A discussion with rich historical perspective on who/what is "American"

[tallslenderguy]

 

[hntnhole]

As always, a timely and superb topic.  

Are  you willing to accept certain ... well .... "foundational" interpretations/responses?  

1.  Given that what leaps to mind first, is the "learned" answer, by which I mean the culturally common response.  For many, that would be Caucasian Americans, simply because by now there are more of them then any other discernable group.  However, we Caucasians are merely the original conquerors of the Original Americans, that being the conquered Native Americans.  Add to that recipe the peoples of African American descent (aka Black Americans, originally imported as "property"), as well as the host of folks from other parts of the world that came to North America in search of a better life.  

2.  Thus, it becomes crystalline that any/all peoples of any other place on the face of the earth, that arrived on these shores in search of a better life, willing to put shoulder to the (wagon)wheel, do what they needed to do in order to achieve their dreams of living free of overbearing rulers elsewhere in the world.  

3.  To this very day, the definition discussed in line-item #2 is completely and fully a part of our American life.  There are less fortunate arriving daily, seeking a better life, just as out Caucasian ancestors did at Plymouth Rock.  That process, the promise of America, has been a beacon to people of every kind and description that walk on two legs for centuries, and that process has made the US prosperous, advanced in human rights (save for the anti-human tragedy in the Southern States a century+ ago), and a last, best hope for the downtrodden everywhere.  

4.  It is the chance, the opportunity to live a better life, and thereby allow the same for their generations to follow, that most Americans cherish and offer to new immigrants to this very day.  Despite the depths of selfishness some Americans have descended into, that dream of doing the best one can to uplift and welcome the new immigrants remains solid, constant, and unwavering.  I still believe that the current undercurrent of selfishness, greed, anti-human behavior is an aberration, not a permanent infection on the American psyche.  But, I'm only one of hundreds of millions of Americans. 

And now, tallsplendidboy, I'll listen to the broadcasts you've offered.  ❤️

[tobetrained]

I was able to get through this one @tallslenderguy! I didn't start to rant at my screen until the last 15 minutes of so...once the convo went out of their self-admitted depth and it became more a philosophical chat. 😀

To that part, I wish they revisited the many many schools of thought in Eastern traditions as well as ancient Greek philosophies. They completely missed Plato in the discussion and Platonism's use in the Heritage movement's thinking. The participant's view was somewhat contradictory to varied philosophies. Just from ancient Greek thought are stoicism, epicureanism, skepticism, cynicism, etc. And I've only scratched the surface with Eastern thought. The common theme among some of these ideas, the thing the linked speakers derided, was "accepting the null."

Earlier, they did talk about manifest destiny but didn't apply it to the thinking. I was unsure if that was bias. Clearly, throughout the 19th century (+/-) we shoved Natives out. We had no intention of including everybody...not that it was correct. In that, their convo smacked of modern elitism. And here, I don't think they setup the mindset of the 17th-19th century world -- and not just here but everywhere around the world. With that, different conclusions could be drawn.

If you'd like some examples as to why, there are excellent lecture series in The Great Courses Signature Series -- each series is between 20 and 50 30-minute lectures from academics around the world. I subscribe via Apple but assume it's available elsewhere. They do have a stand-alone site, which I've not used. Very good background:

• Barbarians of the Steppes -- by the end, you'll get a good understanding of why "the West" was what is was but more so how much had happened elsewhere, specifically Central Asia. We, the US, came into the world at just the right time... they even talk about how people in the 18th and 19th century talked about that. But those people didn't know by how much, as the history of the Steppes and Central Asia had been lost. Academic understanding is more modern rediscovery and still only partial.
• Eastern Civilization -- a small part of this includes a starters' guide to various Eastern thought and philosophies but mostly on why there was little migration to what is not the US from this region, therefore, people here in the 18th to 19th centuries were little burdened.
• A History of Eastern Europe -- includes the local history of Nationalism in the 19th century, it's impact missed in the video -- both in that time and place and, through implication, the modern far-right movements. It also highlights why some of these people called themselves "not white" -- as discussed in the linked video -- as well as highlights the Eastern Orthodox segment of Christianity, itself derived from Greek Orthodox/The Byzantine Empire aka Eastern Roman Empire.
• It never hurts to do a History of Western CIv class -- they have two lecture series...I think only one is available at any one time on Apple though.

The most important thing they discussed was paradoxically a bit of a null argument to the topic. That "the founders" and those in the 18th and 19th century didn't have the same conditions we have now.

