I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the professional Left* loves thinking in terms of binaries: black and white, male and female, rich and poor, Left and Right.
For the media, it means easy headlines: find the Black Hats, and you’ve got your story. Likewise for Hollywood: drama depends on conflict, and what better conflict is there than that between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil? Academics tend to take a little more prodding before they will admit to thinking in such reductive terms, but get them talking about power and oppression and the categories will become clear.
“We” (the speakers) are necessarily the Good Guys. “They” (those who think wrongly about sex, race, and gender) are the Bad Guys. All the Good Guys are on the side of the Oppressed (blacks, women, the poor); all the Bad Guys are on the side of the Powerful (whites, males, rich).
It does not matter that the categories make no historical sense, whether because they are recent inventions (“race” as something determined by evolution rather than culture or language), or because they are a fact of being mammals who reproduce sexually, or because there has never been a human society in which there were not some who commanded more resources than others. To refuse to think in the terms of these binaries is of itself to declare yourself a Black Hat.**
From the perspective of the professional Left (trust me on this, Jane Fonda said it just the other day), there are no viable categories of human community that exist outside these binaries. Every other category–nation, church, commerce, friendship, family–must be collapsed into them. Conversely, because the Left themselves think always in these binaries, they assume that everyone else does, too.
Have you ever wondered why “the Right” seems to have such a hard time defining itself? This is why. There is no such thing as “the Right” except as a projection of the Left. The Left needs a “Right” to oppose itself to, which is why the Left talks all the time about “fascism” as the enemy when both Leftists and fascists are, in fact, totalitarian. Actual conservatism cannot exist as far as the Left is concerned.
Which is how we get “white nationalism.”
Nationalism, properly speaking, has nothing to do with race as biologically defined, never mind with something so literally superficial as skin color. As Roger Scruton has limpidly argued, it is a way of answering the questions “to what do we belong, and what defines our loyalties and commitments” without adverting to “a shared religious obedience, still less in bonds of tribe and kinship.”
Nationalism defines “us” through “the things that we share with our fellow citizens, and in particular in those things that serve to sustain the rule of law and the consensual forms of politics.”
What are these things that “we” share? To start with, Scruton says: territory. “We believe ourselves to inhabit a shared territory, defined by law, and we believe that territory to be ours, the place where we are, and where our children will be in turn. Even if we came here from somewhere else, that does not alter the fact that we are committed to this territory, and define our identity–at least in part–in terms of it.”
From this perspective, it is as nonsensical to talk about “global citizenship” as it is to claim that democracy can or should exist without national borders. In Scruton’s words: “Democracy needs boundaries, and boundaries need the nation state. All the ways in which people come to define their identity in terms of the place where they belong have a part to play in cementing the sense of nationhood.”
Second, albeit closely tied to territory, are the history and customs according to which a particular territory has been settled. These customs may include, but do not need to include, religious ceremonies; secular rituals observed in common are equally potent, as are stories about how the territory was settled.
These stories, as Scruton notes, tend to be of three kinds: tales of glory, tales of sacrifice, and tales of emancipation. But they change according to who thinks of themselves as we: we English, we Scots, we Americans, we Mexicans, we Chinese, we Russians, we French. For the English and those nations derived from England (like America), one of the most important of their national myths is that of the common law. Again, in Scruton’s words: “We who have been brought up in the English-speaking world have internalized the idea that law exists to do justice between individual parties, rather than impose a uniform regime of command.”
(In contrast: “To someone raised on the doctrine that legitimate law comes from God, and that obedience is owed to Him above all others, the claims of the secular jurisdiction are regarded as at best an irrelevance, at worse a usurpation”–for example, among those raised in dar al-Islam. This, as Scruton points out, is one of the most important reasons for many Islamists’ resentment of the West and its representative, the United Nations: the imposition of the idea of the nation with its ideals of secular law and citizenship on Muslim communities founded rather on “divine law, brotherhood, and submission to a universal faith.” Perhaps paradoxically for many modern secularists, the secular nation is a peculiarly Christian construct, grounded in the idea of the separation of Church and State.)
Showing once again his English roots, Scruton insists: “The essential thing about nations is that they grow from below, through habits of free association among neighbours, and result in loyalties that are attached to a place and its history, rather than to a religion, a dynasty, or, as in Europe, to a self-perpetuating political class.”
From this perspective, America would seem to embody the ideal nation.
