The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Senator Schatz Outraged to Hear That America Has an "Anglo-American Heritage of Law Enforcement"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s the offending paragraph from Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ speech to a convention of sheriffs that so outraged Senator Schatz (D-Hawaii):

I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process. The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.

Who is Brian Schatz?

Brian Emanuel Schatz (pronounced /ʃɑːtz/; born October 20, 1972) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Hawaii since 2012. Schatz was appointed by Governor Neil Abercrombie to replace Senator Daniel Inouye after his death. …

Brian Schatz was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with an identical twin brother, Steve. He is the son of Barbara Jane (née Binder) and Irwin Jacob Schatz, a cardiologist and native of Saint Boniface, Manitoba. The family is Jewish.[3][4]

He’s lived in Hawaii since he was two, went to Punahou School, came back from Pomona College and taught school at Punahou, and got appointed to the U.S. Senate right after his 40th birthday.

In other words, life has been very, very nice to Senator Schatz.

But still … Schatz just can’t help himself being triggered by the fact that the word “sheriff” comes from “shire” (like in The Hobbit) and “reeve,” as in the names of Superman actors George Reeves and Christopher Reeve. A couple of Jewish kids in Cleveland rip off Nietzsche, yet two goys wind up playing playing crime-fighting Superman on the screen! Where is the justice? It makes Schatz angry to hear that America has an “Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.” That somebody else’s ancestors launched America is racist. That his ancestors didn’t found America seems downright anti-Semitic.

Schatz’s resentment is reminiscent of that of the folks in Beverly Hills who are mad that their great-grandfathers had to found Hillcrest Country Club all the way down on cruddy Pico Blvd. because the founders of Los Angeles Country Club had already bought up the land on posh Wilshire Blvd.

While Senator Schatz is furious over mention of “Anglo-American heritage” …

CONGRESS CELEBRATES JEWISH AMERICAN MONTH AT SENATE GATHERING

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2017 – …Members of Congress who marked Jewish American Heritage Month at the Senate Russell Office Building were Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ; Sen. Sherrod Brown; D-Ohio; Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.; Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.; Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hi.; Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y.; Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Mass.; Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill.; and a driving supporter of the Jewish American Heritage Month, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

And from 2013:

Jewish American Heritage Celebrated In The Capitol

… Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, Congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois, were all introduced by Master of Ceremonies Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Executive Vice President of the New York Board of Rabbis, highlighted the theme of the Congressional Tribute, which is to commemorate Jewish American Heritage in honor of Jewish contributions in business, government, military service, political life, health and science.

 
Hide 259 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. J.Ross says: • Website

    English Commom Law tradition is the basis of pretty much everything we think of as “American,” and there has been a concerted effort in academia and leftist thought leading to erase or deny it. I have encountered educated Britons who insisted that it had no influence on us and that our legal system is actually modelled on Revolutionary France. This is the real reason for anti-Second-Amendment activism: they want to eliminate the concepts of natural laws and negative rights, and instead have the state be a god who makes it up as he stumbles along, like is the case with France. Do not mistake this tweet for ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    Louisiana is a Napoleanic Code state. Brando rants about it in Streetcar. Almost went to Tulane for law school.
    , @Eagle Eye

    Do not mistake [Schatz's] tweet for ignorance.
     
    Indeed, Sen. Schatz is obviously a - not very capable - agent for the usual Cult-Marx cabal intent on creating ANOTHER REPUBLIC on American soil and worldwide, with another flag as its emblem: the boot stomping on a face, with the word "FOREVER."

    The carpetbagging gentleman - born in Michigan - may have forgotten what the state flag of his adopted state looks like:

    https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/images/content/is_that_the_flag/hawaiipictures.jpg

    As is usual among younger members of today's political class, Schatz has never served in the military and has never done a day's work in the tax-paying private sector:


    Schatz enrolled at Pomona College in Claremont, California; he spent a term studying in Kenya as part of the International Training Program. ... After graduating with a B.A. in philosophy, he returned to Hawaii, where he taught at Punahou before taking other jobs in the nonprofit sector.

    ...
    He became active in the community through his involvement in Youth for Environmental Services in the 1980s. He served as CEO of Helping Hands Hawaii and director of the Makiki Community Library and of the Center for a Sustainable Future. In March 2010, Schatz stepped down from Helping Hands to run for lieutenant governor.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schatz

    On the plus side, Schatz has never caused any accidents on a U.S. aircraft carrier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

    , @Russ
    One supposes that Schatz will be identifying as MENA in the 2020 census. I never could have imagined, but I certainly can imagine now. Thanks as ever, Steve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. El Dato says:

    Anglo-American is just a step away from Nazi-American. It’s literally a Holocaust dog-whistle. #Resist

    Sessions blasted for praising sheriffs as ‘Anglo-American heritage’

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Gellero
    Jews are not Anglo-American?
    In what universe?
    We are not Germanic, but certainly Caucasian...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. anon • Disclaimer says:

    When will judeo-christian values morph into judeo-islamo-afro-indigenous-christian-people-of-color values?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Issac
    As soon as an election demonstrates that the white population is subdued and will no longer be able to field national candidates. 2024 at the earliest, but no later than 2028 given no major deportation and brithright repeal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.
     
    Perhaps this Hawaiian Schatzie knows his history and is very efficient in left-propagandizing for his target audience, which is mostly his voters. Plus trying to out virtue Pelosi rhapsodizing about brown Latino children. How her grandson wanted to be one.
    Would it not be great to be able to hook up all Dems brains for one week a year to a truth-o-meter where we can learn if they can know their neo-Marx propaganda is a lie or if they have bought into it.
    , @Barnard
    This moron calls himself a "tech advocate" in his Twitter profile. In other words he is yet another member of Congress completely beholden to the tech industry and will blindly implement whatever policies Silicon Valley tells him they want as long as the campaign donations keep coming.
    , @AndrewR
    Never assume ignorance when malice suffices as an explanation.
    , @Forbes
    Deficient in history, you say? How about deficient in reality? Has Schatz noticed his state flag?
    , @Jack D
    You have to understand liberal double standards - if Barack Obama refers to the Anglo-American legal tradition (as he has) then it is a good and noble thing, because Obama is a good and noble non-racist person. If Jeff Sessions says the exact same thing, then coming from him it's a racist dog whistle. It's just like black people are allowed to refer to each other by the N word but God forbid a white person should ever say that word. In other words, who-whom as usual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    People use ‘Judeo-Christian’ because it’s safer than plain ‘Christian’.

    So, how about ‘Judeo-Anglo’? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.
     

    That is not necessarily true. First, the tribes got here before the English. Yet the English did not assimilate into hunter-gatherer culture, they brought their own culture and displaced the tribes.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    , @Clyde

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.
     
    The Natives would have made mincemeat out of the Hindus if they had gotten to the New World first and tried to colonize it. Their specialty is colonizing the comfortable America of today. Our Anglo-American law is one reason America is comfortable and advanced. The multicult left can only denigrate and take this Anglo-American law for granted, same as they like to use The Constitution as a doormat. Partly due to it being written by Anglo men.
    , @guest
    People use "Judeo-Christian" because they've been bamboozled.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Eminent American scholar & literary critic Harold Bloom (Shakespeare, Shelley, Gnosticism, American religion, Whitman, Western Canon, ...) has long since smashed this silly notion: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048309

    ELLIOTT: Harold Bloom, you conclude that it's really a myth for us to talk about this Judeo-Christian outlook.

    Prof. BLOOM: I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, "Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people." There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. guest says:

    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There’s two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). “Anglo” is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It’s not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I’m aware. But the outraged don’t care about that. They’re pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent, but I don’t care about being ethnically excluded from my country’s legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don’t resent the fact, because I’m not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren’t allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can’t be named, maybe it won’t be remembered, and that’ll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Likewise there are more kinds of Hispanics than mestizos. Technically anyone of any race or ethnicity could be hispanic. Yet most Americans just assume hispanic means brown. I would say mestizo, but I doubt most Americans are familiar with that term.
    , @jim jones
    I made a trip to Runnymede once to see the birthplace of Common Law and English Civilization, had a very nice day out:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede
    , @Marcus
    Anglo-American and Anglo-Saxon are both common in US historiography.
    , @syonredux

    1). “Anglo” is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It’s not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I’m aware.
     
    Actually, it is. "White Anglo" is becoming increasingly commonplace. After all, it is less cumbersome than "Non-Hispanic White."

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Anglo-Saxon means racially English. Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.
    , @densa
    "Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites."

    "If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered..."


    This. Any reference to anything white that doesn't refer to slavery, displacing Indians, or Hitler is hate speech. White is so bad that they only honorable thing for us to do is go a shade paler and become invisible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I met him once and talked for about five minutes.

    The impression I got from that brief conversation was “This guy is a dick.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    How many senators aren't?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. istevefan says:

    What would the good senator think about this tweet from Haaretz?

    Justice minister: Israel must keep Jewish majority even at the expense of human rights

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. In Schatz-World, Steve’s post would get him arrested by a sheriff for writing hate speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Is that a six-pointed star?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect. The Atlantic Charter will never be allowed to be mentioned again as it was an Anglo-American statement of so-called principle. All references to the term “Anglo-American” will reference Cecil Rhodes and explain that he was a confirmed racist who called for the creation of an (racist) Anglo-American Empire before he died.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    "Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect."

    Does this mean we can finally admit that Lindbergh was right?

    "When England asks us to enter this war she is considering her own future and that of her Empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere...

    "The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people."

    - Charles Lindbergh, America First Speech, 23 April 1941
     
    , @guest
    I would be happy if all that happened, actually. Because the Anglo-American Empire is not the same thing as the Anglo-American tradition, though if you're Moldbuggy you consider the rot to have set in before America even existed.

    But there was something different about the Establishment who fought WWII, as compared to when we were a Republic, before the Dutch "traitor to his class" betrayed his class, as well as before the banksters got their claws in everything.

    Those were the Unhappy New Lords in charge on 1941, not the Anglo-Americans who forged the nation and won the west and blah, blah, blah.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. istevefan says:
    @guest
    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There's two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). "Anglo" is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It's not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I'm aware. But the outraged don't care about that. They're pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I'm white without being of English descent, but I don't care about being ethnically excluded from my country's legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don't resent the fact, because I'm not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered, and that'll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,

    Likewise there are more kinds of Hispanics than mestizos. Technically anyone of any race or ethnicity could be hispanic. Yet most Americans just assume hispanic means brown. I would say mestizo, but I doubt most Americans are familiar with that term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.
    , @guest
    The term was popularized to refer to mestizos, so that they could be counted as non-white on the census. We know it also applies to white Spaniards, for instance, but it's not generally for them.

    "Hispanic" is a multi-racial term. But "Anglo" isn't. It's not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.

    , @Iberiano
    Yes, but of course, we have enjoyed the broad, general term "Hispanic" and "Latino" because it has grouped us in one identity that receives benefits of affirmative action (which is a lot more pervasive than people realize). Although I am what is considered traditionally "Hispanic" (Spanish-only descent), I'm amused by my Latino brothers and sisters who like to go around saying, "Hispanic is a name made up by Americans", "Latinos can be of any race" "I'm not Latino I'm, _X_".

    Well, right, but then, if every policy was posed to regular American stock as "Do you believe immigrants from Bolivia (legal or not legal) deserve coverage under affirmative action similar to descendants of slaves?" most would draw the logical conclusion: THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION against the majority of "Latino/Hispanic" people. It was a small, Chicano movement involving farm workers that suddenly thrust Latinos into the victim group, so that now, decades later, a doctor and his stay-at-home Argentine wife can move to the US, have children and those children are immediately moved up the food chain for all SORTS of US Government programs.

    Americans were too busy over the decades, watching TV, sports, getting drunk, etc, to monitor what is essentially a fellow "white" tribe (made of a variety of mixes, based on European stock) move into their territory, use their own laws against them, and become the largest and most powerful "minority" in the US. If groups of "we are so so so different" Slavs or Ruskies had done this, the reaction would have been what it has always been, "not on our watch". Americans were disarmed by the idea that Latinos were these poor, downtrodden "otherness" that needed help because of the "historical oppression" of whites...which is largely a myth, or in other cases, was what happened in OTHER countries, at the hands of Spain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    See, if you say "common law" you don't Name the Anglo, no one has to think about yucky white people, maybe we'll forget white people were involved, and we can forget the American common law tradition altogether.

    By the way, what is on Session's record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    , @syonredux

    Sessions could have avoided a lot of trouble this morning by either:

    — Saying “common law” instead of “Anglo-American”
     
    See, it's like saying Common Era/Before Common Era instead of Anno Domini/Before Christ....We don't want anyone to get triggered here.....

    Come to think of it, maybe we should change "English language" to something less offensive....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    In Schatz-World, Steve's post would get him arrested by a sheriff for writing hate speech.

    http://www.collectorsarmoury.com/images/14-214.jpg

    Is that a six-pointed star?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. J.Ross says: • Website
    @istevefan

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Likewise there are more kinds of Hispanics than mestizos. Technically anyone of any race or ethnicity could be hispanic. Yet most Americans just assume hispanic means brown. I would say mestizo, but I doubt most Americans are familiar with that term.

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    I agree. I actually have zero English ancestry of which I'm aware, but give the English the credit for founding the best nations in the new world, Canada, Oz, NZ and the good ole USA. Of course it appears to have taken more than just the English institutions. We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.
    , @Anonym
    One of the big differences is that the English properly colonized rather than just the menfolk breeding with the female natives as happened a lot with the French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. At some point the colonial infrastructure became a drawcard for other European settlement so you still ended up with a fairly similar country, e.g. IQ about 100, etc.
    , @Nico

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.
     
    St. Thomas More, Ann Boleyn and the Swiss just might beg to differ on that point. And even Fascist Italy and Vichy France were far from the totally tyrannical entities Red Spain, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were (at least not until they were officially 100% occupied by this latter). On the other hand, France had already passed through the Committee of Public Safety and the Paris Commune a long time before, so...
    , @hyperbola
    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly "rights for aristocrats" of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front......

    The original "Eidgenossenschaft" in Switzerland (first 7 kantons) predates the Magna Carta. We have never equalled its profoundly democratic structures. (1) From the beginning government was direct democracy in which referenda open to all voters were required to approve major projects. (2) Switzerland is a "confederation" (NOT a federation), where each independent country (kanton) retains the right to abandon the confederation. (3) Most social organization is at the local (kantonal, not federal) level, e.g. education, welfare, etc. - so much so that even today only about 1/3 of governmental expenditure is at the federal level......
    , @ben tillman

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.
     
    As a lawyer, I can't say enough about the wondrous phenomenon of the common law. However, the Germans were the real originators of the Western legal traditions we hold dear, like the principal that the king is subject to the law.

    By the way , the UK has now been tyrannically back-doored. A lot of people would say it actually happened in 1688 (which was a literal tyranny).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Berty says:

    Abercrombie appointed Schatz despite Inouye specifically asking him to appoint Colleen Hanabusa. The Asians despise him and he’ll never be safe in his seat, which is why he’s desperate to stay as anti-Trump as possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. istevefan says:
    @Anon
    People use 'Judeo-Christian' because it's safer than plain 'Christian'.

    So, how about 'Judeo-Anglo'? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.

    That is not necessarily true. First, the tribes got here before the English. Yet the English did not assimilate into hunter-gatherer culture, they brought their own culture and displaced the tribes.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    And Israeli tribes got here even later, and look what happened.
    , @Wilkey
    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    They settled in small numbers and were eventually overwhelmed, not the 50/50 situation he talks about. I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it, but in the 1850 Census only about 170,000 people total were living there - about 100,000 in California, 70,000 in the New Mexico Territory (which included Arizona), and 10,000 in the Utah Territory (which included Nevada). The Utah Territory was basically all English-speaking Mormons, New Mexico was probably mostly Spanish-speaking, and California was probably about 50/50. 170,000 people (at most 100,000 of whom spoke Spanish) isn't a whole lot for an area comprising 500,000 square miles. That's one person for every five square miles. Today California, Arizona, and Utah have a combined population of 53 million.

    , @Simon Tugmutton
    That's because the English are best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. El Dato says:
    @istevefan

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.
     

    That is not necessarily true. First, the tribes got here before the English. Yet the English did not assimilate into hunter-gatherer culture, they brought their own culture and displaced the tribes.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    And Israeli tribes got here even later, and look what happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @PiltdownMan
    Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect. The Atlantic Charter will never be allowed to be mentioned again as it was an Anglo-American statement of so-called principle. All references to the term "Anglo-American" will reference Cecil Rhodes and explain that he was a confirmed racist who called for the creation of an (racist) Anglo-American Empire before he died.

    “Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect.”

    Does this mean we can finally admit that Lindbergh was right?

    “When England asks us to enter this war she is considering her own future and that of her Empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere…

    “The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people.”

    - Charles Lindbergh, America First Speech, 23 April 1941

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Yes, he was right. That is why he was so widely condemned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. istevefan says:

    Others have brought this up, but I will mention it again. The good senator from Hawaii should consult his state’s flag if he has any questions about the Anglo influence of this nation or even his state. What is that thingy where the stars should be????

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad


    The good senator from Hawaii should consult his state’s flag if ...
     
    Yeah, when i first saw it i thought "what a lame flag for Hawaii." Where's the palm trees, the mountains, the sea, the girls in grass skirts, surfers, Don Ho?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. istevefan says:
    @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    I agree. I actually have zero English ancestry of which I’m aware, but give the English the credit for founding the best nations in the new world, Canada, Oz, NZ and the good ole USA. Of course it appears to have taken more than just the English institutions. We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
    Barbados and Bermuda seem to be run very well, due the British-derived government, even if most iSteve readers would consider the populations to be lacking in certain abilities.
    , @3g4me
    @20 istevefan: " We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something."

    The three pillars of Western civilization: Greco-Roman heritage, Christendom, and White people.
    , @Jack D
    Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don't seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people. Of course the people that you do have makes a difference.

    Think of English law and culture as the software and the people as the hardware. If you want to run the Macintosh operating system, the easiest combination is to run the Apple OS on Apple hardware. But you can also build a "Hackintosh" where you run Apple OS on different hardware ( ever since Apple went over to Intel chips). If your Hackintosh runs on really low end hardware it will run poorly, but if you run it on top end hardware it may even run better than the real thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One “Brian Krassenstein” chimes in:

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Literally." He wasn't even figurative, guyz!

    "How is this American?"

    How is mentioning the Anglo-American legal tradition American, indeed. Why, you'd almost think America was founded by English colonists, instead of the fellas who just showed up yesterday.
    , @Anonymous
    Link to Brian Krassenstein tweet:

    https://www.twitter.com/krassenstein/status/963184692227813376
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One would have thought that Schatz, or anyone of his forebears settled in the USA, would have changed the family surname, which, ironically, is rather undignified in the Anglo-Saxon language.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The first lesson any putative American lawyer learns is that ‘American law’ is based upon the English Common Law system, rather than the ‘Roman Law’ system that typifies continental Europe and Latin America.
    English Common Law basically means the system of laws which evolved in England since the time of the Norman kings, based on legal precedent and case law. This was later supplemented by parliamentary statute.
    ‘Roman law’ was always in the nature of a prescribed set of rules issued from central authority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Bah, enough of your Hate Facts.

