a ‘feeble, degenerate, dying breed…the last of the Mohicans’. Well, we’re still here: the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated — or are the Delos Bakers of the world right?

Baker wrote a 49-page booklet called ‘Anglo-American Reunion, and in it he made it clear that he opposed any attempt to unify English-descended Americans with our cousins back in Britain. In fact he said that we are not even blood relations to the English or the British. He says there is ‘no predominant community of blood: none ever has existed.

In 1787, when the United States was born, the population of our New-England [sic] section was part English, part French, part German, part Dutch, part Irish, part Indian, part African.

Mr. Barker forgot to mention every other nationality which might have had two members residing in the New England states. I’m sure he missed somebody; if his purpose was to mention every minuscule ”community” of non-Anglos. I mean, the population of ‘Africans’ living in New England was pretty small at that moment in history. Later on, in the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon colonist stock probably were a small proportion of the total New England population. Too bad Mr. Baker would not live another century to see the Anglo-Saxon population outnumbered or ‘ethnically cleansed,’ as he wished for.

But let’s see what else he had to say:
“Of the Anglo-Dutch-German-Irish-Indian-African population of New York, less than half was English.”

And? So? This is not news; New York (formerly New Amsterdam) was not colonized by English people; it was a Dutch colony as most Americans know, and there were other ethnicities present when the Dutch were there, usually French (Huguenot refugees) and Belgians, both groups having intermarried with the Dutch. I doubt that many Irish or Germans or American Indians lived there; the Dutch had been under frequent attack by various Indian tribes in their colonies, even up until the time Baker mentions. These groups were not all living in happy harmony amongst one another then, as any schoolchild should be aware.

And, like most modern-day commentators, Baker (probably deliberately) exaggerates the presence of other non-Anglo colonists. They existed, but there is no reason to believe they outnumbered the English colonial stock Americans.

Then there’s this obvious fact: New York has from an early times had a more mixed population than the rest of the colonies; it’s even more multiracial, multicultural, and polyglot today than ever, but it was never an English colony. It’s a country to itself, almost. Maybe it should be an independent country.

Baker, in trying to use New York as an example of how mixed and mixed-up we are, is cherry-picking. He also cites the example of Pennsylvania, which was, again, an exception among the colonies as to its ethnic makeup. He cites Thomas Paine’s claim that as of 1775, less than one-third of Pennsylvania was English. He says that in Virginia, the African, Indian, French, and Irish outnumbered the English.

There was never a census of the Indian population, as I’ve said, in those times; rough guesstimates won’t do. And the French? Again, some Huguenots came to the South, including Virginia, but I’ve seen no evidence to indicate they were that numerous, and I’ve looked at many census records and other public documents in the course of doing genealogies. Maybe Baker is taking all those ethnic groups in the aggregate to make them outnumber the English settlers. Those early English settlers, including the rich families, had lots of children. Their natural increase was a big part of the population growth.

Baker again:
“The Anglo-Saxon blood was not conspicuous, and was much intermingled with the African.”

He cites no sources for this; it’s just his opinion, but unfortunately this kind of unfounded assertion is all too common even today. Just go to Steve Sailer’s blog, where commenters say similar things and no one counters these un-sourced claims.

As far as admixture between Whites in general and blacks, the rate of White ancestry amongst American blacks has been said to be 17-18 percent.

However different percentages are cited here. Still, the blogger at Occam’s Razor says that the average White American is 98.6 European, according to genetic ancestry surveys.

So much for Baker’s claims of widespread admixture. It should also be remembered that miscegeny between black and White was illegal in all the states, with some states having stricter laws regarding marriages with other ethnicities as well. And the practice was socially taboo; that was the way of the world then, much as some people deplore it. The past is another country, as we’ve heard.

Baker goes on and recites a long list of every ethnicity he can think of, and says we are all hybridized, mixed with every possible nationality and tribe and tongue.

We are become the most hybrid people on the face of the earth; and are generously and hospitably proud of the fact.”

