Posted on 07/07/2017 11:12:54 PM PDT by aquila48
Patrick Buchanan is an informative and interesting writer. On foreign policy, especially, he's long been one of the most reasonable voices among high-level American pundits.
When it comes to cultural matters, however, Buchanan has long held to a peculiar and empirically questionable version of American history in which the United States was once a mono-culture in which everyone was once happily united by "a common religion," a "common language," and a "common culture."
Now, he's at it again with his most recent column in which he correctly points out that the United States is culturally fractured, and speculates as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson's call to "dissolve political bands" in the Declaration of Independence might be sound advice today.
Buchanan is correct in noting that the US is culturally divided today.
But, he appears to have a selective view of history when he contends there was a time when this was not so. If there ever was such a period, it's unclear as to when exactly it was.
Buchanan can't be referring to the mid-19th century when Northern states and Southern states were becoming increasingly hostile toward each other. Many of these differences flared up over slavery, but larger cultural differences were there too, exemplified by a divide between agrarian and industrialized culture, and the hierarchical South versus the more populist North. The result was a civil war that killed more than 2 percent of the population. It was a literal bloodbath.
Was that version of the United States culturally united?
Nor can Buchanan possibly be referring to the US of the so-called Gilded Age. After all, during this period, the US was flooded with immigrants from a wide variety of backgrounds,
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Good article, thanks for posting.
I’d say Buchanan is wrong, in that the original (traditional) Americans are the only ones able to state their true beliefs openly.
The invaders (cultural Marxists, or immigrants of whichever variety) are forced to pretend to have traditional American values such as honesty, good will, work ethic, etc.
So we gauge which is the true America based on who is able to be real. The pretenders are the outsiders.
The “immigrants from a wide variety of backgrounds” in the 1920’s and 30’s were from western cultures, namely Europe. So the variety wasn’t as large as what we’re experiencing today.
I’m not quite sure to whom you are referring as “original (traditional) Americans.” Do you mean the Mohawks, Cherokees and so forth?
Or if not, could you helpfully define your term? Not trying to pick on you, I’m just curious.
Think though how horribly the Irish were treated.
If one chooses to look at the segregation of the black population prior to 1964, it could be argued that the civil rights laws of the 60s allowed the blacks to be Americans. And that no matter how many generations of blacks had lived in America prior to 1964, that with the equal rights laws of the 60’ the blacks were 1st generation American immigrants. New to the States...as equal citizens.
FWIW, Buchanan’s definition of ‘Nation’ is from John Jay.
>Think though how horribly the Irish were treated.
They were treated horribly to get them assimilate which they refused to do. They used to raise their kids speaking Gaelic instead of English. The thing that finally caused assimilate was cutting off immigration in the 20s and 30s which dried up the supply of people from the old country.
Yes but the culture itself was not too different from the “melting pot” that existed at the time. It was mostly just a matter of perception. Today we’re importing from cultures that don’t even believe in Democracy.
The US had a common culture before the civil war though it was slowly dividing but mostly over agitation between each area’s elites. The biggest divide before the civil war was the ruling elites. In the north in Puritan traders who ran everything. In the south you had landed aristocracy. When the North won they abolished the aristocracy and tried to setup a Putin trader elite. It didn’t work out to well in the south.
By the early 1900s American elites realized they needed a common culture so they started trying to promote a common American culture. Even when people are pretty different as long as you can give them something they all feel kinship too it works pretty well. The problem was it didn’t work with the immigrants. Eventually we had to slam the door on all new immigrants and abolish papers and language schools that were not English to force integration.
Today the elites have built a multicultural society that has no foundation. We’re one good shock away from everyone grouping with their own and carving territory.
Massachusetts, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified the Bill of Rights in 1939. We have been fighting over the basics for a very long time. It’s still the same fight: Are our rights limited only to those specifically protected (and should that list be interpreted as narrowly as possible), or are government’s powers over us limited to only those specifically enumerated (and should that list be interpreted as narrowly as possible)?
They were treated horribly to get them assimilate which they refused to do. They used to raise their kids speaking Gaelic instead of English. The thing that finally caused assimilate was cutting off immigration in the 20s and 30s which dried up the supply of people from the old country.
Guess we still have the same problem.. The immigrants don’t want to assimilate..
I.e., it is what we should strive for.
Regards,
“The invaders (cultural Marxists, or immigrants of whichever variety) are forced to pretend to have traditional American values such as honesty, good will, work ethic, etc.”
I haven’t seen them pretending at all. They’re constantly in your face screaming how awful your values are.
The unifying glue of any nation are its values, specifically it’s DOMINANT values., which defines its dominant culture.
So what were America’s dominant values that held it together for so long, It was the idea of individual freedom with responsibility.
But it wasn’t unlimited freedom, only those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Those “rights” were sacrosanct (almost). They were outside the grasp of a simple majority. You could not undo them with an election using a simple majority.
All other freedoms not protected by the bill of rights were up for grab for the majority.
Any culture that was anathema to those rights could not make it here. Thus cultures that denied the most basic freedoms became an instant enemy. Examples of this were naziism and communism. Others would be religions that are violently intolerant of other religions or freedoms, such as islam.
For the most part most other religions, even if they taught that they were the only true religion, tolerated the others and coexisted with them fairly peacefully and they all accepted the bill of rights, and thus became subcultures accepting of the dominant American culture.
That 1939 vote was on the 150th anniversary of those Amendments known as The Bill of Rights becoming law. It was symbolic. Massachusetts, Georgia and Connecticut weren’t contesting The Bill of Rights all that time, it’s just that a sufficient number voted in favor therefore their votes were moot.
“The expression “one Nation” was probably intended to be taken as a “prescriptive” rather than as a “descriptive.””
It all depends what you mean by nation. To me a nation above all is a “container of certain dominant values, a “container of a dominant culture”. The physical boundaries hold the people that believe in those dominant values.
So I would interpret “one Nation” as a group of people that overwhelmingly believe in “one set of values”.
See my post number 15 for more details.
I felt that Buchanan’s essay was focused on the Founding Fathers, and their written documents.
Between 1620 and 1820, except for slaves and the mostly powerless native Americans, almost every person in America could trace their heritage within a 500 mile radius of London.
Let’s see here. In America, Naziism and Communism denied the most basic human rights and were evil and were to be opposed. Yet you did not mention Jim Crow here in the USA. Jim Crow denied the most basic of human rights. Therefore did you neglect to say that the Americans in charge of the nation were just as evil as the communist and the nazis?! Or am I missing something in the wordings?! Maybe, the nation just was not ready to extend its boundaries to all of its citizens yet. Not enough economy for every one to be included?
Not my gnth grandad Tillman Weissgerber...who died in Culpepper Co. VA in 1759. He was born in Niederndorf, Germany.... more than 700 miles from London. Came here with a boatload of Germans...
There was a colony of them called the Germanna Colony which has the oldest continuously used Lutheran Church in the country:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.