    Anglos are white, therefore: shhh!
    , @Almost Missouri

    "since the time of the Norman kings"
     
    Sorry to pick a nit, but I'd argue English Common Law's roots precede the times of the Norman kings and go back to the Anglo-Saxon period. Hence, the "Anglo" part of Anglo-American.

    I know Magna Carta and Runnymede is often used as a reference point for the formal start of Common Law, but if there were no pre-existing Rights of Englishmen (Angloishmen), there would have been nothing to assert against royal authority at Runnymede.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There is a certain irony to these objections being raised during the celebrated “Black History Month.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One “Andrew Zimmern” weighs in:

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    Hey, the Bizarre Foods guy. Another famous Minnesota Jew a la Bob Dylan and The Coen Brothers. I like that show.
    , @guest
    "how disgusting is this?"

    Is "not at all" a level of disgust?
    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Zimmern ought to be familiar with the law. Before he made a living eating pig sphincters, he was a junkie arrested for stealing handbags in bars and restaurants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One “Joel Birch” weighs in:

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    It's exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it's racist. I don't even get a hint. We're just supposed to know.

    Are people having secret meetings about the meaning of Anglo-American-whatever behind my back?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Thomas says:

    Senator Obama used the same historical reference (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/left-blasts-jeff-sessions-anglo-american-reference-barack-obama-also-used/) The Supreme Court has used it as well in describing the Constitution as protecting “an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968).

    This is actually not an uncommon or controversial linguistic construction among anyone with a legal education, and points to the unquestionable historical and doctrinal continuity between English and American common law (most states have “reception statutes” explicitly adopting English common law as of a certain date (usually as of 1787) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute#Reception_statutes_in_the_United_States).

    It’s telling however that in 2018, reminding anyone of the fact that American law descends from England, and not from, say, Islamic sharia law or the Spanish Inquisition, is hateful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Senator Obama used the same historical reference (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/left-blasts-jeff-sessions-anglo-american-reference-barack-obama-also-used/) The Supreme Court has used it as well in describing the Constitution as protecting “an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968).
     
    Nice catch on the Breitbart piece.

    BTW the picture accompanying the Breitbart piece looks like yet another case of Barry being photoshopped into a picture to place him at the center of the "action".

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Susan-Rice-Barack-Obama-March-22-2016-Getty-640x480.jpg

    http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130501075930-01-osama-death-super-169.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. MC says:

    Here’s Schatz speaking at a “Jewish American Heritage” dinner last year, starting at 0:38

    First line: “Jewish Americans have done it all.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. That somebody else’s ancestors launched America is racist. That his ancestors didn’t found America just seems downright anti-Semitic.

    Whoa there, Steve. Commenter Jack D says Jews are founding stock (#89) Americans. He’s not gonna like your last paragraph!

    Read More
    • LOL: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Surprised he didn’t wig on Judeo-Christian while he was frothing about Anglos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    'Wig' is the operative word when describing English law.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonym says:
    @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    One of the big differences is that the English properly colonized rather than just the menfolk breeding with the female natives as happened a lot with the French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. At some point the colonial infrastructure became a drawcard for other European settlement so you still ended up with a fairly similar country, e.g. IQ about 100, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Oh, the Dutch brought their own women alright, just perhaps not quite cut from the same cloth as the Puritan English...

    http://www.billsbrownstone.com/notorious/GrietReyniers.asp
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. hhsiii says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Andrew Zimmern" weighs in:

    https://www.twitter.com/andrewzimmern/status/963264957642047488

    Hey, the Bizarre Foods guy. Another famous Minnesota Jew a la Bob Dylan and The Coen Brothers. I like that show.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Hhsiii says:
    @J.Ross
    English Commom Law tradition is the basis of pretty much everything we think of as "American," and there has been a concerted effort in academia and leftist thought leading to erase or deny it. I have encountered educated Britons who insisted that it had no influence on us and that our legal system is actually modelled on Revolutionary France. This is the real reason for anti-Second-Amendment activism: they want to eliminate the concepts of natural laws and negative rights, and instead have the state be a god who makes it up as he stumbles along, like is the case with France. Do not mistake this tweet for ignorance.

    Louisiana is a Napoleanic Code state. Brando rants about it in Streetcar. Almost went to Tulane for law school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Federalist
    While the legal systems of the rest of the U.S. are based on common law, Louisiana has a civil law system (or a mixed system). Louisiana's civil law system is based on French and Spanish law and ultimately on Roman law. Though they have the same sources, Louisiana was never under the Napoleanic Code as it was enacted after the Louisiana Purchase.
    , @ben tillman
    Erasing our history is just part of the plan to erase our future.
    , @J.Ross
    (Today is the only day of the year anybody thinks about Louisiana.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Clyde says:
    @Frau Katze
    I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    Perhaps this Hawaiian Schatzie knows his history and is very efficient in left-propagandizing for his target audience, which is mostly his voters. Plus trying to out virtue Pelosi rhapsodizing about brown Latino children. How her grandson wanted to be one.
    Would it not be great to be able to hook up all Dems brains for one week a year to a truth-o-meter where we can learn if they can know their neo-Marx propaganda is a lie or if they have bought into it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist
    Surprised he didn't wig on Judeo-Christian while he was frothing about Anglos.

    ‘Wig’ is the operative word when describing English law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Time to roll out my great fictitious hero, Horace Rumpole QC, (MUST be played by Leo McKern).
    Can someone (please!) post a YouTube link to the ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’ opening credits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sb
    Horace Rumpole is no QC rather if not exactly the bete noire of QCs he does have a rather jaundiced view of same
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Tiny Duck says:

    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don’t fit in with the rest of America.

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Huh??? You have out Pizt The Leonard Pizt.
    , @duncsbaby
    Either Tiny Duck is plagiarizing or he's is recycling his material:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/tommygun264/status/963178951752351744?p=v


    RESIST!!! Tom
    RESIST!!! Tom
    @tommygun264 Replying to @amead93 @brianschatz


    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the #Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    4:32 PM - 12 Feb 2018

    22 Retweets 134 Likes

    , @midtown
    You're just stringing together other idiots' Twitter outbursts. Lazy troll.
    , @Louis Renault

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America.
     
    Having a hard time assimilating yourself into Canada, eh? Stop in at Tim Hortons for another double-double before you double down with more Tiny Duck Derangement Syndrome comments.
    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    I "engaged with" your beloved African - Americans at my majority black inner city high school. It mostly involved a lot of violence directed at me because I was too light skinned and my hair was too straight. (And perhaps also because I have an iq above 80, unlike the majority of students at good ole Pembroke High School in Hampton, VA.)

    So save your sanctimonious bs for someone who hasn't hasn't experienced "diversity" up close and personal. If you are white, I doubt you would have survived what I did. You seem like the type who would have been balled up in a corner weeping like a little bitch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @istevefan
    I agree. I actually have zero English ancestry of which I'm aware, but give the English the credit for founding the best nations in the new world, Canada, Oz, NZ and the good ole USA. Of course it appears to have taken more than just the English institutions. We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.

    Barbados and Bermuda seem to be run very well, due the British-derived government, even if most iSteve readers would consider the populations to be lacking in certain abilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    But Jamaica and Kenya are not. Go figure.
    , @njguy73
    As Mark Steyn put it, where would you do business, Barbados or Haiti? Nigeria or Mozambique? Singapore or Indonesia? Which were exposed to British rule and which weren't?

    Thank you and drive through.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Clyde says:
    @Anon
    People use 'Judeo-Christian' because it's safer than plain 'Christian'.

    So, how about 'Judeo-Anglo'? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.

    The Natives would have made mincemeat out of the Hindus if they had gotten to the New World first and tried to colonize it. Their specialty is colonizing the comfortable America of today. Our Anglo-American law is one reason America is comfortable and advanced. The multicult left can only denigrate and take this Anglo-American law for granted, same as they like to use The Constitution as a doormat. Partly due to it being written by Anglo men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Clyde says:
    @Tiny Duck
    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don't fit in with the rest of America.

    Huh??? You have out Pizt The Leonard Pizt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Nico says:
    @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.

    St. Thomas More, Ann Boleyn and the Swiss just might beg to differ on that point. And even Fascist Italy and Vichy France were far from the totally tyrannical entities Red Spain, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were (at least not until they were officially 100% occupied by this latter). On the other hand, France had already passed through the Committee of Public Safety and the Paris Commune a long time before, so…

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    France has never had anything I would recognize as a concept of rights. Sometimes they talk pretty, and that confuses the educated. While you're playing sophist you might note the beautiful amenities promised by the Mexican Constitition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. I can think of a dog whistle that no real human being would use in a sentence: “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage.”

    The lapdog whistles sweetly, “What is thy bidding, my master?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Wilkey says:

    Hawaii is the least white state in America – 26.7% white, 0.5% Jewish – yet Schatz was handed his Senate seat on a silver platter. He was appointed to replace Daniel Inouye, who died in office. Inouye wrote a letter shortly before he died asking for Colleen Hanabusa to replace him in the seat he had won. The Democratic Party selected Hanabusa, Schatz, and Esther Kia’aina for Gov. Neil Abercrombie to choose from to nominate to the Senate. Abercrombie chose the Jewish guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Wilkey, I think you tried to post a picture of the flag of the State of Hawaii. Here it is.

    https://ak4.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/9270374/thumb/1.jpg

    , @Jake
    So the cultural Yankee WASP chose the Jew?

    That is exactly what Father Oliver Cromwell would have advised.

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry who were given land in Ireland to serve as the militantly English-speaking Protestants to serve to keep Irish Catholics from thinking too often about any hope for independence).

    Genes matter a great deal, and cultural identification and alliance matter even more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. This issue is at the same level of the official who got fired for saying niggardly in a meeting.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

    The only thing you can glean from it is the stupidity and double standards of the outrage brigade. Oh, and watch how you talk because stupid people might be listening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Niggardly" is a real tar baby for public figures.
    , @AndrewR
    He was either autistic or he used that word in order to troll the people around him. No remotely "neurotypical" person would have used that word around a bunch of Afros and not expected such a reaction

    Sessions, OTOH, had no particular reason to think the left would rage so hard at this. Sometimes leftist mass psychosis can catch anyone off guard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Wilkey
    Hawaii is the least white state in America - 26.7% white, 0.5% Jewish - yet Schatz was handed his Senate seat on a silver platter. He was appointed to replace Daniel Inouye, who died in office. Inouye wrote a letter shortly before he died asking for Colleen Hanabusa to replace him in the seat he had won. The Democratic Party selected Hanabusa, Schatz, and Esther Kia'aina for Gov. Neil Abercrombie to choose from to nominate to the Senate. Abercrombie chose the Jewish guy.

    Wilkey, I think you tried to post a picture of the flag of the State of Hawaii. Here it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Yeah, I couldn't figure out the rules here for posting a pic. How do you do that?

    And maybe we should all send Senator Schatz a Hawaiian flag and maybe a copy of Dunkirk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. guest says:
    @istevefan

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Likewise there are more kinds of Hispanics than mestizos. Technically anyone of any race or ethnicity could be hispanic. Yet most Americans just assume hispanic means brown. I would say mestizo, but I doubt most Americans are familiar with that term.

    The term was popularized to refer to mestizos, so that they could be counted as non-white on the census. We know it also applies to white Spaniards, for instance, but it’s not generally for them.

    “Hispanic” is a multi-racial term. But “Anglo” isn’t. It’s not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    But “Anglo” isn’t. It’s not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.
     
    Well, in academia, it's frequently used as shorthand for Anglophone Whites in North America. Saying/writing "Non-Hispanic White" gets tiresome after a while.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Agreed. It's like the word "Caucasian" to refer generally to white people: in the USA, nobody but blacks use it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. guest says:
    @Anon
    People use 'Judeo-Christian' because it's safer than plain 'Christian'.

    So, how about 'Judeo-Anglo'? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    People use “Judeo-Christian” because they’ve been bamboozled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. guest says:
    @PiltdownMan
    Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect. The Atlantic Charter will never be allowed to be mentioned again as it was an Anglo-American statement of so-called principle. All references to the term "Anglo-American" will reference Cecil Rhodes and explain that he was a confirmed racist who called for the creation of an (racist) Anglo-American Empire before he died.

    I would be happy if all that happened, actually. Because the Anglo-American Empire is not the same thing as the Anglo-American tradition, though if you’re Moldbuggy you consider the rot to have set in before America even existed.

    But there was something different about the Establishment who fought WWII, as compared to when we were a Republic, before the Dutch “traitor to his class” betrayed his class, as well as before the banksters got their claws in everything.

    Those were the Unhappy New Lords in charge on 1941, not the Anglo-Americans who forged the nation and won the west and blah, blah, blah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wilkey says:

    What I really love are the Twitter responses calling Sessions a Nazi for using the term “Anglo-American.”

    Anglo = of British origin
    Britain = stood alone fighting Nazi Germany for over a year
    Therefore: British origin = Nazi

    Or something like that…

    But who would know anything about that? After all, more people saw Wonder Woman than saw Dunkirk. We all know how important Wonder Woman was to defeating actual Nazis. What the hell did British soldiers ever do to fight Nazis?

    The irony about Wonder Woman, a supposed feminist icon, was based on a #meToo moment if ever there was one. She was modeled after a female student that a married college professor brought in to live with him against his wife’s wishes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Wilkey says:
    @PiltdownMan
    Wilkey, I think you tried to post a picture of the flag of the State of Hawaii. Here it is.

    https://ak4.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/9270374/thumb/1.jpg

    Yeah, I couldn’t figure out the rules here for posting a pic. How do you do that?

    And maybe we should all send Senator Schatz a Hawaiian flag and maybe a copy of Dunkirk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. jim jones says:
    @guest
    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There's two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). "Anglo" is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It's not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I'm aware. But the outraged don't care about that. They're pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I'm white without being of English descent, but I don't care about being ethnically excluded from my country's legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don't resent the fact, because I'm not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered, and that'll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    I made a trip to Runnymede once to see the birthplace of Common Law and English Civilization, had a very nice day out:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    Matt Yglesias chimes in:

    https://www.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/963116990473830402

    See, if you say “common law” you don’t Name the Anglo, no one has to think about yucky white people, maybe we’ll forget white people were involved, and we can forget the American common law tradition altogether.

    By the way, what is on Session’s record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's like how we're now in 2018 of the "Common Era."

    Except in Ethiopia, where it's 2010.

    Seriously.

    , @Mr. Anon
    By the way, what is on Session’s record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    There is nothing, other than being a Southerner and a Republican.

    Is that not enough?

    Although I suppose this most heinous of crimes - using the term "Anglo-American" to describe an anglo-american institution- will now be added to the bill of charges.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Brian Krassenstein" chimes in:

    https://www.twitter.com/krassenstein/status/963184692227813376

    “Literally.” He wasn’t even figurative, guyz!

    “How is this American?”

    How is mentioning the Anglo-American legal tradition American, indeed. Why, you’d almost think America was founded by English colonists, instead of the fellas who just showed up yesterday.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    The first lesson any putative American lawyer learns is that 'American law' is based upon the English Common Law system, rather than the 'Roman Law' system that typifies continental Europe and Latin America.
    English Common Law basically means the system of laws which evolved in England since the time of the Norman kings, based on legal precedent and case law. This was later supplemented by parliamentary statute.
    'Roman law' was always in the nature of a prescribed set of rules issued from central authority.

    Bah, enough of your Hate Facts.

    Anglos are white, therefore: shhh!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @guest
    See, if you say "common law" you don't Name the Anglo, no one has to think about yucky white people, maybe we'll forget white people were involved, and we can forget the American common law tradition altogether.

    By the way, what is on Session's record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    It’s like how we’re now in 2018 of the “Common Era.”

    Except in Ethiopia, where it’s 2010.

    Seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    In the 1960s, Ethiopia’s tourist campaign riffed off the Coptic calendar and advertised “Thirteen Months Of Sunshine.”

    http://www.addisallaround.com/news/thirteen-months-sunshine-2/

    Nice place, back then. The population was a less than a sixth (16 million) of what it is now (105 million) and Addis Ababa had a reputation for being probably the most modern city in Sub-Saharan Africa outside of South Africa. The place had some nice Italian restaurants and delicatessens—there were quite a few Italians who stayed on after Mussolini invaded in the 1930s. There was also an active jazz club scene.

    Population growth, and the communist revolution of 1974 ended all that.

    , @3g4me
    @55 Steve Sailer: "It’s like how we’re now in 2018 of the “Common Era.”

    That particular (((foreign construct))) has always enraged me, long before my own adult baptism. To pretend that modern European dating is based on an arbitrary division between the years before and after one particular year which was chosen at random as the first year - OF OUR LORD. Just dump all of European history and Latin language from our culture, because Jews cannot bear to acknowledge the influence of Jesus - yet will be the first to insist, when confronted with this, that He was Jewish. Cognitive dissonance has its own heritage, and it is not Anglo-American.
    , @Twodees Partain
    Give the Ethiopes a break. They're all too busy chasing the one single surviving chicken over there to keep up with years and such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Andrew Zimmern" weighs in:

    https://www.twitter.com/andrewzimmern/status/963264957642047488

    “how disgusting is this?”

    Is “not at all” a level of disgust?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    The guy makes a living eating disgusting things. His baseline for "disgust" is much higher than most. (((He))) can't escape who he is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Joel Birch" weighs in:

    https://www.twitter.com/JoelDTD/status/963190207968305152

    It’s exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it’s racist. I don’t even get a hint. We’re just supposed to know.

    Are people having secret meetings about the meaning of Anglo-American-whatever behind my back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    It’s exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it’s racist. I don’t even get a hint. We’re just supposed to know.

    It's racist to use the term "Anglo-American heritage," but it's also racist if you happen to know why using the term "Anglo-American heritage" isn't racist - kinda like how you're a "white nationalist" if you happen to know that the French didn't hand deliver the Statue of Immigration with Emma Lazarus's quote already emblazened upon it.

    I guess it's racist because you've bothered to read on your own, instead of the bullshit you're spoonfed in schools these days. And the only place you can learn those facts is on racist sites, who are racist because they teach you facts you aren't supposed to know.

    Or something like that. This is all getting very so hard to keep track of. The only thing I know for sure is that all the complaints I'm reading about how racist it is to mention our "Anglo-American heritage," from Brian Schatz and everyone else, appear to be written in a language called English.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. guest says:
    @The King is A Fink
    This issue is at the same level of the official who got fired for saying niggardly in a meeting.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

     

    The only thing you can glean from it is the stupidity and double standards of the outrage brigade. Oh, and watch how you talk because stupid people might be listening.

    “Niggardly” is a real tar baby for public figures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Wilkey says:
    @istevefan

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.
     