But then he starts to get insulting towards the South:

“Only among the Appallachian [sic] highlands — the last retreat among us of illiteracy, feudism [?]. and moonshining — are Anglo-Saxons conspicuous in the population.”

I’ll leave aside his spelling mistakes in the above, though he should not have mentioned others’ illiteracy; people who live in glass houses, etc.

Then he goes on to the usual assertions about how Irish and German descent is far more prevalent than Anglo-Saxon. I’ve been over all that before, but it bears repeating for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it.
Just because more White Americans self-report as ‘German’ or ‘Irish’, that does not mean they actually are of that ethnicity exclusively or even predominantly; some people who have just one German or Irish or Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent report as one of those ethnicities, even with only one-fourth or less of that ethnicity. I read an article about a woman who identifies as Dutch though she has something like 1/32 Dutch ancestry. Why? Just because she ‘feels’ Dutch or likes the image of the Dutch.

And then there are those seeming millions of White Americans who, like Elizabeth Warren, will swear their great-grandmother was an Indian, even an Indian Princess, in some cases. Why? Because there’s a family legend that it’s so, and because the family has high cheekbones. Yes, some people, just like Fauxcahontas, think ‘high cheekbones’ are absolute proof of Indian ancestry. No other ethnicity has high cheekbones.

It’s also popular to claim German ancestry these days, maybe because of the backlash against anti-German sentiments that had their roots in the last two world wars. Lots of people with a fraction of German blood say they are German, but it’s true that the German settlers in the Plains states and Midwest held to their German ways and language even into the WWII era; they still had German language newspapers and magazines, and often, still spoke German at home. So there is the strong ethnocentrism of German-Americans, but that does not mean Germans are or ever were the majority in this country.

I would have to see DNA proof from a majority of Americans before I accept that ‘most Americans’ are German predominantly.

I wonder if, given his animus towards Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Baker is at least partly German; he says ”we” are proud of being a hybrid race (including himself in that ‘we’) but yet he goes on to say that ‘we Anglo-Saxons’ are a dying breed, like the last of the Mohicans. He says ‘we’ Anglo-Saxons are a ”feeble, degenerate, disappearing strain of blood.”

He seems to relish this kind of talk.

Now, if he were just some nobody from a century ago, venting his loathing of English people, I could dismiss it. But there are so many White Americans who say very similar things today. It’s just another dimension to the animus that has become a barrage in the media, directed towards White people in general. It’s White people hating other Whites, and nobody speaks up against it, except a very few who are conspicuous by their rarity.

Why are so few people of English descent speaking up? Do some bloggers censor replies from Anglo-Saxon Americans? I know that some of the comments I’ve left on certain blogs haven’t shown up. That’s one of the reasons I began this blog: because it seems there is no voice for people of our ethnicity. Who knows, if the trend towards censoring more and more speech continues, will there be any place where we can be heard?

Mr. Baker who wrote this screed against Anglo-Saxons (and also against plain White-bread Americans) is long since in his grave, or in the happy hunting ground where all good Hybrid-Americans go, but there are numbers of White people still promoting and believing his half-truths and propaganda.

#american-history, #dna, #english-descent, #ethnicity, #ethnocentrism, #ethnopatriotism

English America?

Under the blog title above, on the header, you see the phrase ‘English America.’ It’s a simple enough phrase, and it was once taken for granted, but today everything has to be argued all over again, and ‘proven’ to those who were not properly educated in our failing educational system, or who have been mind-conditioned by the media.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

There is some confusion, not just about ‘English America’, but also about the South and its place within America, amongst the younger generations. Many of them have somehow been taught that the South does not include Texas, whereas there was formerly no confusion about this: Texas considered itself part of the South; after all, Texas was part of the Confederacy. The school of thought which denies this makes Texas something of an orphan amongst the States, though the people who hold this view maintain that Texas is part of the Southwest.

Why does it matter? Well, history matters. Truth matters.