Or, you can just watch the South Park episode Goobacks (from like 2003 or 2004), re: migration culminating in a big gay sex pile orgy.

[tobetrained]

...after a few days, part of this video really bothered me. For the rest of you, I reached out privately to @tallslenderguy about that yesterday. The short of it, Jon Stewart's guests provided a biased view which is making its way through left-leaning circles. But it has it's own history.

I want to be clear: I make NO negative claim about the intention of @tallslenderguy whatsoever. In fact, I fully appreciate and believe in what he continues to do on this site by providing perspectives. That's why I'm happy to spend time engaging with him (and others) in those perspectives.

Then, as if by some divine force -- none of which I believe in -- Politico posted this article just this morning.

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/13/woodard-immigration-00679254

The author is Colin Woodward. He wrote a book a decade ago I've mentioned on this site before, American Nations. It's a great book and the article demonstrates that.

But back to the beginning of this post and the biased view presented. Stewart asks his guests about religion's role repeated. They deflect each time. This is part of a response-movement on the left in today's culture...to the political right.

In the article, Woodward states:
"On one side are ethnonationalists who assert that only the people with the right lineage and faith can belong to America. On the other is the civic nationalist tradition where anyone who shares the universal ideas about human freedom in the Declaration of Independence is a potential American."

But, in the linked video, failure by omission or failure by selective facts are both manipulation. They -- Stewart's guests and NOT @tallslenderguy -- are participating in a form of ideological purity control  -- as are the Heritage folks. But you can't counter a manipulation of facts with one of your own.

For myself, I have no interest in religion at all. But I fully respect those that do. But the failure to acknowledge its role is bias. Simultaneously, that doesn't mean it has to continue as a driving force. After all, Christianity itself, as well as most other religions, wouldn't exist if spiritual thought had to be held stagnant.

[tallslenderguy]

I asked @tobetrained if it was okay to share my private responses publicly and he gave the okay.  i want to be clear as well, how much i value him and his thoughtful replies. To me, it's nothing but good and healthy to present views that add different perspective in these discussions. i'm not even an amateur when it comes to history, so sometimes i feel like i'm coming from a place of ignorance, i am grateful for shared knowledge and opinion.

These are my private responses, unmodified and sans @tobetrained replies, but most of the content is in the preceding entry above and hopefully this won't be confusing: 

First Response:

 

Hey, thanks for sending this and i think it's fine for you to add it to the  online discussion.  

You seem better informed about history than me.  The challenge for me is i am not a professional historian, so not unlike the discussion we have had about healthcare, i end up extending trust to authorities who do have a background.  

With science, i have enough understanding that i can look for evidence when someone makes a claim, which to me is the next layer up from "authority."  Scientists have to publish claims in journals, then other authorities get the opportunity to pic it apart. i guess historians publish papers too, and others can pic their claims and assertions apart, but the how of substantiating history is different than science. Not something that can be replicated in an independent double blind study. 

Take the bible for instance.... i'm a little familiar with that. Lots of versions, lots of debate.  

i appreciate your questioning, disputing claims that might go right over my or others heads, but how do we choose between your (or anyones) conclusions or another's? 

Second Response:

 

idk... i appreciate your questions, and oft opposing view point.  i need to re-watch with an eye towards your points.  i do not get the impression that Richardson is purposely manipulative, maybe inadvertently so due to unconscious bias? This is my first encounter with Guelzo.

When it comes to "who knows," and sources you listed. i confess i'm used to more specific citations that can be substantiated lol. When i read that in your original post, it was sort of overwhelming. my feel was, i'd have to read entire books or go through several courses that i do not have subscriptions too....

By comparison, when i am having a healthcare discussion with someone about a possible intervention, i would cite a specific study, paragraph, etc., with a link to the actual point i am making. i do not know if such a method is available in this discussion? 

i'm currently rewatching the last half hour of the video with with @tobetrained 's input about deflected question re religion.  Hopefully i'll catch what he is pointing out. i'm watching the last half hour, even though he notes it in the last 15 minutes 🙂

 

[tobetrained]

54 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

I'm currently rewatching the last half hour of the video with with @tobetrained 's input about deflected question re religion.  Hopefully i'll catch what he is pointing out. i'm watching the last half hour, even though he notes it in the last 15 minutes

The last 15 mins was the philosophical issue....absence of null.

I noted one omission at the 20' mark. Another in the last 30 mins, in the context of the 1924 legislation. When I watched I mentally noted others as well...Stewart's questions of role of religion being explicitly avoided. That includes one instance which he even makes a comment on their silence.