    That is not necessarily true. First, the tribes got here before the English. Yet the English did not assimilate into hunter-gatherer culture, they brought their own culture and displaced the tribes.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    They settled in small numbers and were eventually overwhelmed, not the 50/50 situation he talks about. I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it, but in the 1850 Census only about 170,000 people total were living there – about 100,000 in California, 70,000 in the New Mexico Territory (which included Arizona), and 10,000 in the Utah Territory (which included Nevada). The Utah Territory was basically all English-speaking Mormons, New Mexico was probably mostly Spanish-speaking, and California was probably about 50/50. 170,000 people (at most 100,000 of whom spoke Spanish) isn’t a whole lot for an area comprising 500,000 square miles. That’s one person for every five square miles. Today California, Arizona, and Utah have a combined population of 53 million.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    “I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it”

    I don’t know where they got their data but the History Channel claimed once that in 1848 there were only 75,000 Spanish speakers in all the lands ceded to the US. I’ve also read elsewhere only 7500 of them were in California. The largest number of them seemed to be in northern New Mexico.
    , @hyperbola
    How many "anglos" were living there when "our" armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what "american" democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to "our" invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). "Remember the Alamo" was about producing more slave plantations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. duncsbaby says:
    @Tiny Duck
    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don't fit in with the rest of America.

    Either Tiny Duck is plagiarizing or he’s is recycling his material:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/tommygun264/status/963178951752351744?p=v

    RESIST!!! Tom
    RESIST!!! Tom
    @tommygun264 Replying to @amead93 @brianschatz

    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the #Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    4:32 PM – 12 Feb 2018

    22 Retweets 134 Likes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. midtown says:
    @Tiny Duck
    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don't fit in with the rest of America.

    You’re just stringing together other idiots’ Twitter outbursts. Lazy troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. midtown says:

    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from. All they know is that sheriffs at one time caught runaway slaves! Wait until they hear about the English Bill of Rights! Seriously, though: we need to get a handle on the education system pronto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from.

    He's not an idiot. Schatz and many of his allies are well aware of our heritage. They're engaged in a cultural and political war to deny that heritage and to replace it with something else. In their view none of the aspects of our heritage, other than the bad ones, are English. It's cultural genocide. It's actual genocide, as well. We accept that and fight it and maybe win, or we deny it and lose.
    , @3g4me
    @62 midtown: "Seriously, though: we need to get a handle on the education system pronto."

    You're a bit late to the party, dear. It was beyond repair decades ago, just like every other institution that once claimed "American" status. Long past time to nuke it from orbit and start anew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Wilkey says:
    @guest
    It's exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it's racist. I don't even get a hint. We're just supposed to know.

    Are people having secret meetings about the meaning of Anglo-American-whatever behind my back?

    It’s exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it’s racist. I don’t even get a hint. We’re just supposed to know.

    It’s racist to use the term “Anglo-American heritage,” but it’s also racist if you happen to know why using the term “Anglo-American heritage” isn’t racist – kinda like how you’re a “white nationalist” if you happen to know that the French didn’t hand deliver the Statue of Immigration with Emma Lazarus’s quote already emblazened upon it.

    I guess it’s racist because you’ve bothered to read on your own, instead of the bullshit you’re spoonfed in schools these days. And the only place you can learn those facts is on racist sites, who are racist because they teach you facts you aren’t supposed to know.

    Or something like that. This is all getting very so hard to keep track of. The only thing I know for sure is that all the complaints I’m reading about how racist it is to mention our “Anglo-American heritage,” from Brian Schatz and everyone else, appear to be written in a language called English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @celt darnell
    Did you just say the language we use is English?

    That's totally racist, man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Eagle Eye says:
    @J.Ross
    English Commom Law tradition is the basis of pretty much everything we think of as "American," and there has been a concerted effort in academia and leftist thought leading to erase or deny it. I have encountered educated Britons who insisted that it had no influence on us and that our legal system is actually modelled on Revolutionary France. This is the real reason for anti-Second-Amendment activism: they want to eliminate the concepts of natural laws and negative rights, and instead have the state be a god who makes it up as he stumbles along, like is the case with France. Do not mistake this tweet for ignorance.

    Do not mistake [Schatz's] tweet for ignorance.

    Indeed, Sen. Schatz is obviously a – not very capable – agent for the usual Cult-Marx cabal intent on creating ANOTHER REPUBLIC on American soil and worldwide, with another flag as its emblem: the boot stomping on a face, with the word “FOREVER.”

    The carpetbagging gentleman – born in Michigan – may have forgotten what the state flag of his adopted state looks like:

    As is usual among younger members of today’s political class, Schatz has never served in the military and has never done a day’s work in the tax-paying private sector:

    Schatz enrolled at Pomona College in Claremont, California; he spent a term studying in Kenya as part of the International Training Program. … After graduating with a B.A. in philosophy, he returned to Hawaii, where he taught at Punahou before taking other jobs in the nonprofit sector.


    He became active in the community through his involvement in Youth for Environmental Services in the 1980s. He served as CEO of Helping Hands Hawaii and director of the Makiki Community Library and of the Center for a Sustainable Future. In March 2010, Schatz stepped down from Helping Hands to run for lieutenant governor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schatz

    On the plus side, Schatz has never caused any accidents on a U.S. aircraft carrier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Corn says:

    Brian Schatz: History is racist

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Corn says:
    @Wilkey
    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    They settled in small numbers and were eventually overwhelmed, not the 50/50 situation he talks about. I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it, but in the 1850 Census only about 170,000 people total were living there - about 100,000 in California, 70,000 in the New Mexico Territory (which included Arizona), and 10,000 in the Utah Territory (which included Nevada). The Utah Territory was basically all English-speaking Mormons, New Mexico was probably mostly Spanish-speaking, and California was probably about 50/50. 170,000 people (at most 100,000 of whom spoke Spanish) isn't a whole lot for an area comprising 500,000 square miles. That's one person for every five square miles. Today California, Arizona, and Utah have a combined population of 53 million.

    “I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it”

    I don’t know where they got their data but the History Channel claimed once that in 1848 there were only 75,000 Spanish speakers in all the lands ceded to the US. I’ve also read elsewhere only 7500 of them were in California. The largest number of them seemed to be in northern New Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Marcus says:
    @guest
    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There's two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). "Anglo" is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It's not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I'm aware. But the outraged don't care about that. They're pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I'm white without being of English descent, but I don't care about being ethnically excluded from my country's legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don't resent the fact, because I'm not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered, and that'll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    Anglo-American and Anglo-Saxon are both common in US historiography.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Brutusale says:
    @guest
    "how disgusting is this?"

    Is "not at all" a level of disgust?

    The guy makes a living eating disgusting things. His baseline for “disgust” is much higher than most. (((He))) can’t escape who he is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Flip says:

    Leftists are truly mentally ill these days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @Steve Sailer
    It's like how we're now in 2018 of the "Common Era."

    Except in Ethiopia, where it's 2010.

    Seriously.

    In the 1960s, Ethiopia’s tourist campaign riffed off the Coptic calendar and advertised “Thirteen Months Of Sunshine.”

    http://www.addisallaround.com/news/thirteen-months-sunshine-2/

    Nice place, back then. The population was a less than a sixth (16 million) of what it is now (105 million) and Addis Ababa had a reputation for being probably the most modern city in Sub-Saharan Africa outside of South Africa. The place had some nice Italian restaurants and delicatessens—there were quite a few Italians who stayed on after Mussolini invaded in the 1930s. There was also an active jazz club scene.

    Population growth, and the communist revolution of 1974 ended all that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Yak-15 says:
    @TelfoedJohn
    Barbados and Bermuda seem to be run very well, due the British-derived government, even if most iSteve readers would consider the populations to be lacking in certain abilities.

    But Jamaica and Kenya are not. Go figure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Medvedev
    Population of Bermuda - 65k
    Barbados - 280k
    Jamaica - 2881k

    Bermuda is an offshore financial centre, which results from its minimal standards of business regulation/laws and direct taxation on personal or corporate income.
    Having no corporate income tax, Bermuda is a popular tax avoidance location. Google, for example, is known to have shifted over $10 billion in revenue to its Bermuda subsidiary utilising the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" tax avoidance strategies, reducing its 2011 tax liability by $2 billion.
     
    Having a small population they can get away as offshore center, amounting huge amount of money per capita (GDP per capita $89,795 is higher than in any non-microstate country).

    Barbados' population is 4 times bigger. Serving as offshore center and a tourist destination provides a stream of revenue. Divided by population Barbados still remains relatively successful with GDP per capita $15,677.

    If Bermuda had 44 times more people like Jamaica they wouldn't get revenue from "43 new Googles" stashing money in their offshore.

    , @Almost Missouri
    OTOH, by comparison with their neighbors, Haiti and Tanzania, Jamaica and Kenya look pretty good. So adjusted for race (as all serious social science is), the British legacy looks pretty good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Wilkey says:
    @midtown
    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from. All they know is that sheriffs at one time caught runaway slaves! Wait until they hear about the English Bill of Rights! Seriously, though: we need to get a handle on the education system pronto.

    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from.

    He’s not an idiot. Schatz and many of his allies are well aware of our heritage. They’re engaged in a cultural and political war to deny that heritage and to replace it with something else. In their view none of the aspects of our heritage, other than the bad ones, are English. It’s cultural genocide. It’s actual genocide, as well. We accept that and fight it and maybe win, or we deny it and lose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    In Schatz's case, I agree, he knows better. Looking through Twitter, however, the rank and file progressive truly does not know. They think Anglo-American law only applies to white people. #AngloAmericanHistoryMonth
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas
    Senator Obama used the same historical reference (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/left-blasts-jeff-sessions-anglo-american-reference-barack-obama-also-used/) The Supreme Court has used it as well in describing the Constitution as protecting "an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty." (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968).

    This is actually not an uncommon or controversial linguistic construction among anyone with a legal education, and points to the unquestionable historical and doctrinal continuity between English and American common law (most states have "reception statutes" explicitly adopting English common law as of a certain date (usually as of 1787) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute#Reception_statutes_in_the_United_States).

    It's telling however that in 2018, reminding anyone of the fact that American law descends from England, and not from, say, Islamic sharia law or the Spanish Inquisition, is hateful.

    Senator Obama used the same historical reference (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/left-blasts-jeff-sessions-anglo-american-reference-barack-obama-also-used/) The Supreme Court has used it as well in describing the Constitution as protecting “an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” (Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968).

    Nice catch on the Breitbart piece.

    BTW the picture accompanying the Breitbart piece looks like yet another case of Barry being photoshopped into a picture to place him at the center of the “action”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @istevefan

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate.
     

    That is not necessarily true. First, the tribes got here before the English. Yet the English did not assimilate into hunter-gatherer culture, they brought their own culture and displaced the tribes.

    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    That’s because the English are best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Which is why the Aussies refer to them as POMs (prisoners of her majesty).
    , @candid_observer
    These lines are especially on target these days, and in the US:

    Always remember, if it hadn't been for the English, you'd all be Spanish.
     

    It's not that you're wicked or naturally bad,
    It's knowing you're foreign that's driving you mad.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Tiny Duck
    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don't fit in with the rest of America.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America.

    Having a hard time assimilating yourself into Canada, eh? Stop in at Tim Hortons for another double-double before you double down with more Tiny Duck Derangement Syndrome comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Iberiano says:
    @istevefan

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Likewise there are more kinds of Hispanics than mestizos. Technically anyone of any race or ethnicity could be hispanic. Yet most Americans just assume hispanic means brown. I would say mestizo, but I doubt most Americans are familiar with that term.

    Yes, but of course, we have enjoyed the broad, general term “Hispanic” and “Latino” because it has grouped us in one identity that receives benefits of affirmative action (which is a lot more pervasive than people realize). Although I am what is considered traditionally “Hispanic” (Spanish-only descent), I’m amused by my Latino brothers and sisters who like to go around saying, “Hispanic is a name made up by Americans”, “Latinos can be of any race” “I’m not Latino I’m, _X_”.

    Well, right, but then, if every policy was posed to regular American stock as “Do you believe immigrants from Bolivia (legal or not legal) deserve coverage under affirmative action similar to descendants of slaves?” most would draw the logical conclusion: THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION against the majority of “Latino/Hispanic” people. It was a small, Chicano movement involving farm workers that suddenly thrust Latinos into the victim group, so that now, decades later, a doctor and his stay-at-home Argentine wife can move to the US, have children and those children are immediately moved up the food chain for all SORTS of US Government programs.

    Americans were too busy over the decades, watching TV, sports, getting drunk, etc, to monitor what is essentially a fellow “white” tribe (made of a variety of mixes, based on European stock) move into their territory, use their own laws against them, and become the largest and most powerful “minority” in the US. If groups of “we are so so so different” Slavs or Ruskies had done this, the reaction would have been what it has always been, “not on our watch”. Americans were disarmed by the idea that Latinos were these poor, downtrodden “otherness” that needed help because of the “historical oppression” of whites…which is largely a myth, or in other cases, was what happened in OTHER countries, at the hands of Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The only place I've ever heard the term "Anglo" commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.

    Its primary meaning was "person (usually but not always white) of Anglo-American culture." It was a cultural marker, used to distinguish "normal" American whites (and sometimes blacks) from the longer-settled peoples of NM, the "Spanish" who had been living there for around 400 years, and the Indians who had been there much longer.

    Interestingly, the "Spanish" of the area were in general a lot friendlier to us Anglos than to what they called the "Mexicans," the mestizos who were mostly mestizos and tended to live further south in the state.

    My wife got to be good friends with a number of the Spanish ladies. They all wanted their daughters to marry Anglos, not Spanish, and certainly not Mexican, men. They believed, possibly accurately, that Anglos treated their wives much better. Less domestic violence and adultery.
    , @Nico
    There is increasing sentiment on this forum to end the “Hispanic” category in the census and replace it with “Mestizo/Mulatto” to encourage the “break-up” of the Latino block. I have been saying this since 2005. Regrettably, as you say, too many non-Hispanic white Americans for the time being still claim to be so preoccupied with Monday Night Football that they can’t be bothered to care about issues of race and ethnicity, but of course they’re in for a shock when they find out racial and ethnic issues care about them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. George says:

    The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.

    Sheriff of Nottingham

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_of_Nottinghamv

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. SteveM says:

    I never knew that the origin of the current sociopathic Goon Squad cop culture was “Anglo-American”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. helena says:

    Replying with a snappy rebuff doesn’t seem to work and nor does a reasoned fact-based response. So I suggest tweeters move to a more humanitarian approach:

    “But why don’t you want to believe that there is an Anglo-American heritage to law enforcement? Why does it upset you so? Would you like to erase Anglo-American history? Do you also hate people of English descent? Should only other ethnic groups celebrate their heritage?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, it's worth a try. I really do want to go the extra mile for peace before Civil War II kicks in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Medvedev says:
    @Yak-15
    But Jamaica and Kenya are not. Go figure.

    Population of Bermuda – 65k
    Barbados – 280k
    Jamaica – 2881k

    Bermuda is an offshore financial centre, which results from its minimal standards of business regulation/laws and direct taxation on personal or corporate income.
    Having no corporate income tax, Bermuda is a popular tax avoidance location. Google, for example, is known to have shifted over $10 billion in revenue to its Bermuda subsidiary utilising the “Double Irish” and “Dutch Sandwich” tax avoidance strategies, reducing its 2011 tax liability by $2 billion.

    Having a small population they can get away as offshore center, amounting huge amount of money per capita (GDP per capita $89,795 is higher than in any non-microstate country).

    Barbados’ population is 4 times bigger. Serving as offshore center and a tourist destination provides a stream of revenue. Divided by population Barbados still remains relatively successful with GDP per capita $15,677.

    If Bermuda had 44 times more people like Jamaica they wouldn’t get revenue from “43 new Googles” stashing money in their offshore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. midtown says:
    @Wilkey
    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from.

    He's not an idiot. Schatz and many of his allies are well aware of our heritage. They're engaged in a cultural and political war to deny that heritage and to replace it with something else. In their view none of the aspects of our heritage, other than the bad ones, are English. It's cultural genocide. It's actual genocide, as well. We accept that and fight it and maybe win, or we deny it and lose.

    In Schatz’s case, I agree, he knows better. Looking through Twitter, however, the rank and file progressive truly does not know. They think Anglo-American law only applies to white people. #AngloAmericanHistoryMonth

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    Totally agreed. If you want to see truly profound, world-leading ignorance, you pretty much can't beat progressive Twitter.
    , @al gore rhythms
    Isn't that just the way of any war though--that the rank and file don't really understand what they are fighting for?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Barnard says:
    @Frau Katze
    I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    This moron calls himself a “tech advocate” in his Twitter profile. In other words he is yet another member of Congress completely beholden to the tech industry and will blindly implement whatever policies Silicon Valley tells him they want as long as the campaign donations keep coming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. hyperbola says:
    @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly “rights for aristocrats” of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front……

    The original “Eidgenossenschaft” in Switzerland (first 7 kantons) predates the Magna Carta. We have never equalled its profoundly democratic structures. (1) From the beginning government was direct democracy in which referenda open to all voters were required to approve major projects. (2) Switzerland is a “confederation” (NOT a federation), where each independent country (kanton) retains the right to abandon the confederation. (3) Most social organization is at the local (kantonal, not federal) level, e.g. education, welfare, etc. – so much so that even today only about 1/3 of governmental expenditure is at the federal level……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I agree about the Eidgenossenschaft, but would argue that Swiss law stems from the same Germanic root as Anglo Common Law, so it is not really an exception but part of the rule.

    Also, any discussion of Swiss law has to take into account the gratuitous rewriting of the Swiss Constitution in 2000, which turned it from an ancient contract of liberties into an SJW time bomb.

    Venice was indeed a praiseworthy vestige of Roman legal tradition, though its "democratic" and "republican" aspects arguably have more to do with oligarchic mutual jealousies than with an innate spirit of liberty.

    I've commented here before about the difficulties inherent in Venice's anti-corruption laws. Re the Doge's obligation to "lead troops at the front", recall that Venice was a naval, not land-based power, so a more accurate description of this obligation is "to take up the executive stateroom on the flagship", which is a little less impressive than braving lance and cannon in the literal trenches. Compound this by the Venetian strategy of having others (e.g., Crusaders) do their dirty work while Venice reaped the profits.

    Still, there are worse governments than mutually jealous oligarchs, and a chief executive who faces any measure of personal danger deserves some measure of credit, so one and a half cheers for Venice! And as you note, once the French Revolution's God-State toppled it, its virtue became dust in the wind.
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly “rights for aristocrats” of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD).
     
    There was not universal suffrage in La Serenissima. To be among the enfranchised, one's family had to have been inscribed in the "Golden Book" of the founding stock of the city. If the United States had constitutionally limited its franchise to members of the Society of the Cincinnati, the Sons of the Revolution, etc., this country would have an electorate roughly analogous to that of the Venetian Republic.

    This hereditary limitation explains the frequency with which certain family names recur in the list of doges - for example, the Contarini produced eight. There is a certain dynastic element in the American governing class - politics has become a family business for some - but I doubt that there will ever be eight presidents named Bush, despite that family's ambitions.
    , @J.Ross
    The Republic of Venice is the plutocrat globalist model without parallel, there is no meaningful information about rights there.
    The way this game works is, if someone innovated something, read it back to himself, and then threw it in the trash, then it might as well have never been innovated. You can quote it if you want to. There were probably Chinese people who mused some near-democratic system for ten seconds one day; why don't we say the Constitution came from China? Rights are a living concept here and have been for centuries; Venice was, was inbetween, and is now a globalist plutocrat tyranny wkth no concept of god-given, government-preceding rights. This isn't science. You don't credit Gauss for "coming up with it" and then not doing anything with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. hyperbola says:
    @Wilkey
    Second, the Spanish got here before the English. They even settled areas that ended up in English hands. Ditto for the Dutch. Yet the English did not assimilate to Spanish or Dutch culture.