Defining America as a nation
Still in Scruton’s words:
Under the American settlement, people were to treat each other, first and foremost, as neighbors: not as fellow members of a race, a class, an ethnic group or religion, but as fellow settlers in the land that they shared. Their loyalty to the political order grew from the obligations of neighbourliness; and disputes between them were to be settled by the law of the land. The law was to operate within territorial boundaries defined by the prior attachments of the people, and not by some trans-national bureaucracy open to capture by people for whom those boundaries meant nothing.
My colleagues in the History department gathered again yesterday to talk about the implications for America of a Trump presidency. While they seemed to believe that it was important that America continue to exist–the one American historian talked explicitly about whether the Republic was in danger–it was difficult for me to understand why they thought it should. Except for the one Americanist, all the others work on other parts of the world: China, Eastern Europe, medieval Germany, Mexico, Marxist theory in the original German. As a group, those who work on the modern world seemed willing to champion the idea that other nations should exist in their own territories with their own histories and customs, but whether America has a place in that constellation seemed somewhat unclear.
Our Mexican historian spoke forcefully (and correctly) about the degree to which America is already and always has been Mexico. I get this intuitively, having grown up in New Mexico and spent my childhood wondering why all American history seemed to begin on the East Coast. (I’m old; I know this is not the version of our national history kids these days are learning.) “But what,” I asked him in the Q&A, “do Mexicans think about us? Do they agree with you when you say that Mexico is already and has always been America?” “Oh, no, they think I am crazy for siding with the gringos.”
Likewise, our Chinese historian spoke eloquently about the way in which China looks at the rest of the world through the lens of its own national history, particularly the imperial system of competitive examination. The current ruling elite in China, he told us, value expertise above all. To them it is nonsensical that we as America seem so willing to undermine ourselves competitively, while at the same time they are unsurprised. China, after all, is the Middle Kingdom, the place where heaven and earth meet. (I paraphrase somewhat, adding my own understanding of imperial China from my undergraduate days–I got to play Empress in our recreation of Qing politics.)
But what President Trump said yesterday in his inaugural address? Dangerous.
Unless, of course, you have been reading Scruton.
“We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.” That is, we are neighbors who live and work together, fellow settlers in the land we share, obliged to each other through neighborliness.
“Together we will determine the course of America and the world… We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.” Here Trump invokes all three tales of the nation at once: glory, sacrifice, and emancipation.
“This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country. What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.” The nation is defined, again, as a shared territory, the we of those of us who live here as citizens under the same law.
“At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.” Note the explicit emphasis on neighborliness and the implicit appeal to the understanding that the nation grew up from the free associations between neighbors.
Just wait for the holllyweed crowd to make movies with anti trump themes in them and we the people not bothering to see any of the movies lets see studios go to ruin lets see theaters close as all their movies bomb big time
It is wise to always remain vigilant. Things do not necessarily announce their true nature at the beginning.
The cries of Nazism from the left show they are unhinged. You seriously need medical help for the terminal mental disorder for which you are currently suffering greg, liberalism….
Tells us greg, when will President Trump begin rounding up his enemies to boxcar ship them off to camps in parts uknown, but seen by the billowing clouds of black smoke as a result of President Trump hiding his crimes against humanity?
Maybe a trip to DC where they recently passed phyisian-assisted suicide would end your terminally ill condition.
@July 4th American, #3:
The right seems to read a lot into comments such as the one in post #2, which less hysteria-prone persons might think about for a moment and simply acknowledge as a bit sound advice, applicable to either end of the political spectrum.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes” – Yoda
Yet some things are demonstrably true, while others are demonstrably false.
What does this suggest about the importance being placed on that critical distinction?
Journalists Predictably Freak Out Over Reinstated Reagan Policy on Abortion
Resorting to musical clips and a caption representing the last 8 years of the previous administration and their lapdog MSM syncophants?
Iowahawk’s tweet on the black masked thugs throwing bricks, smashing windows and burning at least 1 vehicle justifying their fascist tactics with the idiotically unaware, “We are doing this in protest of fascism” actually makes a point, rather than the non-sequitors you provide.
The left forgot the metaphor of the boiling frog as they aggresively and arrogantly accelerated their push of progressive insanity these past 8 years, thus alerting the American public of the rising heat when we still had sufficient wherewithall to jump out of the fascist leftist pot before being boiled.
The MSM threw away what little credibility they had in their desperate obeisance to the extreme, corrupt, leftists that are the DNC.
The desperation of the demofascists with all this “white nationalism” wolf-crying is sufficiently palpable to carve with a spork. They screamed the “racist, bigot, homophobic” garbage because they cannot win any actual debate, but Trump isn’t a cuckservative who skitters away from fighting leftist lies and hypocrisy.
The next 4 years are going to be as magnificent as an ice cold lager after a sweltering hot day of working outdoors.