I think it is the same kind of crowd who like to rewrite history according to some political agenda they have; these people exist on the right as well as on the left.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

“Somewhere near or at the location of the present international boundary on the south, is the logical (geographic) line of demarcation betweeen English America and Latin America. A glance at a rainfall map, a plant map, a crop map, and a population map of North America shows clearly that Texas is in every respect a continuation of the South that lies east of the Sabine [River]. Geographically, Texas is peripheral to Mexico and continuous with America.” – from A.E. Parkins, The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, 1938

In the quote above, Parkins does not specifically mention the culture of the South, but I believe it applies culturally and ethnically too.

Though there were many Scots-Irish and ‘Celtic Irish’ from Southern Ireland who came to Texas as settlers and colonists, I see no reason to believe that the demographics of the original colonists who were invited to settle Texas were any different from those of the South overall.  Until the late 20th century (that is, very recently) few people questioned the general belief that the South was Anglo-Saxon. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon South’ persistently recurs. It was accepted as true by the older generations who were closer to their roots and who knew who they were. That in itself is more convincing than the word of a few writers and ‘activists’ with an agenda of their own.

If the culture of the original Southern states, since their inception as colonies, was Anglo-Saxon in origin, then this is also true of Texas, as it shares, for the most part, the broader Southern culture: a shared history, shared culinary habits, political leanings.  And then, for another example, the speech and dialect of Texas was very much Southern; not surprising since most of the original Texas colonists came from Southern states. As I mentioned, Texas was part of the Confederacy, and has, until the reign of ‘political correctness’, been very proud of our Confederate forefathers.

Another feature which makes Texas a part of the South culturally is that it is part of the Bible Belt, so-called, and most of the population is Protestant. This is a big factor which distinguishes the South from the other regions, and also the kinds of Protestantism which historically dominated in the South differ from the Northern varieties of Protestantism in style if not in substance.

But isn’t Texas heavily Hispanic, and wasn’t it always populated by lots of Mexicans? The answer is yes, thanks to uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal, Texas is now much more Hispanic than it was in the colonial days, or even into the latter part of the last century. There were once, believe it or not, areas of Texas where few Hispanics lived. But when the original colonies of White Americans began in Texas, there were few Mexicans; the Spanish had been unable to subdue the fractious Comanches and the Anglo colonists, known for having dealt with Indian aggressions successfully were brought in to help get this under control.

Texas in recent years has been much more open to Hispanic influence on the local culture, thanks in part to political correctness and the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to their Hispanic neighbors. But that does not nullify the fact that Texas was part of English America — though whether it remains so, and will remain so, is up in the air.

Do present-day demographics, though, make Texas ‘Hispanic’ more than Anglo? Maybe in those areas where Mexicans are the majority, and the White population has either moved away or adapted themselves to Mexican ways.

But if we say Texas is no longer ‘part of the South’ or part of Anglo-America because of demographics, could the same argument be used to say Louisiana is not part of the South? After all, it has a very large black/Creole population, and also many Cajuns in South Louisiana, people with a distinct culture who until fairly recently were French speakers — as well as being mostly Catholic, unlike the rest of the South. However I don’t think that is even a persuasive argument; the Cajuns have maintained their culture to a great degree (though they have been ‘enriched’ with illegal immigrants in Cajun country, to some extent) but they are also very Southern, and have not rejected the larger American society, or adopted the ‘victimhood’ mentality so popular amongst most ethnic minorities everywhere. My experience is that they see themselves as American (and Southron) as well as Cajun. Louisiana, though demographically different, is part of the South. And even Louisiana has a large Anglo population in the Northern part of the State.

The people make the place, however, and if the demographics of all the Southern states keep changing, with fewer White old-stock people represented, then these states will lose their original identity in proportion to the demographic changes. Nonetheless the past can’t be changed; these states were part of English America, and the original Anglo-Celtic culture of the South is still there as long as there are enough of the people who created that culture.