    They settled in small numbers and were eventually overwhelmed, not the 50/50 situation he talks about. I have no idea how many actual Mexicans were living in the area we took from Mexico before we took it, but in the 1850 Census only about 170,000 people total were living there - about 100,000 in California, 70,000 in the New Mexico Territory (which included Arizona), and 10,000 in the Utah Territory (which included Nevada). The Utah Territory was basically all English-speaking Mormons, New Mexico was probably mostly Spanish-speaking, and California was probably about 50/50. 170,000 people (at most 100,000 of whom spoke Spanish) isn't a whole lot for an area comprising 500,000 square miles. That's one person for every five square miles. Today California, Arizona, and Utah have a combined population of 53 million.

    How many “anglos” were living there when “our” armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what “american” democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to “our” invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). “Remember the Alamo” was about producing more slave plantations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    “Remember the Alamo” was about producing more slave plantations.

    Typical reductionism. Complex conflicts explained in their entirety by one factor. Even if that factor was the most important, which is debatable in the case of slavery and Texas, it was one among many.

    A while back went thru the Visitor Center in Salt Lake's Temple Square. They also claimed that the opposition to Mormons in Missouri was "because" the Mormons were opposed to slavery.

    Not very accurate historically, but a great way to turn a conflict with many causes, not all of them to the credit of the Mormons, into persecution of the righteous abolitionist Mormons by the evil white slaving Missourians.
    , @Louis Renault

    When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542).
     
    You mean white Europeans freed the slaves? If only the Africans in Africa had been so enlightened as to not enslave thier fellow man to begin with.
    , @GregMan
    "...when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish."

    Can we get them to do that again?
    , @Jack D
    This is a completely false version of history. Mexico banned slavery only in 1829, during the brief rule of the mulatto Guerrero. If it had been banned already they wouldn't have needed to abolish it. That being said, Mexico had very few black slaves to begin with. Unlike the US, when the Spanish conquered Mexico it already had plenty of people and they didn't need to import a lot of black slaves except in very early days when the local population was decimated by disease - their ecological niche was filled by locals. The economics of slavery in Mexico was such that throughout the colonial period the price of slaves kept dropping because they were not in demand. But this was all based on economic grounds and not upon any moral superiority of the Spanish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. njguy73 says:

    There are certain people who know quite well that it was the English who created the legal system that has allowed for human flourishing. The system that ensured personal freedom, property rights, and the principle that government is not above the law.

    Not the Napoleonic code, not the Hammurabic code, not the Mosaic code, not the Koran, not anything from India, China, or Japan.

    These certain people can’t stand it. It makes them fucking nuts. My grandfather, a Jew born in Czarist Russia, knew that the English system was the one he wanted to live under, and he was no legal scholar. He was just a man who wanted to live free. He even joined the Army of his adopted country. And to see that system under attack would have burned him up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. njguy73 says:
    @TelfoedJohn
    Barbados and Bermuda seem to be run very well, due the British-derived government, even if most iSteve readers would consider the populations to be lacking in certain abilities.

    As Mark Steyn put it, where would you do business, Barbados or Haiti? Nigeria or Mozambique? Singapore or Indonesia? Which were exposed to British rule and which weren’t?

    Thank you and drive through.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Anon
    People use 'Judeo-Christian' because it's safer than plain 'Christian'.

    So, how about 'Judeo-Anglo'? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    The Midwest is more German by blood than English, the rest of the USA is more English.

    There are very few German Americans in the Midwest without English blood however. The reason for this is that the first settlement of majority German parts of the Midwest was still generally by English pioneers who had extremely high fertility.

    I am sure that Northern New England and the backwards parts of the South have plenty of old Americans with no German ancestors unless you go back to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.
    , @syonredux

    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.
     
    Americans speak English, not German.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. hyperbola says:
    @Simon Tugmutton
    That's because the English are best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

    Which is why the Aussies refer to them as POMs (prisoners of her majesty).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruford or White
    Then they should also call themselves the same, as Liz is their Queen too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Jake says:

    If we get into the Way Back Machine, we can go all the way to Puritan ruled England. There we find Oliver Cromwell, the very epitome of WASP culture from its solid formation, talking to himself.

    ‘It’s a masterstroke of genius,’ he says. ‘We know from the Bible that Jews were the Chosen Race of the Old Testament. And recent history proves beyond any doubt that Anglo-Saxons are the Chosen Race of the Christian age. God means for the two Chosen Races to be allies. Our whole theology points to it.’

    ‘In practical terms, we require Jewish money. How else can we wage unrelenting war to exterminate, or at least reduce into eternal beggary, all those who would pollute our sacred culture with a church that speaks a foreign tongue? All those who pollute our sacred culture by keeping their foreign tongues?’

    ‘God will bless us for allying with his first Chosen Race. Their presence back in these isles will lift them above the violent savagery of those who cannot, or refuse to, master the superiority of Anglo-Saxon language and ways. And those Jews, over time, will come to see that they are blessed most by becoming grafted into Anglo-Saxon ways. They will trumpet their new found identity. They will love it, and ask God’s blessing on us forever.’

    ‘Yes, after we have ended any possibility of Irish or Scottish interference in our chosen path; smashed any possibility of interference from the north of west of our homeland, where the people act no better than Welsh or Scots: indeed, often are related to them; and when we have spread our sacred language and business and political institutions around the globe, as Christ ordered, and finally managed to remake the Roman Church into a mirror that is mostly Anglican in thought and deed – Yes, then God’s plan will be revealed, and we Anglo-Saxons with our Jewish allies will rule the world.’

    ‘And when that happens, Jews will convert to proper Anglo-Saxon Protestantism and be model citizens in every way. Amen.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. WASHINGTON, May 24, 2017 – …Members of Congress who marked Jewish American Heritage Month at the Senate Russell Office Building were Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ; Sen. Sherrod Brown; D-Ohio; Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.; Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.; Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hi.; Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y.; Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Mass.; Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill.; and a driving supporter of the Jewish American Heritage Month, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

    Senator James Lankford is one of the GOP mass immigration enthusiasts who must be removed from office. This Lankford is a phony Christian puke who gushes over how great anti-White multiculturalism and diversity are. Lankford is the type of weasel boy Christian who is jeopardizing the faith. I don’t say that lightly. Christianity is either a fighting force or it will croak. There is nothing of the Christian warrior about Lankford.

    America used to produce Christian warriors such as General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson. Now we have crybaby fake Christians like Republican Party puke James Lankford pushing for more anti-White mass immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

    Watch this Senator Lankford treasonite. He is a whore for the GOP Cheap Labor Faction and he gives patriotic Christians a bad name. Trump must reject all the bad immigration bills coming out of the corrupt and treasonous US Senate.

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. LondonBob says:

    Doesn’t get more southern than Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

    In his swearing in ceremony I noticed he had a few orientals in there, presumably through a marriage in the family, but then orientals don’t seem to count for non racist pokemon points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Jake says:
    @Wilkey
    Hawaii is the least white state in America - 26.7% white, 0.5% Jewish - yet Schatz was handed his Senate seat on a silver platter. He was appointed to replace Daniel Inouye, who died in office. Inouye wrote a letter shortly before he died asking for Colleen Hanabusa to replace him in the seat he had won. The Democratic Party selected Hanabusa, Schatz, and Esther Kia'aina for Gov. Neil Abercrombie to choose from to nominate to the Senate. Abercrombie chose the Jewish guy.

    So the cultural Yankee WASP chose the Jew?

    That is exactly what Father Oliver Cromwell would have advised.

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry who were given land in Ireland to serve as the militantly English-speaking Protestants to serve to keep Irish Catholics from thinking too often about any hope for independence).

    Genes matter a great deal, and cultural identification and alliance matter even more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruford or White
    Why don't people from Lowland Scotland count as WASPs?

    The political border between England and Scotland hasn't constituted an ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic border for a very long time..
    , @syonredux

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry
     
    RE: WASPs and Protestant Scots,

    In the USA, that's a distinction without a difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Many good points already made, but so far all are missing this one:

    Any legal tradition is problematic because The Revolution starts in the Year Zero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Logan says:
    @Iberiano
    Yes, but of course, we have enjoyed the broad, general term "Hispanic" and "Latino" because it has grouped us in one identity that receives benefits of affirmative action (which is a lot more pervasive than people realize). Although I am what is considered traditionally "Hispanic" (Spanish-only descent), I'm amused by my Latino brothers and sisters who like to go around saying, "Hispanic is a name made up by Americans", "Latinos can be of any race" "I'm not Latino I'm, _X_".

    Well, right, but then, if every policy was posed to regular American stock as "Do you believe immigrants from Bolivia (legal or not legal) deserve coverage under affirmative action similar to descendants of slaves?" most would draw the logical conclusion: THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION against the majority of "Latino/Hispanic" people. It was a small, Chicano movement involving farm workers that suddenly thrust Latinos into the victim group, so that now, decades later, a doctor and his stay-at-home Argentine wife can move to the US, have children and those children are immediately moved up the food chain for all SORTS of US Government programs.

    Americans were too busy over the decades, watching TV, sports, getting drunk, etc, to monitor what is essentially a fellow "white" tribe (made of a variety of mixes, based on European stock) move into their territory, use their own laws against them, and become the largest and most powerful "minority" in the US. If groups of "we are so so so different" Slavs or Ruskies had done this, the reaction would have been what it has always been, "not on our watch". Americans were disarmed by the idea that Latinos were these poor, downtrodden "otherness" that needed help because of the "historical oppression" of whites...which is largely a myth, or in other cases, was what happened in OTHER countries, at the hands of Spain.

    The only place I’ve ever heard the term “Anglo” commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.

    Its primary meaning was “person (usually but not always white) of Anglo-American culture.” It was a cultural marker, used to distinguish “normal” American whites (and sometimes blacks) from the longer-settled peoples of NM, the “Spanish” who had been living there for around 400 years, and the Indians who had been there much longer.

    Interestingly, the “Spanish” of the area were in general a lot friendlier to us Anglos than to what they called the “Mexicans,” the mestizos who were mostly mestizos and tended to live further south in the state.

    My wife got to be good friends with a number of the Spanish ladies. They all wanted their daughters to marry Anglos, not Spanish, and certainly not Mexican, men. They believed, possibly accurately, that Anglos treated their wives much better. Less domestic violence and adultery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The only place I’ve ever heard the term “Anglo” commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.
     
    I'm an academic (Humanities division), and I hear it a lot.
    , @Twodees Partain
    It's from the word "anglophona", which means English speaker. The English word is "anglophone", pretty close to the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anonymous
    The first lesson any putative American lawyer learns is that 'American law' is based upon the English Common Law system, rather than the 'Roman Law' system that typifies continental Europe and Latin America.
    English Common Law basically means the system of laws which evolved in England since the time of the Norman kings, based on legal precedent and case law. This was later supplemented by parliamentary statute.
    'Roman law' was always in the nature of a prescribed set of rules issued from central authority.

    “since the time of the Norman kings”

    Sorry to pick a nit, but I’d argue English Common Law’s roots precede the times of the Norman kings and go back to the Anglo-Saxon period. Hence, the “Anglo” part of Anglo-American.

    I know Magna Carta and Runnymede is often used as a reference point for the formal start of Common Law, but if there were no pre-existing Rights of Englishmen (Angloishmen), there would have been nothing to assert against royal authority at Runnymede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Marty T says:

    While the liberals’ triggering at Sessions’ comments was hilarious, it was certainly not just or mostly Jewish liberals. And I’m sure if you look hard enough (or not hard at all) you can find the other examples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @helena
    Replying with a snappy rebuff doesn't seem to work and nor does a reasoned fact-based response. So I suggest tweeters move to a more humanitarian approach:

    "But why don't you want to believe that there is an Anglo-American heritage to law enforcement? Why does it upset you so? Would you like to erase Anglo-American history? Do you also hate people of English descent? Should only other ethnic groups celebrate their heritage?"

    Yeah, it’s worth a try. I really do want to go the extra mile for peace before Civil War II kicks in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    The leftist response was eye-opening for me. What they object to is any reference at all to white influence on the foundation of the country. Some of them said that all whites had slaves, who did all the work except for the Chinese, who did all the work in the West. To me, if civil war is to be averted, we must wrest back the K-12 edifice by hook or by crook.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Logan says:
    @hyperbola
    How many "anglos" were living there when "our" armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what "american" democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to "our" invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). "Remember the Alamo" was about producing more slave plantations.

    “Remember the Alamo” was about producing more slave plantations.

    Typical reductionism. Complex conflicts explained in their entirety by one factor. Even if that factor was the most important, which is debatable in the case of slavery and Texas, it was one among many.

    A while back went thru the Visitor Center in Salt Lake’s Temple Square. They also claimed that the opposition to Mormons in Missouri was “because” the Mormons were opposed to slavery.

    Not very accurate historically, but a great way to turn a conflict with many causes, not all of them to the credit of the Mormons, into persecution of the righteous abolitionist Mormons by the evil white slaving Missourians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Logan says:

    These guys can’t get their story straight.

    The alt-right is composes of ignorant, uneducated deplorables, but they at the same time understand the nuances of obscure historical references encoded in dog-whistles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. WynnLloyd says:

    Can someone explain to me what is racist or inaccurate about that statement?
    We speak “Anglo-American,” which are American dialects of English, and our country was founded by BRITISH colonists.

    Are these people saying Anglo-Saxon legal traditional aren’t part of our own? Are they suggesting that John Locke, Thomas Hobbes et. al were not influences on our legal system’s development?

    I’m just so damn sick of Jews at this point. I have so much admiration for Stephen Miller, and the Israeli military, but that is not working as an anchor to contain the anger. These Jews will outright deny historical fact just because they aren’t the center of something. They hate us that much.

    America was Anglo-Saxon well before it was Jewish. I don’t care so much about making it Anglo-Saxon again. At this point I’m more in favor of 19th century Russian peasants, or Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, or Hungarian ones; any of those groups are preferable to Anglo Saxon culture, if they contain their traditional hostility towards Jews.
    I hope I feel better soon. I don’t like hating. They seem to demand it though. They can’t blend in to save their damn lives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @100 WynnLloyd: "They can’t blend in to save their damn lives."

    In their view, how is one to remain special, chosen, an exception, and a "light unto the nations" by blending in with trailer-trash gun lovers and Bible clingers? They're here to CRITIQUE us and improve us. Why are you so resistant to being improved?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Yak-15
    But Jamaica and Kenya are not. Go figure.

    OTOH, by comparison with their neighbors, Haiti and Tanzania, Jamaica and Kenya look pretty good. So adjusted for race (as all serious social science is), the British legacy looks pretty good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Bartolo says:

    Did Brian Schatz complain when ERICH HOLDER referred to Blacks as “my people”? Wasn´t that divisive? The chutzpah and hostility are incredible. Antigentile to the core.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. AndrewR says:
    @Frau Katze
    I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    Never assume ignorance when malice suffices as an explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Basically the opposite of Sailer's Butterknife (assume ignorance when malice is the answer).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Hhsiii
    Louisiana is a Napoleanic Code state. Brando rants about it in Streetcar. Almost went to Tulane for law school.

    While the legal systems of the rest of the U.S. are based on common law, Louisiana has a civil law system (or a mixed system). Louisiana’s civil law system is based on French and Spanish law and ultimately on Roman law. Though they have the same sources, Louisiana was never under the Napoleanic Code as it was enacted after the Louisiana Purchase.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    Thanks for correcting me. I knew I shouldn't take legal advice from Marlon Brando!
    , @FPD72
    And that is why Louisiana has “parishes” while the rest of the country has “counties.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. biz says:
    @midtown
    In Schatz's case, I agree, he knows better. Looking through Twitter, however, the rank and file progressive truly does not know. They think Anglo-American law only applies to white people. #AngloAmericanHistoryMonth

    Totally agreed. If you want to see truly profound, world-leading ignorance, you pretty much can’t beat progressive Twitter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    Some of these Millennial or Gen Z feminists Tumblrs may have Twitter beat
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Nico says:
    @Iberiano
    Yes, but of course, we have enjoyed the broad, general term "Hispanic" and "Latino" because it has grouped us in one identity that receives benefits of affirmative action (which is a lot more pervasive than people realize). Although I am what is considered traditionally "Hispanic" (Spanish-only descent), I'm amused by my Latino brothers and sisters who like to go around saying, "Hispanic is a name made up by Americans", "Latinos can be of any race" "I'm not Latino I'm, _X_".

    Well, right, but then, if every policy was posed to regular American stock as "Do you believe immigrants from Bolivia (legal or not legal) deserve coverage under affirmative action similar to descendants of slaves?" most would draw the logical conclusion: THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION against the majority of "Latino/Hispanic" people. It was a small, Chicano movement involving farm workers that suddenly thrust Latinos into the victim group, so that now, decades later, a doctor and his stay-at-home Argentine wife can move to the US, have children and those children are immediately moved up the food chain for all SORTS of US Government programs.

    Americans were too busy over the decades, watching TV, sports, getting drunk, etc, to monitor what is essentially a fellow "white" tribe (made of a variety of mixes, based on European stock) move into their territory, use their own laws against them, and become the largest and most powerful "minority" in the US. If groups of "we are so so so different" Slavs or Ruskies had done this, the reaction would have been what it has always been, "not on our watch". Americans were disarmed by the idea that Latinos were these poor, downtrodden "otherness" that needed help because of the "historical oppression" of whites...which is largely a myth, or in other cases, was what happened in OTHER countries, at the hands of Spain.

    There is increasing sentiment on this forum to end the “Hispanic” category in the census and replace it with “Mestizo/Mulatto” to encourage the “break-up” of the Latino block. I have been saying this since 2005. Regrettably, as you say, too many non-Hispanic white Americans for the time being still claim to be so preoccupied with Monday Night Football that they can’t be bothered to care about issues of race and ethnicity, but of course they’re in for a shock when they find out racial and ethnic issues care about them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Tulip says:

    Its nice when the total ignoramus is not some toothless senator from the South for a change. [Oh, calling him a "senator" is a dog whistle that implies that age is better than beauty, and probably falls into ageism.]

    Can we do some “My Fourth Grader is smarter than the Senator from Hawaii” bumper stickers?

    People question populism, but with elites this stupid or this shameless, its either vote them out or better, go full Jacobin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. Mr. Anon says:
    @guest
    See, if you say "common law" you don't Name the Anglo, no one has to think about yucky white people, maybe we'll forget white people were involved, and we can forget the American common law tradition altogether.

    By the way, what is on Session's record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    By the way, what is on Session’s record of racism? I mean, aside from being a Southerner and a Republican. Is that just something people say, or is it based on actual reality?

    There is nothing, other than being a Southerner and a Republican.

    Is that not enough?

