You really missed my point.
There are some fragile white men who see something like Black History Month or a Women’s History Seminar who whine “Why don’t we ever have a White History Month or a Men’s History Seminar?”
The point is we’re always teaching White Male History. We just don’t call it that. When the subject if what white men have done in the past, it’s just called History
I’m afraid you’ve got a really good point there.
I suspect you’re right. A little context would have helped your post but I understand your point.
True, and I wasn’t disputing that. The “White” identity is not one of being its own thing- it’s just the default that everyone shares in. And that was fine for a long time, while they felt dominant.
But once they started feeling threatened, then sharing became problematic because it feels to them like they’re losing that identity. They want something that is their identity and no one else’s. Certainly not one that’s shared with “those inferior ethnic weirdos”.
The concept of “Heritage American” as an identity has to enter the room here:
https://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-doesnt-make-somebody-american
the idea that “Heritage Americans,” those descended from the colonial era or at least the Civil War, are more American than the rest of us. This disagreement gets to the heart of why American society and the economy work so well while being so ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse.
This is the very conservative Cato take. No fans of it them. But the idea has a big booster in Vance, and among the many Neo Nazis now in positions of power in the administration.
“People whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong,” he said during one of these addresses last July. In another, he described how his family had been buried in an eastern Kentucky cemetery since the 19th century, arguing that this particular ancestry is what undergirds patriotism: “That’s not just a set of principles. … That is a homeland. That is our homeland. People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home,” he said.
American Statesmanship for the Golden Age - The American Mind
… The most obvious way to do that is to ensure that the people we serve have a better life in the country their grandparents built. …
… If you stop importing millions of foreigners, you allow social cohesion to form naturally.
But even so: if you were to ask yourself in 2025 what an American is, very few of our leaders would have a good answer. Is it purely agreement with the creedal principles of America?
That definition is overinclusive andunderinclusive. It would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of foreigners. Must we admit them tomorrow? But, at the same time, that answer would also reject a lot of people the ADL would label domestic extremists, even though their own ancestors were here at the time of the Revolutionary War. …
… America is not just an idea. We’re a particular place, with a particular people, and a particular set of beliefs and way of life. …
Seriously this is scary shit.
Sounds like the Confederacy all over again. But this time in a large fraction of the states.
And with more dunces.
It’s the “Real Americans” idea. When you hear somebody talking about Real Americans, the obvious implication is that there are some people who are also living in this country but who don’t qualify as Real Americans.
I’m guessing Vance doesn’t mention it around Trump though.
Yep.
But more than just living in this country. The idea is that there are people who are inarguably citizens under the law who are not “Real Americans”. And further they and even their descendants never can be.
Which of course is a thoroughly un-American idea. But that doesn’t stop them or even slow them down.
Well this is America, where we accept that all are created equal, just some more equal than others … oink.
And they’re probably not including people of Native American or Hispanic heritage whose families have managed to survive in one area since before it was claimed by the United States. ‘Generations of my family are buried here’ only counts, for many of these people, if they identify that family as White.
There are some people whose ancestors arrived in America in 1619 who still don’t qualify as “Real Americans” by the standards of people who call themselves Real Americans.
Which is pretty much exactly what I’m getting at.
We tackled the “white culture” topic back in January. I didn’t re-read it but I think the general consensus was that there isn’t a singular overall white culture. It’s more likely a subset of other broader cultures.
Happens at the local level too: “You may have been born in this town, but you ain’t one of us!” (A.k.a. “A cat can have kittens in the oven, but that don’t make 'em biscuits!”)
And that micro-level chauvinism oddly enough is inversely proportional to the size of the town. Darn few major metropolises are full of people putting out that attitude. But in a village of 100 people? It’s everywhere.
Maybe it’s exposure to others, and especially different others, that widens one’s mind? Naah, couldn’t be. /s
In an era where the only young people who stay in the small villages of their birth are those who stay voluntarily soon we’re going to see a lot of closed-minded middle-aged people who’ve deliberately turned their back on everything the world has to offer. For the simple homogeneity of 3 blocks of dirt. Sad.
I would argue that’s precisely what’s happened in the last 50 or so years and why the political and cultural divide is as sharp as it is now.
There’s always been tension between the cities and city-dwellers and rural areas and their residents. There’s always been tension between the educated (“boob-boisie!”) and the less-educated (“elitists!”). There’s always been people in rural areas or small towns with ambition or who felt different from most of the people around them who’ve gone off to college, the military, or the city for a better, or at least different, life.
But as the population loss of small towns and rural areas has sped up, that loss of the ambitious and different has left an ever-intensifying concentration of those without ambition and who feel like they are exemplars of the local culture and expect everyone to conform. Who become more and more different from those who left, because those who left changed (or apparently changed) while they did not, and more resentful of the loss, even if they wouldn’t have thought much of those people if they stuck around. Which in turn drives the ambitious (loss of opportunity locally) and especially the different (reduced diversity of thought and tolerance of diversity) to leave, in a vicious circle.
And the ever-decreasing diversity of thought is reflected at the ballot box. A candidate for county board, state legislature, or Congress in a rural area had to appeal to a somewhat broader range of opinion 50 or 30 or 20 years ago than now. As opinion in their constituency has narrowed, candidates have felt freer to take more extreme positions. And to have their campaigns and positions reflect the local resentment of the universities and cities taking “their” young people away.
Agree completely. I maybe didn’t make my timeline as explicit as I should have. You nailed it.
My one-liner summary for my post would have been: “If you think we’re culturally polarized now, just wait until you see what’s coming in the next 20 years vs the last.”
Tell me the difference between this “Heritage Americans” concept and this “white culture” concept. They seem awfully similar; to the point where we’re really just dickering around with words, IMO.