    Although I suppose this most heinous of crimes – using the term “Anglo-American” to describe an anglo-american institution- will now be added to the bill of charges.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @hyperbola
    How many "anglos" were living there when "our" armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what "american" democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to "our" invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). "Remember the Alamo" was about producing more slave plantations.

    When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542).

    You mean white Europeans freed the slaves? If only the Africans in Africa had been so enlightened as to not enslave thier fellow man to begin with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Mr. Anon says:

    I never knew that the origin of the current sociopathic Goon Squad cop culture was “Anglo-American”.

    The origin of your friendly corrupt county sherriff is indeed “Anglo-American”. Their current manifestation as brutal, civil-rights trampling SWAT commandos owes more, I think, to having watched too many Paul Verhoeven movies and not realizing who the bad guys were.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @hyperbola
    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly "rights for aristocrats" of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front......

    The original "Eidgenossenschaft" in Switzerland (first 7 kantons) predates the Magna Carta. We have never equalled its profoundly democratic structures. (1) From the beginning government was direct democracy in which referenda open to all voters were required to approve major projects. (2) Switzerland is a "confederation" (NOT a federation), where each independent country (kanton) retains the right to abandon the confederation. (3) Most social organization is at the local (kantonal, not federal) level, e.g. education, welfare, etc. - so much so that even today only about 1/3 of governmental expenditure is at the federal level......

    I agree about the Eidgenossenschaft, but would argue that Swiss law stems from the same Germanic root as Anglo Common Law, so it is not really an exception but part of the rule.

    Also, any discussion of Swiss law has to take into account the gratuitous rewriting of the Swiss Constitution in 2000, which turned it from an ancient contract of liberties into an SJW time bomb.

    Venice was indeed a praiseworthy vestige of Roman legal tradition, though its “democratic” and “republican” aspects arguably have more to do with oligarchic mutual jealousies than with an innate spirit of liberty.

    I’ve commented here before about the difficulties inherent in Venice’s anti-corruption laws. Re the Doge’s obligation to “lead troops at the front”, recall that Venice was a naval, not land-based power, so a more accurate description of this obligation is “to take up the executive stateroom on the flagship”, which is a little less impressive than braving lance and cannon in the literal trenches. Compound this by the Venetian strategy of having others (e.g., Crusaders) do their dirty work while Venice reaped the profits.

    Still, there are worse governments than mutually jealous oligarchs, and a chief executive who faces any measure of personal danger deserves some measure of credit, so one and a half cheers for Venice! And as you note, once the French Revolution’s God-State toppled it, its virtue became dust in the wind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @istevefan
    Others have brought this up, but I will mention it again. The good senator from Hawaii should consult his state's flag if he has any questions about the Anglo influence of this nation or even his state. What is that thingy where the stars should be????

    The good senator from Hawaii should consult his state’s flag if …

    Yeah, when i first saw it i thought “what a lame flag for Hawaii.” Where’s the palm trees, the mountains, the sea, the girls in grass skirts, surfers, Don Ho?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Ed says:

    Jewish resentment towards America or “Anglo-America” just seems so odd. The USA has never had the type of latent anti-semitism that has been found in almost all of Europe. There has not been a country better to Jews than the USA. If Israel would implode, I suspect the majority of the Jewish refugees would end up in the USA with nary a peep of objection.

    Yet through the media & politics many Jews seem to advocate for policies that threaten to destroy or diminish American power. They must know if America goes, so does Israel and a resurgent anti-semitism in Europe. I just don’t get the hostility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's jealousy.
    , @Zoodles
    They want to keep down their competitors.
    , @Thea
    Nothing will bind a group of people together more than a common enemy. White Christians are needed to fill the role of their eternal enemy.
    , @Anonymous
    Jews are just angry people, always in a rage against something or other. Nowadays this is explained/excused because of the Holocaust, but they were like this even before WWII. They were always this way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Lot says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.

    The Midwest is more German by blood than English, the rest of the USA is more English.

    There are very few German Americans in the Midwest without English blood however. The reason for this is that the first settlement of majority German parts of the Midwest was still generally by English pioneers who had extremely high fertility.

    I am sure that Northern New England and the backwards parts of the South have plenty of old Americans with no German ancestors unless you go back to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. syonredux says:
    @guest
    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There's two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). "Anglo" is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It's not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I'm aware. But the outraged don't care about that. They're pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I'm white without being of English descent, but I don't care about being ethnically excluded from my country's legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don't resent the fact, because I'm not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered, and that'll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    1). “Anglo” is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It’s not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I’m aware.

    Actually, it is. “White Anglo” is becoming increasingly commonplace. After all, it is less cumbersome than “Non-Hispanic White.”

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,

    Anglo-Saxon means racially English. Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.
     
    With that in mind I dislike how the census makes hispanic the center of gravity in how people are defined. I don't like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn't the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.

    So German Americans, as you pointed out, would be Anglo American. The same would be true for all European Americans born in this nation. Black Americans would be Anglo Black instead of being non-hispanic black. Ditto for US born Asians of various stripes.

    Hispanic wouldn't even be used as a descriptor. If someone were born in Latin American and currently resides in the USA, they would be considered non-Anglo white, black, other, etc.

    , @guest
    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I'm aware of.

    This is one of the chief problems of elite detachment and bubble living. They come up with their own little para-languages, then pretend we're bad things like "racist" for not recognizing their definitions.

    Anglo is used in terms of culture, but the reason this fake controversy started was because it is used by certain people to mean white. Just like Hispanic is popularly used to mean mestizo. This isn't rocket science

    Cultural Anglos are those with connections to English culture specifically. If your hypothetical German was raised in England, maybe. I don't know how they handle it there Unlike here, hereditary descent still has strong cultural implications over there.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can't be actual or cultural Anglos, because they're in no way English.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Anonym
    One of the big differences is that the English properly colonized rather than just the menfolk breeding with the female natives as happened a lot with the French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. At some point the colonial infrastructure became a drawcard for other European settlement so you still ended up with a fairly similar country, e.g. IQ about 100, etc.

    Oh, the Dutch brought their own women alright, just perhaps not quite cut from the same cloth as the Puritan English…

    http://www.billsbrownstone.com/notorious/GrietReyniers.asp

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo_people
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. syonredux says:
    @Logan
    The only place I've ever heard the term "Anglo" commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.

    Its primary meaning was "person (usually but not always white) of Anglo-American culture." It was a cultural marker, used to distinguish "normal" American whites (and sometimes blacks) from the longer-settled peoples of NM, the "Spanish" who had been living there for around 400 years, and the Indians who had been there much longer.

    Interestingly, the "Spanish" of the area were in general a lot friendlier to us Anglos than to what they called the "Mexicans," the mestizos who were mostly mestizos and tended to live further south in the state.

    My wife got to be good friends with a number of the Spanish ladies. They all wanted their daughters to marry Anglos, not Spanish, and certainly not Mexican, men. They believed, possibly accurately, that Anglos treated their wives much better. Less domestic violence and adultery.

    The only place I’ve ever heard the term “Anglo” commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.

    I’m an academic (Humanities division), and I hear it a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite possibly. But then I've never lived in an academic environment. My experience is with lower to middle middle class types.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. helena says:

    “Can we do some “My Fourth Grader is smarter than the Senator from Hawaii” bumper stickers?”

    Haha. Definitely need some bumper stickers. I’m in the UK so a little restricted with anything triggering but a bumper sticker saying ‘Hell, yeah!’ would do me.

    What is so amusing about this war of words is the way words are being appropriated to the cause – trope is uniquely and seemingly compulsorily used to describe antisemitism, canard seems not to have caught on so well, and now we have dog-whistle, which hasn’t launched in the UK yet.

    And what is sooo ironic, the world champion PR people have such an appalling brand of their own!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. syonredux says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.

    This is definitely true. I read somewhere that there are actually more Americans with German ancestry than English. But nobody calls our culture Germanic rather than Anglo.

    Americans speak English, not German.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. syonredux says:
    @guest
    The term was popularized to refer to mestizos, so that they could be counted as non-white on the census. We know it also applies to white Spaniards, for instance, but it's not generally for them.

    "Hispanic" is a multi-racial term. But "Anglo" isn't. It's not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.

    But “Anglo” isn’t. It’s not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.

    Well, in academia, it’s frequently used as shorthand for Anglophone Whites in North America. Saying/writing “Non-Hispanic White” gets tiresome after a while.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't automatically count academia, because it's full of lunatics talking Junk English.

    But if they count, then the Anglo-American tradition being an elementary (they might actually mention it to kids in elementary school, and certainly middle school) phrase in law and legal history takes over and crushes all other possible meanings.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @hyperbola
    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly "rights for aristocrats" of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front......

    The original "Eidgenossenschaft" in Switzerland (first 7 kantons) predates the Magna Carta. We have never equalled its profoundly democratic structures. (1) From the beginning government was direct democracy in which referenda open to all voters were required to approve major projects. (2) Switzerland is a "confederation" (NOT a federation), where each independent country (kanton) retains the right to abandon the confederation. (3) Most social organization is at the local (kantonal, not federal) level, e.g. education, welfare, etc. - so much so that even today only about 1/3 of governmental expenditure is at the federal level......

    300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly “rights for aristocrats” of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD).

    There was not universal suffrage in La Serenissima. To be among the enfranchised, one’s family had to have been inscribed in the “Golden Book” of the founding stock of the city. If the United States had constitutionally limited its franchise to members of the Society of the Cincinnati, the Sons of the Revolution, etc., this country would have an electorate roughly analogous to that of the Venetian Republic.

    This hereditary limitation explains the frequency with which certain family names recur in the list of doges – for example, the Contarini produced eight. There is a certain dynastic element in the American governing class – politics has become a family business for some – but I doubt that there will ever be eight presidents named Bush, despite that family’s ambitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @hyperbola
    Which is why the Aussies refer to them as POMs (prisoners of her majesty).

    Then they should also call themselves the same, as Liz is their Queen too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    Matt Yglesias chimes in:

    https://www.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/963116990473830402

    Sessions could have avoided a lot of trouble this morning by either:

    — Saying “common law” instead of “Anglo-American”

    See, it’s like saying Common Era/Before Common Era instead of Anno Domini/Before Christ….We don’t want anyone to get triggered here…..

    Come to think of it, maybe we should change “English language” to something less offensive….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Jake
    So the cultural Yankee WASP chose the Jew?

    That is exactly what Father Oliver Cromwell would have advised.

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry who were given land in Ireland to serve as the militantly English-speaking Protestants to serve to keep Irish Catholics from thinking too often about any hope for independence).

    Genes matter a great deal, and cultural identification and alliance matter even more.

    Why don’t people from Lowland Scotland count as WASPs?

    The political border between England and Scotland hasn’t constituted an ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic border for a very long time..

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Why don’t people from Lowland Scotland count as WASPs?
     
    In the USA, they do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    I met him once and talked for about five minutes.

    The impression I got from that brief conversation was "This guy is a dick."

    How many senators aren’t?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Forbes says:
    @Frau Katze
    I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    Deficient in history, you say? How about deficient in reality? Has Schatz noticed his state flag?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Hhsiii
    Louisiana is a Napoleanic Code state. Brando rants about it in Streetcar. Almost went to Tulane for law school.

    Erasing our history is just part of the plan to erase our future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. syonredux says:
    @Jake
    So the cultural Yankee WASP chose the Jew?

    That is exactly what Father Oliver Cromwell would have advised.

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry who were given land in Ireland to serve as the militantly English-speaking Protestants to serve to keep Irish Catholics from thinking too often about any hope for independence).

    Genes matter a great deal, and cultural identification and alliance matter even more.

    Abercrombie has 3 main ancestry lines: WASP, German Protestant, and Irish Protestant (meaning, people of mostly Scottish Lowland ancestry

    RE: WASPs and Protestant Scots,

    In the USA, that’s a distinction without a difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. syonredux says:
    @Bruford or White
    Why don't people from Lowland Scotland count as WASPs?

    The political border between England and Scotland hasn't constituted an ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic border for a very long time..

    Why don’t people from Lowland Scotland count as WASPs?

    In the USA, they do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. AndrewR says:
    @The King is A Fink
    This issue is at the same level of the official who got fired for saying niggardly in a meeting.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

     

    The only thing you can glean from it is the stupidity and double standards of the outrage brigade. Oh, and watch how you talk because stupid people might be listening.

    He was either autistic or he used that word in order to troll the people around him. No remotely “neurotypical” person would have used that word around a bunch of Afros and not expected such a reaction

    Sessions, OTOH, had no particular reason to think the left would rage so hard at this. Sometimes leftist mass psychosis can catch anyone off guard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Svigor says:

    When will judeo-christian values

    Counter-culture:

    Use “judeo-christian” only to describe bad stuff.
    Use female pronouns in the general sense only to describe bad stuff.
    When you use people in hypotheticals involving bad stuff, only use the names of leftist saints like MLK. “Say some famous guy, like MLK, was a serial killer…”

    People use ‘Judeo-Christian’ because it’s safer than plain ‘Christian’.

    Not the way I use it. That’s why most people never use it that way.

    What would the good senator think about this tweet from Haaretz?

    Justice minister: Israel must keep Jewish majority even at the expense of human rights

    He’s Jewish. Like all the Jews he thinks it’s fine, and won’t mention it because he knows it doesn’t play well with the Jewish line of “the goys we can pass among must not have what we have in Israel.”

    — Not having a long record in public life as a racist

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 12, 2018

    Yglesias is a racist. He’s racist and anti-gentile and imposes extreme standards on gentile whites he’d never dream of imposing on Jews or non-whites. He’s racist in the other direction on the blacks’ behalf; e.g., it was months or years before he’d admit the savages who attacked him for no reason and put him in the hospital were black and did so because he looked white enough to them, even though people were asking him about their identity the whole time. He would never keep mum on the topic if his attackers were white.

    Abercrombie appointed Schatz despite Inouye specifically asking him to appoint Colleen Hanabusa. The Asians despise him and he’ll never be safe in his seat, which is why he’s desperate to stay as anti-Trump as possible.

    Good. Jews are only qualified to represent Jews politically.

    Jeff Sessions literally called sheriffs a ‘critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement’.

    WTF is happening America??

    How is this right?

    How is this American?

    — Brian Krassenstein

    Be advised, Jews only sound like nerds saying something pathetic about “the real America” before being stuffed into lockers. They’re actually the ones stuffing people into lockers.

    The longer you study Jewish culture, the less American the Jewish concept of America seems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. @J.Ross
    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did. It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.

    As a lawyer, I can’t say enough about the wondrous phenomenon of the common law. However, the Germans were the real originators of the Western legal traditions we hold dear, like the principal that the king is subject to the law.

    By the way , the UK has now been tyrannically back-doored. A lot of people would say it actually happened in 1688 (which was a literal tyranny).

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    So England has been a tyranny for half a millennium? What does "The Germans" mean historically? I see what you're trying to do but my point stands. We have what we have because of innovations in England that survived through the culturally English founders appreciating both English traditions and more recent English innovations in the Glorious Revolution. My focus was on different white peoples (ie, my own ancestors are about as honest and bright in governmental science as the Chinese: the Constitution would never have come from them). There is a great counterexample to my point about white Americans complicating ancestor reverence to make a special place for the English, you can't make it but Steve can, because the other counterexample is Switzerland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. GregMan says:
    @hyperbola
    How many "anglos" were living there when "our" armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what "american" democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to "our" invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). "Remember the Alamo" was about producing more slave plantations.

    “…when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish.”

    Can we get them to do that again?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Buzz Mohawk
    "Any fond reminiscences or nostalgia about the Anglo-American alliance in WWII will soon be suspect."

    Does this mean we can finally admit that Lindbergh was right?

    "When England asks us to enter this war she is considering her own future and that of her Empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere...

    "The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people."

    - Charles Lindbergh, America First Speech, 23 April 1941
     

    Yes, he was right. That is why he was so widely condemned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Svigor says:

    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly “rights for aristocrats” of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front……

    I’m guessing they had a vigorous slave trade for most of that time, so it’s not like most people are going to let them sit on that high horse for long…

    they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). “Remember the Alamo” was about producing more slave plantations.

    Did the Spanish ban the slave trade? Or did they just ban enslaving the natives? I remember the latter, but not the former. Enslaving the natives wasn’t much of a thing in the English colonies here, either. Apparently they didn’t make very good slaves.

    While the liberals’ triggering at Sessions’ comments was hilarious, it was certainly not just or mostly Jewish liberals. And I’m sure if you look hard enough (or not hard at all) you can find the other examples.

    Not many from whites (or if you prefer, Caucasoids) with an ethnostate, though. Jews are pretty much on their own there.

    Never assume ignorance when malice suffices as an explanation.

    When looking at overall patterns, malice, or at least wilful negligence, often seems a better fit than simple ignorance. Ignorance tends to be more random. Animus seems more targeted and consistent. (How often do Jews **** up and say something this offensive about Jews or blacks?).

    But I think it best to forgo the mind-reading and critique the behavior; let the audience make what it will of the motives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @Simon Tugmutton
    That's because the English are best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

    These lines are especially on target these days, and in the US:

    Always remember, if it hadn’t been for the English, you’d all be Spanish.

    It’s not that you’re wicked or naturally bad,
    It’s knowing you’re foreign that’s driving you mad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Brian Krassenstein" chimes in:

    https://www.twitter.com/krassenstein/status/963184692227813376

    Link to Brian Krassenstein tweet:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Tiny Duck
    African-American is a term describing a legally recognized minority Anglo-American Values used the way Sessions has is right out of the Fascist playbook implying the Anglo-American majority is the sole basis of civilization Study Sessions history before you rush to his defense.

    If you guys want people to like white people, maybe you should be better people. Just a thought.

    Keep in mind that the majority of white people spend 97% of their interactions with other whites, while the rest of us have to engage with all of America. A good portion of whites don't fit in with the rest of America.

    I “engaged with” your beloved African – Americans at my majority black inner city high school. It mostly involved a lot of violence directed at me because I was too light skinned and my hair was too straight. (And perhaps also because I have an iq above 80, unlike the majority of students at good ole Pembroke High School in Hampton, VA.)

    So save your sanctimonious bs for someone who hasn’t hasn’t experienced “diversity” up close and personal. If you are white, I doubt you would have survived what I did. You seem like the type who would have been balled up in a corner weeping like a little bitch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    You=ignorant pussy

    You would never say this to a Black Mans face
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ed
    Jewish resentment towards America or “Anglo-America” just seems so odd. The USA has never had the type of latent anti-semitism that has been found in almost all of Europe. There has not been a country better to Jews than the USA. If Israel would implode, I suspect the majority of the Jewish refugees would end up in the USA with nary a peep of objection.

    Yet through the media & politics many Jews seem to advocate for policies that threaten to destroy or diminish American power. They must know if America goes, so does Israel and a resurgent anti-semitism in Europe. I just don’t get the hostility.

    It’s jealousy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. istevefan says:
    @syonredux

    1). “Anglo” is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It’s not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I’m aware.
     
    Actually, it is. "White Anglo" is becoming increasingly commonplace. After all, it is less cumbersome than "Non-Hispanic White."

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Anglo-Saxon means racially English. Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.

    Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.

    With that in mind I dislike how the census makes hispanic the center of gravity in how people are defined. I don’t like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn’t the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.

    So German Americans, as you pointed out, would be Anglo American. The same would be true for all European Americans born in this nation. Black Americans would be Anglo Black instead of being non-hispanic black. Ditto for US born Asians of various stripes.

    Hispanic wouldn’t even be used as a descriptor. If someone were born in Latin American and currently resides in the USA, they would be considered non-Anglo white, black, other, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn’t the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.
     
    That seems to be the direction that things are going in, at least if academic seminars are any indication.
    , @guest
    German-Americans are NOT Anglo-American. Not unless they have some connection to England outside of being American. Otherwise, they're German-American or just plain American.

    There isn't any point in making Anglo the baseline ethnicity here. We have our own country. Its culture and most of its Founding Stock was English, but we're America, not England.

    There's no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.

    Your entire post is nutty, unless we were to set up Anglo as the white version of Hispanic. But first of all there's no need to when we have whiteness, and anyway that'd be doubling up on the mistake.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. densa says:
    @guest
    I posted this elsewhere, but might as well say it here, too. There's two major things at play in this fake scandal:

    1). "Anglo" is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It's not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I'm aware. But the outraged don't care about that. They're pretending it was intended to exclude non-whites, and browns in particular.

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I'm white without being of English descent, but I don't care about being ethnically excluded from my country's legal traditions. I know our culture largely comes from the Mother Country and don't resent the fact, because I'm not an idiot.

    2). Whites aren't allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites. Simply Naming the Tradition is badthink.

    If it can't be named, maybe it won't be remembered, and that'll make it easier to institute Sharia or whatever we have coming.

    “Whites aren’t allowed to recognize their own heritage, or the heritage of other whites.”

    “If it can’t be named, maybe it won’t be remembered…”

    This. Any reference to anything white that doesn’t refer to slavery, displacing Indians, or Hitler is hate speech. White is so bad that they only honorable thing for us to do is go a shade paler and become invisible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Zoodles says:
    @Ed
    Jewish resentment towards America or “Anglo-America” just seems so odd. The USA has never had the type of latent anti-semitism that has been found in almost all of Europe. There has not been a country better to Jews than the USA. If Israel would implode, I suspect the majority of the Jewish refugees would end up in the USA with nary a peep of objection.

    Yet through the media & politics many Jews seem to advocate for policies that threaten to destroy or diminish American power. They must know if America goes, so does Israel and a resurgent anti-semitism in Europe. I just don’t get the hostility.

    They want to keep down their competitors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Otto says:

    I think that he is sick and tired of people calling America a Christian nation with Anglo-Saxon heritage. He is saying that since the 1900s we Jews have been the most successful group in America. We are the richest, the most intelligent, the best educated , the most powerful , the most influential and you stupid gentiles just won’t give us any credit and stupidly think that WASPS are still in control. Oy vey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. J1234 says:

    Even the Washington Post is starting to acknowledge that this is much liberal ado about nothing. It seems enough people on the Left recognize the intent and context of Sessions’ remarks for it to become a part of their mythology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. Corn says:
    @biz
    Totally agreed. If you want to see truly profound, world-leading ignorance, you pretty much can't beat progressive Twitter.

    Some of these Millennial or Gen Z feminists Tumblrs may have Twitter beat

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. syonredux says:
    @istevefan

    Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.
     
    With that in mind I dislike how the census makes hispanic the center of gravity in how people are defined. I don't like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn't the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.

    So German Americans, as you pointed out, would be Anglo American. The same would be true for all European Americans born in this nation. Black Americans would be Anglo Black instead of being non-hispanic black. Ditto for US born Asians of various stripes.

    Hispanic wouldn't even be used as a descriptor. If someone were born in Latin American and currently resides in the USA, they would be considered non-Anglo white, black, other, etc.

    I don’t like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn’t the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.

    That seems to be the direction that things are going in, at least if academic seminars are any indication.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Academic seminars are a vision of the future. That's how the Cathedral works.

    That's why things keep getting stupider and stupider.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Clearly, the Left is trying to hyperventilate over nothing, or perhaps they find the Anglo-American concept of “presumption of innocence” a pesky impediment to their totalitarian designs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. Thea says:
    @Ed
    Jewish resentment towards America or “Anglo-America” just seems so odd. The USA has never had the type of latent anti-semitism that has been found in almost all of Europe. There has not been a country better to Jews than the USA. If Israel would implode, I suspect the majority of the Jewish refugees would end up in the USA with nary a peep of objection.

    Yet through the media & politics many Jews seem to advocate for policies that threaten to destroy or diminish American power. They must know if America goes, so does Israel and a resurgent anti-semitism in Europe. I just don’t get the hostility.

    Nothing will bind a group of people together more than a common enemy. White Christians are needed to fill the role of their eternal enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Jack D says:
    @Frau Katze
    I notice he’s getting a lot of negative feedback on Twitter. That’s a bit of encouragement.

    What an idiot. He seems very deficient in history.

    You have to understand liberal double standards – if Barack Obama refers to the Anglo-American legal tradition (as he has) then it is a good and noble thing, because Obama is a good and noble non-racist person. If Jeff Sessions says the exact same thing, then coming from him it’s a racist dog whistle. It’s just like black people are allowed to refer to each other by the N word but God forbid a white person should ever say that word. In other words, who-whom as usual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Anon
    People use 'Judeo-Christian' because it's safer than plain 'Christian'.

    So, how about 'Judeo-Anglo'? The Judeo-part gives cover to the Anglo part.

    PS. People have no idea how important the Order of Arrival was to America.

    Surely, if Hindus settle a land first and then Anglos arrive to assimilate, things will be different from if Anglos settle a land and then Hindus arrive to assimilate. The first settlers and founders will have set the template that must be followed by all the others. So, even if both societies are 50/50 Anglo/Hindu, the Order of Arrival will decide which people assimilate into the norms of the other people.

    US is what it is because the Anglos were the first in the Order of Arrival. Others followed that Template because Anglos had the prestige of foundation and power.

    Eminent American scholar & literary critic Harold Bloom (Shakespeare, Shelley, Gnosticism, American religion, Whitman, Western Canon, …) has long since smashed this silly notion: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048309

    ELLIOTT: Harold Bloom, you conclude that it’s really a myth for us to talk about this Judeo-Christian outlook.

    Prof. BLOOM: I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, “Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people.” There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    He's right there, however I wouldn't call Bloom "eminent."

    Popular, at least for what he does, okay.
    , @syonredux

    I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, “Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people.” There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.
     
    Seeing as how the Christian Bible incorporates the Tanakh (The Old Testament), I would argue that Judeo-Christian makes a bit more sense than Christian-Islamic.....

    And, of course, one can also speak of all three religions as the Abrahamic Faiths.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Russ says:
    @J.Ross
    English Commom Law tradition is the basis of pretty much everything we think of as "American," and there has been a concerted effort in academia and leftist thought leading to erase or deny it. I have encountered educated Britons who insisted that it had no influence on us and that our legal system is actually modelled on Revolutionary France. This is the real reason for anti-Second-Amendment activism: they want to eliminate the concepts of natural laws and negative rights, and instead have the state be a god who makes it up as he stumbles along, like is the case with France. Do not mistake this tweet for ignorance.

    One supposes that Schatz will be identifying as MENA in the 2020 census. I never could have imagined, but I certainly can imagine now. Thanks as ever, Steve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Jack D says:
    @hyperbola
    How many "anglos" were living there when "our" armies marched in? You also forgot Florida and Texas. Remember that Florida was a safe haven for those escaping from slavery, where the refugees were free, intermarried, ran their own businesses, etc. They were so aware of what "american" democracy held for them that when Spain finally left Florida (1821), all the blacks left with the Spanish. That period is also the period when the desire to expand the slave plantation system led to "our" invasion of Texas. When Mexico got its independence from Spain (1821), they announced that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery in the new world (originally instituted by the Spanish monarchy in 1508 and reinforced in 1542). "Remember the Alamo" was about producing more slave plantations.

    This is a completely false version of history. Mexico banned slavery only in 1829, during the brief rule of the mulatto Guerrero. If it had been banned already they wouldn’t have needed to abolish it. That being said, Mexico had very few black slaves to begin with. Unlike the US, when the Spanish conquered Mexico it already had plenty of people and they didn’t need to import a lot of black slaves except in very early days when the local population was decimated by disease – their ecological niche was filled by locals. The economics of slavery in Mexico was such that throughout the colonial period the price of slaves kept dropping because they were not in demand. But this was all based on economic grounds and not upon any moral superiority of the Spanish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Nope, it is real history. The prohibition of slavery in the New World by the Spanish monarchy dates from the 16th century. It could not always be enforced rigorously in distant colonies (especially as the Spanish empire declined), but already Isabel la Catolica told Colon (Columbus) to stop making slaves of the Indians.

    Bartolomé de las Casas
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    These were confused times in Spanish history because the next monarchs (Carlos I and Carlos II) were actually German (holy roman emperors), but Carlos I confirmed the ban on slavery in the New World.

    ".... el rey Carlos I promulgó el 20 de noviembre de 1542 las Leyes Nuevas. Ellas prohibieron la esclavitud de los indios y ordenaron que todos quedaran libres de los encomenderos y fueran puestos bajo la protección directa de la Corona. Disponían además que, en lo concerniente a la penetración en tierras hasta entonces no exploradas, debían participar siempre dos religiosos, que vigilarían que los contactos con los indios se llevaran a cabo en forma pacífica dando lugar al diálogo que propiciara su conversión. Las Leyes Nuevas fueron uno de los más importantes aportes al derecho de gentes que efectuó el rey Carlos I como consecuencia de sus conversaciones con fray Bartolomé de las Casas...."
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    There are historians that claim this was the beginning of human rights legislation in the European world.

    It is perhaps worth also noting that when the New World was originally divided between the Spanish and Portuguese by the Pope, the Portuguese were given West Africa. That eventually led to the main slave traders being Portuguese, Dutch and British (jews). To this day, the main centers of African population in the New World are centered on the British, Dutch and British colonies. For example Brazil (portuguese), but not Argentina or Uruguay (spanish).

    Remember also that the Guanari people of Paraguay survived (and about 50% of the population can still speak Guanari) because they were originally a spanish colony (although later ceded to Portugal). "La Mision" is a reasonable film depictation of the controversies in Paraguay (and the role of the Jesuits), although somewhat disorted by its British origins.
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_misión

    As for Mexico banning slavery in 1829 (or 1821, these were years when Spanish recognition of Mexican independence varied), that was when the newly independent Mexicans could confirm for themselves that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Anonymous
    One "Andrew Zimmern" weighs in:

    https://www.twitter.com/andrewzimmern/status/963264957642047488

    Zimmern ought to be familiar with the law. Before he made a living eating pig sphincters, he was a junkie arrested for stealing handbags in bars and restaurants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Hhsiii
    Louisiana is a Napoleanic Code state. Brando rants about it in Streetcar. Almost went to Tulane for law school.

    (Today is the only day of the year anybody thinks about Louisiana.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One “Laurence Tribe” weighs in:

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Good for @brianschatz! He’s the real deal. https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/963155714825969664 …
     
    MMM, this explains a lot about Mr Tribe's take on Anglo concepts like the Common Law.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. J.Ross says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.
     
    As a lawyer, I can't say enough about the wondrous phenomenon of the common law. However, the Germans were the real originators of the Western legal traditions we hold dear, like the principal that the king is subject to the law.

    By the way , the UK has now been tyrannically back-doored. A lot of people would say it actually happened in 1688 (which was a literal tyranny).

    So England has been a tyranny for half a millennium? What does “The Germans” mean historically? I see what you’re trying to do but my point stands. We have what we have because of innovations in England that survived through the culturally English founders appreciating both English traditions and more recent English innovations in the Glorious Revolution. My focus was on different white peoples (ie, my own ancestors are about as honest and bright in governmental science as the Chinese: the Constitution would never have come from them). There is a great counterexample to my point about white Americans complicating ancestor reverence to make a special place for the English, you can’t make it but Steve can, because the other counterexample is Switzerland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. J.Ross says: • Website
    @hyperbola
    Rubbish. 300 years before the Norman aristocrats got around to their silly "rights for aristocrats" of the magna carta, the Republic of Venice already had a parliament and president (doge) elected by universal suffrage (ca. 900 AD). That Republic lasted almost a full millenium (finally succumbed to Napoleon). They had simple, but very effective laws that we have never equalled. (1) NO public official may talk to any private interest group EXCEPT in sessions of the parliament open to the public. (2) The penalty for corruption of that type (and others) is death. (3) In the event of a war, the Doge (president) must take up his arms and lead the troops at the front......

    The original "Eidgenossenschaft" in Switzerland (first 7 kantons) predates the Magna Carta. We have never equalled its profoundly democratic structures. (1) From the beginning government was direct democracy in which referenda open to all voters were required to approve major projects. (2) Switzerland is a "confederation" (NOT a federation), where each independent country (kanton) retains the right to abandon the confederation. (3) Most social organization is at the local (kantonal, not federal) level, e.g. education, welfare, etc. - so much so that even today only about 1/3 of governmental expenditure is at the federal level......

    The Republic of Venice is the plutocrat globalist model without parallel, there is no meaningful information about rights there.
    The way this game works is, if someone innovated something, read it back to himself, and then threw it in the trash, then it might as well have never been innovated. You can quote it if you want to. There were probably Chinese people who mused some near-democratic system for ten seconds one day; why don’t we say the Constitution came from China? Rights are a living concept here and have been for centuries; Venice was, was inbetween, and is now a globalist plutocrat tyranny wkth no concept of god-given, government-preceding rights. This isn’t science. You don’t credit Gauss for “coming up with it” and then not doing anything with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Nico

    Giving credit to the English specifically on the subect of legal philosophy is important though, because there are no other European traditions that avoided tyrannical back-doors like the English did.
     
    St. Thomas More, Ann Boleyn and the Swiss just might beg to differ on that point. And even Fascist Italy and Vichy France were far from the totally tyrannical entities Red Spain, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were (at least not until they were officially 100% occupied by this latter). On the other hand, France had already passed through the Committee of Public Safety and the Paris Commune a long time before, so...

    France has never had anything I would recognize as a concept of rights. Sometimes they talk pretty, and that confuses the educated. While you’re playing sophist you might note the beautiful amenities promised by the Mexican Constitition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    The Soviet constitution was possibly the world's most liberal. A fat lot of good it did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Issac says:
    @anon
    When will judeo-christian values morph into judeo-islamo-afro-indigenous-christian-people-of-color values?

    As soon as an election demonstrates that the white population is subdued and will no longer be able to field national candidates. 2024 at the earliest, but no later than 2028 given no major deportation and brithright repeal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jewish law is strikingly similar to English common law in giving great weight to case law and precedent. The by-the-book Roman or French law is very different. In fact, there are theories that the Jewish law was influential in the formation of the English system. The history of the Middle Ages is in general very obscure, and the history of the Jews in medieval England doubly so. It used to be thought that English law originated in the northern Europe custom of lords and knights and common people gathering under a big oak in the village and having a council, later evolving into Magna Charta, that sort of thing. And of course the combination of our consitution with English common law resulted in the accurately designated Anglo-American system. But on further reflection the possible influence of the ubiquitous Jewish law (halacha) must be considered. Sen. Schatz should study his Jewish heritage a little, as well as learning something about America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is a fair point, but,
    1) it's clear Schatz is either unaware of English common law tradition or is deliberately trying to pretend it has already been memory holed and supplanted by globalist statute law (which is now the conventional wisdom), so the only meaning "Anglo" can have be rayciss.
    2) Judaism is inherently totalitarian -- there is a right way to do everything, and it's important that you do it the right way, although quibbling is allowed -- and the interesting thing about ECLT is the internal barriers it erects (home is castle, golden thread, etc).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. 3g4me says:
    @istevefan
    I agree. I actually have zero English ancestry of which I'm aware, but give the English the credit for founding the best nations in the new world, Canada, Oz, NZ and the good ole USA. Of course it appears to have taken more than just the English institutions. We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.

    @20 istevefan: ” We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.”

    The three pillars of Western civilization: Greco-Roman heritage, Christendom, and White people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. (((Schatz))) is married to the Asian Linda Kwok Kai Yun. They have Jewish/Asian offspring. Hence his dislike of Anglo-Saxon culture. They are not a part of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I'm not part of it, either. But at least I am on the right side of the Line, and for that matter was brought up Christian.

    That stuff matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. 3g4me says:
    @Steve Sailer
    It's like how we're now in 2018 of the "Common Era."

    Except in Ethiopia, where it's 2010.

    Seriously.

    @55 Steve Sailer: “It’s like how we’re now in 2018 of the “Common Era.”

    That particular (((foreign construct))) has always enraged me, long before my own adult baptism. To pretend that modern European dating is based on an arbitrary division between the years before and after one particular year which was chosen at random as the first year – OF OUR LORD. Just dump all of European history and Latin language from our culture, because Jews cannot bear to acknowledge the influence of Jesus – yet will be the first to insist, when confronted with this, that He was Jewish. Cognitive dissonance has its own heritage, and it is not Anglo-American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. 3g4me says:
    @midtown
    For some reason this idiocy really got me. Well, I know why: it shows the monumental ignorance of the left. The common law heritage was something we covered in middle school, yet it is obvious millions have never been taught where our entire system of law and government came from. All they know is that sheriffs at one time caught runaway slaves! Wait until they hear about the English Bill of Rights! Seriously, though: we need to get a handle on the education system pronto.

    @62 midtown: “Seriously, though: we need to get a handle on the education system pronto.”

    You’re a bit late to the party, dear. It was beyond repair decades ago, just like every other institution that once claimed “American” status. Long past time to nuke it from orbit and start anew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. 3g4me says:
    @WynnLloyd
    Can someone explain to me what is racist or inaccurate about that statement?
    We speak "Anglo-American," which are American dialects of English, and our country was founded by BRITISH colonists.

    Are these people saying Anglo-Saxon legal traditional aren't part of our own? Are they suggesting that John Locke, Thomas Hobbes et. al were not influences on our legal system's development?

    I'm just so damn sick of Jews at this point. I have so much admiration for Stephen Miller, and the Israeli military, but that is not working as an anchor to contain the anger. These Jews will outright deny historical fact just because they aren't the center of something. They hate us that much.

    America was Anglo-Saxon well before it was Jewish. I don't care so much about making it Anglo-Saxon again. At this point I'm more in favor of 19th century Russian peasants, or Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, or Hungarian ones; any of those groups are preferable to Anglo Saxon culture, if they contain their traditional hostility towards Jews.
    I hope I feel better soon. I don't like hating. They seem to demand it though. They can't blend in to save their damn lives.

    @100 WynnLloyd: “They can’t blend in to save their damn lives.”

    In their view, how is one to remain special, chosen, an exception, and a “light unto the nations” by blending in with trailer-trash gun lovers and Bible clingers? They’re here to CRITIQUE us and improve us. Why are you so resistant to being improved?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Jack D says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    That somebody else’s ancestors launched America is racist. That his ancestors didn’t found America just seems downright anti-Semitic.
     
    Whoa there, Steve. Commenter Jack D says Jews are founding stock (#89) Americans. He’s not gonna like your last paragraph!

    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to “liberal” discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived – I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club – either you are a citizen or you ain’t. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus’s views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a “real American”. She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics – the 1st St. Patrick’s parade was held in NY in 1762.

    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed – a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later – even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent
     
    But that is the key. Those people were the ones who gave life to what we follow-on immigrant types now enjoy. They started laying down our political traditions with the early constitutions of the thirteen colonies. It was not just the British Protestant colonists, but also the British at home who funded the British army in helping to keep those colonists safe from others. They could have easily been wiped out by the natives or displaced by the French or others.

    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding. I suppose you could argue blacks were here in numbers, but they definitely did not have a material impact on the founding documents and traditions. And had blacks founded the place, I very much doubt our ancestors would have sought out this place.

    In fact history has shown that our follow-on immigrants ancestors deliberately avoided the non-English new world in favor of the one founded by the British Protestants. So there must have been something special about those British Protestants whom you describe as not having an exclusive monopoly on this nation's founding. Even Emma Lazarus' ancestors made a positive decision to come to North American British colonies when surely there were so many other choices available.

    As for most of us today who are descendants of the immigration wave of 1880 and beyond, we need to check ourselves. We only came to this nation once it was a going concern with no doubt about its future sustainability. By the time we got here, the early ones had already colonized a wilderness, won a war of independence, took more cheap land from Mexico, survived a civil war and pacified the last traces of hostiles on the frontier. All that was left was for us to come in to exploit a place others had built.
    , @Anonymous
    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics

    If your loyalties are split, you are in fact less American.
    , @Hibernian
    "a whole state just for Catholics"

    Maryland was predominantly Catholic only at the very beginning. Anglicanism soon became the established Church and Anti-Catholic laws were enacted in the 18th century.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America […] — I completely reject this.
     
    Of course you would.

    I never made the claim the English were the absolute “one and only”—Paul Revere and others were American patriots. I also mentioned Haym Salomon in our past argument. But the term stock refers to the founding breed—those who were not merely present, but also pushed for Revolution, and whose existing dominant culture and numbers made the American Revolution possible, with its peculiar ‘Anglo’ ideals and character baked into the cake.

    The patriotic population base and principal changemakers were overwhelmingly of English descent, certainly to the almost total numerical exclusion of non-whites and non-Christians, the acknowledgement of which triggers the likes of you and Schatz.

    Latecomers whose breed primarily arrived after both voluntary colonization (slaves and aboriginals don’t count—Plymouth Rock “was landed on us!”) and especially Revolution (1775) categorically cannot be called “founding stock” of the United States. This is basic vocabulary.

    There are no classes of membership in the American club – either you are a citizen or you ain’t.
     
    Wrong. There are classes of membership—some de facto, some de jure.

    First, de jure membership classes:

    There are obvious official classes amongst citizens. Some citizens are in a class known as criminals who have their otherwise naturally enjoyed rights curtailed due to their ‘antisocial’ actions. Also, legal discrimination based on race (affirmative action) is the law of the land, despite an Equal Protection Clause.

    As for non-citizens, particularly foreign trespassers—in many localities (sanctuary cities) these invaders are given special privileges not enjoyed by American citizens, e.g. protection from federal law enforcement.

    Second, de facto membership classes:

    There are first-class patriot citizens, and there are second-class citizens who sympathize with invaders and criminals, or want to gut the Bill of Rights, or actively work against founding stock (and racial whiteness in general) by denying its existence or promoting its relative numerical and cultural diminishment. In a word: Traitors.

    Your precious term citizen, while an improvement in status over subject or slave, is neutral praise. The plaintive cry (not actual quote) of the fickle citizen—

    Hath not Jack D eyes? Hath not Jack D hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, a valid Social Security number?
     
    It’s about more than all that, Jack. You may be a legal fact on the ground here, but whose side are you on—All citizens, including traitors and criminals? I should hope not. You can start by recognizing there are, indeed, different classes of citizen, justly deemed or not.

    … you have no right to reject [Emma Lazarus] as not being a “real American”. She was as real as any other American.
     
    You misquote me. I never said Lazarus herself wasn’t a “real American,” I said her people (“fellow Jews,” as you wrote) are not founding stock, as I’ve explained above.

    She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American).
     
    Another feverish fantasy of my position. I never implied (as per your hypothetical) that some random immigrating Englishman would automatically be a higher class of citizen…

    It would also depend on his appreciation of (1) the existence of actual American founding stock, (2) their history and culture, and (3) their ideals of individual freedom, i.e. negative rights—something that you (imagine my shock) have a majorly deficient appreciation of (#393 and earlier).

    Emma Lazarus fails on the first two counts by calling for the importing of “wretched refuse” and by dismissing the “storied pomp” of Old World nations greater than her (scattered) own.

    If your hypothetical Englishman—in addition to freedom and liberty—values beauty, glory, the historic achievements of European Civilization, and the continued prevalence of its people, those are points in his favor against earlier arrival Lazarus. She is second-class by comparison.

    A counter-hypothetical would be White House advisor Stephen Miller versus a ‘lily white’ incoming English immigrant who voted (New) Labour, is an open-borders race-agnostic globalist, and thinks ‘hate speech’ should be abolished. Miller is first-class by comparison.

    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on.
     
    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    … in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose …
     
    I’m partial to 1775, but I repeat myself.
    , @Art Deco
    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed – a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc.

    1. About 20% of the population was black. No component of the black population was a part of civic life until the 1830s.

    2. The 'Irish' were British subjects. They were also flinty protestants with an affinity for the Scots (if for anyone), not for the Catholic Irish who appeared 60 years later.

    3. There was no 'state just for Catholics'. The Catholic Church was populous and treated congenially under law in Lower Canada, which remained a British territory after 1783. If you're referring to Maryland, the Catholic population therein was about 10% of the whole and subject to a menu of legal disabilities into the early 19th century.

    4. There was a tiny population of Portuguese Jews living in Rhode Island. There were knots of Swedes (in New Jersey), Dutch (in the Hudson Valley), and French (around Charleston). The Spaniards were to be found in Florida, which was a British possession only between 1763 and 1783. All of these sets were demographically inconsequential.

    5. The aboriginal population was small (~1% of the population when enumerated in 1860), geographically remote, and largely alien to civic life. IIRC, there were five tribes granted American citizenship during the 19th century, with the rest not receiving it until 1924.

    6. The largest minority which held property was composed of anabaptists from the German periphery - Mennonite, Amish, Dunker, &c. (Colloquially, "Pennsylvania Dutch"). These people also had low levels of civic engagement.
    , @Art Deco
    There are no classes of membership in the American club –

    You and I both know that in the minds of the educational apparat, the legal profession, the media, and Democratic pols there certainly are classes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. guest says:
    @syonredux

    But “Anglo” isn’t. It’s not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.
     
    Well, in academia, it's frequently used as shorthand for Anglophone Whites in North America. Saying/writing "Non-Hispanic White" gets tiresome after a while.

    I don’t automatically count academia, because it’s full of lunatics talking Junk English.

    But if they count, then the Anglo-American tradition being an elementary (they might actually mention it to kids in elementary school, and certainly middle school) phrase in law and legal history takes over and crushes all other possible meanings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t automatically count academia, because it’s full of lunatics talking Junk English.
     
    For good or ill (these days, mostly ill), their locutions influence the broader culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Jack D says:
    @istevefan
    I agree. I actually have zero English ancestry of which I'm aware, but give the English the credit for founding the best nations in the new world, Canada, Oz, NZ and the good ole USA. Of course it appears to have taken more than just the English institutions. We needed the English people too. After all Jamaica is technically an English founded new world nation. But it is lacking something.

    Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don’t seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people. Of course the people that you do have makes a difference.

    Think of English law and culture as the software and the people as the hardware. If you want to run the Macintosh operating system, the easiest combination is to run the Apple OS on Apple hardware. But you can also build a “Hackintosh” where you run Apple OS on different hardware ( ever since Apple went over to Intel chips). If your Hackintosh runs on really low end hardware it will run poorly, but if you run it on top end hardware it may even run better than the real thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Vaguely relating to this:

    In 1777 , there was a Chinese colony known as the Lanfang Republic in what is present-day Indonesia, where their founder Luo Fangbo developed with democratic principles, including popularly electing officials at all levels, including the president, and consulting the citizens on state matters. He maintained customs, however, including paying tribute to the Qing Emperor.

    With the Dutch taking control of Indonesia and the Qing becoming unable to support its vassal states, the Chinese citizens abandoned their colony for the British-held holdings. Most of them ended in a British colony known as Singapore.
    , @3g4me
    @162 Jack D: "Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don’t seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people."

    Have you lived in either place, or merely passed through as a tourist? While neither location is a third world turdhole, they are hardly equivalent to Canada or America 1.o, even considering vast variations in size. No matter where they settle or their wealth, Asians in general seem to prefer to live in much closer quarters than any White European not fresh out of the early industrial age could countenance. This is a pattern that repeats regardless of where they settle. Each also benefited from not merely English law, but also English autocratic rule for years before independence. And Lee Kuan Yew, despite his many flaws, was a genius at marrying the Chinese need for authoritarian control and social shaming with the English genius for pride of place and manners. And, for all that, I still prefer Bangkok and its chaos and lack of potable water to Singapore's shiny and utterly fake exterior covering the reality of old guys peeing in the elevator and women having induced labor weeks early to ensure their baby is born on a lucky day or in an auspicious year.

    I repeat: The three pillars of Western civilization are Greco-Roman heritage, Christendom, and White people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Tulip says:

    Saying “common law” instead of “Anglo-American law” is nonsense. They are synonyms.

    “Anglo-American” is not some curse word or racial slur, the reality is our laws and our customs come from the ancient traditions of the Anglo-Saxons exported through colonization to the New World.

    People who can’t acknowledge the basic historical truths about the American legal system without getting offended by the historical record probably need to move somewhere else (but don’t choose New Zealand or Canada, because their “Anglo-Saxon” too). Please don’t yell discrimination, because that is one of those legal concepts that Anglo-American law made up. Find some indigenous cognate in Swahili.

    This is the problem today: these people have their head’s so far up their asses that communication is impossible, let alone logic or debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. istevefan says:

    Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don’t seem to be lacking in much.

    Think of English law and culture as the software and the people as the hardware.

    Chinese hardware coupled with an Anglo O/S? That has to be some sort of killer combination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. Anonym says:
    @Almost Missouri
    Oh, the Dutch brought their own women alright, just perhaps not quite cut from the same cloth as the Puritan English...

    http://www.billsbrownstone.com/notorious/GrietReyniers.asp
    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    We were discussing America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. midtown says:
    @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, it's worth a try. I really do want to go the extra mile for peace before Civil War II kicks in.

    The leftist response was eye-opening for me. What they object to is any reference at all to white influence on the foundation of the country. Some of them said that all whites had slaves, who did all the work except for the Chinese, who did all the work in the West. To me, if civil war is to be averted, we must wrest back the K-12 edifice by hook or by crook.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    I understand not liking Republicans, being plutocrats and all, but how any white person could deny anti-white sentiment is rife in the Democratic party boggles me. Yet most white folk do deny it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. istevefan says:
    @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent

    But that is the key. Those people were the ones who gave life to what we follow-on immigrant types now enjoy. They started laying down our political traditions with the early constitutions of the thirteen colonies. It was not just the British Protestant colonists, but also the British at home who funded the British army in helping to keep those colonists safe from others. They could have easily been wiped out by the natives or displaced by the French or others.

    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding. I suppose you could argue blacks were here in numbers, but they definitely did not have a material impact on the founding documents and traditions. And had blacks founded the place, I very much doubt our ancestors would have sought out this place.

    In fact history has shown that our follow-on immigrants ancestors deliberately avoided the non-English new world in favor of the one founded by the British Protestants. So there must have been something special about those British Protestants whom you describe as not having an exclusive monopoly on this nation’s founding. Even Emma Lazarus’ ancestors made a positive decision to come to North American British colonies when surely there were so many other choices available.

    As for most of us today who are descendants of the immigration wave of 1880 and beyond, we need to check ourselves. We only came to this nation once it was a going concern with no doubt about its future sustainability. By the time we got here, the early ones had already colonized a wilderness, won a war of independence, took more cheap land from Mexico, survived a civil war and pacified the last traces of hostiles on the frontier. All that was left was for us to come in to exploit a place others had built.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Jack D
    Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don't seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people. Of course the people that you do have makes a difference.

    Think of English law and culture as the software and the people as the hardware. If you want to run the Macintosh operating system, the easiest combination is to run the Apple OS on Apple hardware. But you can also build a "Hackintosh" where you run Apple OS on different hardware ( ever since Apple went over to Intel chips). If your Hackintosh runs on really low end hardware it will run poorly, but if you run it on top end hardware it may even run better than the real thing.

    Vaguely relating to this:

    In 1777 , there was a Chinese colony known as the Lanfang Republic in what is present-day Indonesia, where their founder Luo Fangbo developed with democratic principles, including popularly electing officials at all levels, including the president, and consulting the citizens on state matters. He maintained customs, however, including paying tribute to the Qing Emperor.

    With the Dutch taking control of Indonesia and the Qing becoming unable to support its vassal states, the Chinese citizens abandoned their colony for the British-held holdings. Most of them ended in a British colony known as Singapore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Wait til he learns what we call the area comprising Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux
    • LOL: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics

    If your loyalties are split, you are in fact less American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. guest says:
    @attilathehen
    (((Schatz))) is married to the Asian Linda Kwok Kai Yun. They have Jewish/Asian offspring. Hence his dislike of Anglo-Saxon culture. They are not a part of it.

    I’m not part of it, either. But at least I am on the right side of the Line, and for that matter was brought up Christian.

    That stuff matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Svigor says:

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived – I completely reject this.

    Yeah we don’t care.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. 3g4me says:
    @Jack D
    Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don't seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people. Of course the people that you do have makes a difference.

    Think of English law and culture as the software and the people as the hardware. If you want to run the Macintosh operating system, the easiest combination is to run the Apple OS on Apple hardware. But you can also build a "Hackintosh" where you run Apple OS on different hardware ( ever since Apple went over to Intel chips). If your Hackintosh runs on really low end hardware it will run poorly, but if you run it on top end hardware it may even run better than the real thing.

    @162 Jack D: “Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don’t seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people.”

    Have you lived in either place, or merely passed through as a tourist? While neither location is a third world turdhole, they are hardly equivalent to Canada or America 1.o, even considering vast variations in size. No matter where they settle or their wealth, Asians in general seem to prefer to live in much closer quarters than any White European not fresh out of the early industrial age could countenance. This is a pattern that repeats regardless of where they settle. Each also benefited from not merely English law, but also English autocratic rule for years before independence. And Lee Kuan Yew, despite his many flaws, was a genius at marrying the Chinese need for authoritarian control and social shaming with the English genius for pride of place and manners. And, for all that, I still prefer Bangkok and its chaos and lack of potable water to Singapore’s shiny and utterly fake exterior covering the reality of old guys peeing in the elevator and women having induced labor weeks early to ensure their baby is born on a lucky day or in an auspicious year.

    I repeat: The three pillars of Western civilization are Greco-Roman heritage, Christendom, and White people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    And Jewish genius, including Jesus/Paul, whether you want to admit it or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. guest says:
    @syonredux

    1). “Anglo” is a term used by Hispanics for non-Hispanic whites. It’s not used that way by whites themselves. Or at least not in this country, so far as I’m aware.
     
    Actually, it is. "White Anglo" is becoming increasingly commonplace. After all, it is less cumbersome than "Non-Hispanic White."

    But of course there are more kinds of whites than Anglos. I’m white without being of English descent,
     
    Anglo-Saxon means racially English. Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.

    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I’m aware of.

    This is one of the chief problems of elite detachment and bubble living. They come up with their own little para-languages, then pretend we’re bad things like “racist” for not recognizing their definitions.

    Anglo is used in terms of culture, but the reason this fake controversy started was because it is used by certain people to mean white. Just like Hispanic is popularly used to mean mestizo. This isn’t rocket science

    Cultural Anglos are those with connections to English culture specifically. If your hypothetical German was raised in England, maybe. I don’t know how they handle it there Unlike here, hereditary descent still has strong cultural implications over there.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can’t be actual or cultural Anglos, because they’re in no way English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Uh, Anglos are Germanics.
    , @syonredux

    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I’m aware of.
     
    As noted elsewhere, it's used with increasing frequency in academia. And I've run into it fairly often on the internet.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can’t be actual or cultural Anglos, because they’re in no way English.
     
    I disagree. If people are raised in Anglo-America, they are Anglos. After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @midtown
    In Schatz's case, I agree, he knows better. Looking through Twitter, however, the rank and file progressive truly does not know. They think Anglo-American law only applies to white people. #AngloAmericanHistoryMonth

    Isn’t that just the way of any war though–that the rank and file don’t really understand what they are fighting for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. guest says:
    @istevefan

    Anglo, like Hispanic, is typically used in terms of culture, not ancestry. Hence, someone of German descent can be called Anglo.
     
    With that in mind I dislike how the census makes hispanic the center of gravity in how people are defined. I don't like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn't the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.

    So German Americans, as you pointed out, would be Anglo American. The same would be true for all European Americans born in this nation. Black Americans would be Anglo Black instead of being non-hispanic black. Ditto for US born Asians of various stripes.

    Hispanic wouldn't even be used as a descriptor. If someone were born in Latin American and currently resides in the USA, they would be considered non-Anglo white, black, other, etc.

    German-Americans are NOT Anglo-American. Not unless they have some connection to England outside of being American. Otherwise, they’re German-American or just plain American.

    There isn’t any point in making Anglo the baseline ethnicity here. We have our own country. Its culture and most of its Founding Stock was English, but we’re America, not England.

    There’s no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.

    Your entire post is nutty, unless we were to set up Anglo as the white version of Hispanic. But first of all there’s no need to when we have whiteness, and anyway that’d be doubling up on the mistake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    There’s no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.
     
    There is no reason to call Europeans 'non-hispanic whites' or blacks 'non-hispanic blacks'. I am not English, but I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation. Ditto for the blacks that have been here since colonial times. It makes as much sense to refer to me as Anglo as it does to call Bruce Chen or Marco Scutaro hispanic.

    Using hispanic as the key identifier for whether someone is or is not hispanic gives undo importance to this term in regards to the US and its history. It would also deflate the potential political power of a so called hispanic voting bloc as the term would simply not be used.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. guest says:
    @syonredux

    I don’t like being classified as a non-hispanic white, as if this nation is centered around hispanic culture and we are defined by whether or not we have connections to it.

    Given that this nation was founded by an Anglo culture whose language, laws and customs we continue to use, shouldn’t the census use Anglo as the base term? For example people like me with no actual English ancestry would be defined as Anglo white given my connection to Anglo culture.
     
    That seems to be the direction that things are going in, at least if academic seminars are any indication.

    Academic seminars are a vision of the future. That’s how the Cathedral works.

    That’s why things keep getting stupider and stupider.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Thea says:
    @J.Ross
    France has never had anything I would recognize as a concept of rights. Sometimes they talk pretty, and that confuses the educated. While you're playing sophist you might note the beautiful amenities promised by the Mexican Constitition.

    The Soviet constitution was possibly the world’s most liberal. A fat lot of good it did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. guest says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Eminent American scholar & literary critic Harold Bloom (Shakespeare, Shelley, Gnosticism, American religion, Whitman, Western Canon, ...) has long since smashed this silly notion: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048309

    ELLIOTT: Harold Bloom, you conclude that it's really a myth for us to talk about this Judeo-Christian outlook.

    Prof. BLOOM: I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, "Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people." There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.

    He’s right there, however I wouldn’t call Bloom “eminent.”

    Popular, at least for what he does, okay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    He’s right there, however I wouldn’t call Bloom “eminent.”
     
    But Neusner is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Jack D says:
    @istevefan

    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent
     
    But that is the key. Those people were the ones who gave life to what we follow-on immigrant types now enjoy. They started laying down our political traditions with the early constitutions of the thirteen colonies. It was not just the British Protestant colonists, but also the British at home who funded the British army in helping to keep those colonists safe from others. They could have easily been wiped out by the natives or displaced by the French or others.

    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding. I suppose you could argue blacks were here in numbers, but they definitely did not have a material impact on the founding documents and traditions. And had blacks founded the place, I very much doubt our ancestors would have sought out this place.

    In fact history has shown that our follow-on immigrants ancestors deliberately avoided the non-English new world in favor of the one founded by the British Protestants. So there must have been something special about those British Protestants whom you describe as not having an exclusive monopoly on this nation's founding. Even Emma Lazarus' ancestors made a positive decision to come to North American British colonies when surely there were so many other choices available.

    As for most of us today who are descendants of the immigration wave of 1880 and beyond, we need to check ourselves. We only came to this nation once it was a going concern with no doubt about its future sustainability. By the time we got here, the early ones had already colonized a wilderness, won a war of independence, took more cheap land from Mexico, survived a civil war and pacified the last traces of hostiles on the frontier. All that was left was for us to come in to exploit a place others had built.

    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gratitude, no. But the highest loyalty and, in your case, a degree of deference, yes.
    , @J.Ross
    So he raised money (after receiving promises of protection from Washington), we are all very grateful and should take money seriously, but this isn't related to the English cultural continuity that facilitated the unique legal philosophy put together by the Founders. There was also that overlooked colonial Jew who out-rode Paul Revere in conveying warnings, but neither he nor Revere informed Madison's ideas about property rights.
    , @istevefan

    The Postal Service begs to differ:
     
    I am familiar with him and Robert Morris. He is a good example, but my point still stands that we would not have had this nation without the English Protestant mass who hacked out of the wilderness their new nation and volunteered to fight for its independence.

    That the others helped is great. But it is also a fact that Jews, Spaniards and others were on the ground floor of the founding of other new world nations. Nations that haven't quite got the appeal of the ones founded by the English. If they had something special, was it only brought out under English influences?

    Also, any idea why it took the post office until 1975 to commemorate this man? Any idea why Jews don't really promote him, at least not in the same way they do Emma Lazarus?

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.
     
    Don't most people who believe they owe something to someone also treat that person's kids with the utmost respect? Isn't that how we get legacies in schools and social networking in business?

    "Hey, this is Dan. He is the son of John Doe."

    "Why didn't you tell me? We have to find a place for him. John saved my butt on occasion and I owe him."
    , @Art Deco
    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    The Postal Service began playing ethnic politics with commemorative stamps during the Roosevelt Administration. Do you fancy the contention on the back of the stamp is at all credible?
    , @Millennial
    Haym Solomon's "role" in the Revolution is one of the most brazen fabrications in American history.

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    "False claims made by the son of the revolutionary patriot, Haym Moses Salomon (1785-1858), wildly distorted the factual role of his father. Through the zealous, and misguided, efforts of the younger Salomon his father came to be known as a “Financier of the American Revolution.” It was construed that Salomon the elder loaned, or gave, vast sums of his own personal assets to the revolutionary cause to such an extent that he was greatly responsible for the survival of the Revolution...Solomon’s son was undeterred. He campaigned in 1846 to press a claim in the U.S. Congress for repayment of a Revolutionary War debt he asserted was owed due to loans made by his father to the Continental Congress. At first he demanded $353,000. Later, the sum increased until it reached $3,000,000..."

    and so on...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Hhsiii says:
    @Federalist
    While the legal systems of the rest of the U.S. are based on common law, Louisiana has a civil law system (or a mixed system). Louisiana's civil law system is based on French and Spanish law and ultimately on Roman law. Though they have the same sources, Louisiana was never under the Napoleanic Code as it was enacted after the Louisiana Purchase.

    Thanks for correcting me. I knew I shouldn’t take legal advice from Marlon Brando!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Corn says:
    @midtown
    The leftist response was eye-opening for me. What they object to is any reference at all to white influence on the foundation of the country. Some of them said that all whites had slaves, who did all the work except for the Chinese, who did all the work in the West. To me, if civil war is to be averted, we must wrest back the K-12 edifice by hook or by crook.

    I understand not liking Republicans, being plutocrats and all, but how any white person could deny anti-white sentiment is rife in the Democratic party boggles me. Yet most white folk do deny it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @guest
    The term was popularized to refer to mestizos, so that they could be counted as non-white on the census. We know it also applies to white Spaniards, for instance, but it's not generally for them.

    "Hispanic" is a multi-racial term. But "Anglo" isn't. It's not even a pan-white term to anyone but browns in America.

    Agreed. It’s like the word “Caucasian” to refer generally to white people: in the USA, nobody but blacks use it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    I see it written more among indians (skins, not dot heads) than among black people. When talking, more of both races use "white", but some of the Plains tribes say "caucasian" at times. Look on some of the forums where indians post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    Gratitude, no. But the highest loyalty and, in your case, a degree of deference, yes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. CCZ says:

    Erosion of the heritage of law:

    Courts Force Owners to Pay Vandals Who Deface Their Property, I Kid You Not
    by Becky Akers

    In the People’s Democratic Republic of New York City, the owner of a building covered in graffiti must pay the “artists” who trespassed on and defaced his property because he whitewashed their “work,” a clown in a federal gown has decreed. And he must pay a lot: $6.7 million.

    The clown fulminates in his ruling about “the formidable works of aerosol art”—oh, brother—and mourns that the building “would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved” had its owner not acted as if he owned the place.

    Lest you smirk that such blatant Marxism confines itself to the PDR of NYC, consider that the “law” giving this dung its legal cover is a federal one, the “Visual Rights Act.” Ergo, you, too, could forfeit your property should thugs appropriate it with spray-paint—excuse me, “aerosol art.”

    http://video.usnews.com/Judge-Awards-Graffiti-Artists-67-Million-for-Destroyed-Murals-33532661

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Not quite the level of Banksy, Basquiat, or Haring, although I suppose it's a cut above the usual tags from CoolBreeze and Fernandito.

    The real issue is the owner wanted to maintain or even raise property values by keeping his buildings graffiti-free. That's gentrification and therefore rayciss.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. syonredux says:
    @guest
    I don't automatically count academia, because it's full of lunatics talking Junk English.

    But if they count, then the Anglo-American tradition being an elementary (they might actually mention it to kids in elementary school, and certainly middle school) phrase in law and legal history takes over and crushes all other possible meanings.

    I don’t automatically count academia, because it’s full of lunatics talking Junk English.

    For good or ill (these days, mostly ill), their locutions influence the broader culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    They do, usually after a delay as it works its way through the minds they influence.

    But not all of them make the cut. I don't see "Anglo" as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    One "Laurence Tribe" weighs in:

    https://www.twitter.com/tribelaw/status/963178383038468096

    Good for @brianschatz! He’s the real deal. https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/963155714825969664

    MMM, this explains a lot about Mr Tribe’s take on Anglo concepts like the Common Law…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anonymous
    Jewish law is strikingly similar to English common law in giving great weight to case law and precedent. The by-the-book Roman or French law is very different. In fact, there are theories that the Jewish law was influential in the formation of the English system. The history of the Middle Ages is in general very obscure, and the history of the Jews in medieval England doubly so. It used to be thought that English law originated in the northern Europe custom of lords and knights and common people gathering under a big oak in the village and having a council, later evolving into Magna Charta, that sort of thing. And of course the combination of our consitution with English common law resulted in the accurately designated Anglo-American system. But on further reflection the possible influence of the ubiquitous Jewish law (halacha) must be considered. Sen. Schatz should study his Jewish heritage a little, as well as learning something about America.

    This is a fair point, but,
    1) it’s clear Schatz is either unaware of English common law tradition or is deliberately trying to pretend it has already been memory holed and supplanted by globalist statute law (which is now the conventional wisdom), so the only meaning “Anglo” can have be rayciss.
    2) Judaism is inherently totalitarian — there is a right way to do everything, and it’s important that you do it the right way, although quibbling is allowed — and the interesting thing about ECLT is the internal barriers it erects (home is castle, golden thread, etc).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    So he raised money (after receiving promises of protection from Washington), we are all very grateful and should take money seriously, but this isn’t related to the English cultural continuity that facilitated the unique legal philosophy put together by the Founders. There was also that overlooked colonial Jew who out-rode Paul Revere in conveying warnings, but neither he nor Revere informed Madison’s ideas about property rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @AndrewR
    Never assume ignorance when malice suffices as an explanation.

    Basically the opposite of Sailer’s Butterknife (assume ignorance when malice is the answer).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. So far this thread has two of the most annoying monomanias here on eye Steve with Jews and Cromwell. All we need now is Whiskey for the hate trick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    So far this thread has two of the most annoying monomanias here on eye Steve with Jews and Cromwell.
     
    Cromwell isn't a separate topic; he's just part of the Jewish story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Logan says:
    @syonredux

    The only place I’ve ever heard the term “Anglo” commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.
     
    I'm an academic (Humanities division), and I hear it a lot.

    Quite possibly. But then I’ve never lived in an academic environment. My experience is with lower to middle middle class types.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I'm aware of.

    This is one of the chief problems of elite detachment and bubble living. They come up with their own little para-languages, then pretend we're bad things like "racist" for not recognizing their definitions.

    Anglo is used in terms of culture, but the reason this fake controversy started was because it is used by certain people to mean white. Just like Hispanic is popularly used to mean mestizo. This isn't rocket science

    Cultural Anglos are those with connections to English culture specifically. If your hypothetical German was raised in England, maybe. I don't know how they handle it there Unlike here, hereditary descent still has strong cultural implications over there.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can't be actual or cultural Anglos, because they're in no way English.

    Uh, Anglos are Germanics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    If you want to include those descended from the Angles who stayed in Germany or went elsewhere, go ahead. But you'll be the only one.

    The rest of us use it to mean English.

    , @guest
    By the way, when did the Angles invade invade what would become England? Like the 5th century AD?

    Do you think that might have been long enough to be distinguishable from other Germans?

    Look, if you want to call all Anglo-Saxons Germans, that's fine. But just because the Angles were Germanic doesn't mean all Germans are Anglos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @guest
    He's right there, however I wouldn't call Bloom "eminent."

    Popular, at least for what he does, okay.

    He’s right there, however I wouldn’t call Bloom “eminent.”

    But Neusner is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Jack Hanson
    So far this thread has two of the most annoying monomanias here on eye Steve with Jews and Cromwell. All we need now is Whiskey for the hate trick.

    So far this thread has two of the most annoying monomanias here on eye Steve with Jews and Cromwell.

    Cromwell isn’t a separate topic; he’s just part of the Jewish story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Whenever Cromwell shows up in a thread you can expect certain posters to show up with copy/paste from their last 3 minute hate on the topic, just like certain posters will lose their minds about the JQ when it comes up but ignore Cromwell (and vice versa).

    Ergo, its a monomania.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Ivy says:

    Schatz, a German word meaning treasure. His Hawaiian constituents may not feel that they have treasure, given how the late Senator Inouye’s recommendation was ignored. Will the Schatz interlude prove to be toxic waste or anything other than fool’s gold?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. @Steve Sailer
    It's like how we're now in 2018 of the "Common Era."

    Except in Ethiopia, where it's 2010.

    Seriously.

    Give the Ethiopes a break. They’re all too busy chasing the one single surviving chicken over there to keep up with years and such.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    Uh, Anglos are Germanics.

    If you want to include those descended from the Angles who stayed in Germany or went elsewhere, go ahead. But you’ll be the only one.

    The rest of us use it to mean English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Logan
    The only place I've ever heard the term "Anglo" commonly used was when I lived for several years in northern NM back during the last 70s.

    Its primary meaning was "person (usually but not always white) of Anglo-American culture." It was a cultural marker, used to distinguish "normal" American whites (and sometimes blacks) from the longer-settled peoples of NM, the "Spanish" who had been living there for around 400 years, and the Indians who had been there much longer.

    Interestingly, the "Spanish" of the area were in general a lot friendlier to us Anglos than to what they called the "Mexicans," the mestizos who were mostly mestizos and tended to live further south in the state.

    My wife got to be good friends with a number of the Spanish ladies. They all wanted their daughters to marry Anglos, not Spanish, and certainly not Mexican, men. They believed, possibly accurately, that Anglos treated their wives much better. Less domestic violence and adultery.

    It’s from the word “anglophona”, which means English speaker. The English word is “anglophone”, pretty close to the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. guest says:
    @syonredux

    I don’t automatically count academia, because it’s full of lunatics talking Junk English.
     
    For good or ill (these days, mostly ill), their locutions influence the broader culture.

    They do, usually after a delay as it works its way through the minds they influence.

    But not all of them make the cut. I don’t see “Anglo” as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    But not all of them make the cut. I don’t see “Anglo” as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.
     
    I think that it will. Or perhaps "White Anglo" will be the popular form. I'm certainly seeing a lot of both locutions on the internet. And they're both superior to "Non-Hispanic White."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Hibernian says:
    @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    “a whole state just for Catholics”

    Maryland was predominantly Catholic only at the very beginning. Anglicanism soon became the established Church and Anti-Catholic laws were enacted in the 18th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. guest says:
    @Anonymous
    Uh, Anglos are Germanics.

    By the way, when did the Angles invade invade what would become England? Like the 5th century AD?

    Do you think that might have been long enough to be distinguishable from other Germans?

    Look, if you want to call all Anglo-Saxons Germans, that’s fine. But just because the Angles were Germanic doesn’t mean all Germans are Anglos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Do you think that might have been long enough to be distinguishable from other Germans?

    No. Why would it be?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. syonredux says:
    @guest
    They do, usually after a delay as it works its way through the minds they influence.

    But not all of them make the cut. I don't see "Anglo" as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.

    But not all of them make the cut. I don’t see “Anglo” as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.

    I think that it will. Or perhaps “White Anglo” will be the popular form. I’m certainly seeing a lot of both locutions on the internet. And they’re both superior to “Non-Hispanic White.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "they're both superior to non-hispanic white"

    But far inferior to simple "white."

    "Hispanic" was always a clumsy formulation, cooked up to invent a identity because flight from white. And because no one wanted to call the category mestizo, or whatever.

    There's no similar need to come up with another word for whites. Though I suppose browns and their white allies/enablers shall desire a neutral-enough term for the whites whom they wish to disposses. In my world, we shan't require it, and it won't catch on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @RadicalCenter
    Agreed. It's like the word "Caucasian" to refer generally to white people: in the USA, nobody but blacks use it.

    I see it written more among indians (skins, not dot heads) than among black people. When talking, more of both races use “white”, but some of the Plains tribes say “caucasian” at times. Look on some of the forums where indians post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. syonredux says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Eminent American scholar & literary critic Harold Bloom (Shakespeare, Shelley, Gnosticism, American religion, Whitman, Western Canon, ...) has long since smashed this silly notion: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048309

    ELLIOTT: Harold Bloom, you conclude that it's really a myth for us to talk about this Judeo-Christian outlook.

    Prof. BLOOM: I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, "Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people." There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.

    I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, “Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people.” There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.

    Seeing as how the Christian Bible incorporates the Tanakh (The Old Testament), I would argue that Judeo-Christian makes a bit more sense than Christian-Islamic…..

    And, of course, one can also speak of all three religions as the Abrahamic Faiths.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    The simple fact that they share some holy books is no reason to hyphenate them into one thing. It's been thousands of years since the broke off from one another.

    There's probably more historical justification for combining Muslims and Jews than Christians and Jews into one tradition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. syonredux says:
    @guest
    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I'm aware of.

    This is one of the chief problems of elite detachment and bubble living. They come up with their own little para-languages, then pretend we're bad things like "racist" for not recognizing their definitions.

    Anglo is used in terms of culture, but the reason this fake controversy started was because it is used by certain people to mean white. Just like Hispanic is popularly used to mean mestizo. This isn't rocket science

    Cultural Anglos are those with connections to English culture specifically. If your hypothetical German was raised in England, maybe. I don't know how they handle it there Unlike here, hereditary descent still has strong cultural implications over there.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can't be actual or cultural Anglos, because they're in no way English.

    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I’m aware of.

    As noted elsewhere, it’s used with increasing frequency in academia. And I’ve run into it fairly often on the internet.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can’t be actual or cultural Anglos, because they’re in no way English.

    I disagree. If people are raised in Anglo-America, they are Anglos. After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "If people are raised in Anglo-America"

    There's no such thing as Anglo-America. There's the U.S.--which has been separate from Britain for more than 200 years--and there's Britain (plus the Commonwealth). Two different countries. Sharing traditions and a cultural heritage, yes, but different countries nonetheless.

    "After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic"

    Presumably, unless they grew up isolated in a Nazi fortress or something. But Anglo isn't like Hispanic. It doesn't inclue all Americans who aren't Hispanic, on account of what? The fact that they speak English and America was once an English colony?

    That meaning doesn't exist yet in the wider culture. Anglo still means English.

    , @guest
    By the way, the term for Italians and Germans growing up in the U.S. instead of Argentina would be "American," not "Anglo."

    If you wish to distinguish them from Hispanic-Americans, just call them "white" or "European."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me
    @162 Jack D: "Singapore and Hong Kong are two other English founded places which don’t seem to be lacking in much. So apparently you can run a country based on English law without actually having many English people."

    Have you lived in either place, or merely passed through as a tourist? While neither location is a third world turdhole, they are hardly equivalent to Canada or America 1.o, even considering vast variations in size. No matter where they settle or their wealth, Asians in general seem to prefer to live in much closer quarters than any White European not fresh out of the early industrial age could countenance. This is a pattern that repeats regardless of where they settle. Each also benefited from not merely English law, but also English autocratic rule for years before independence. And Lee Kuan Yew, despite his many flaws, was a genius at marrying the Chinese need for authoritarian control and social shaming with the English genius for pride of place and manners. And, for all that, I still prefer Bangkok and its chaos and lack of potable water to Singapore's shiny and utterly fake exterior covering the reality of old guys peeing in the elevator and women having induced labor weeks early to ensure their baby is born on a lucky day or in an auspicious year.

    I repeat: The three pillars of Western civilization are Greco-Roman heritage, Christendom, and White people.

    And Jewish genius, including Jesus/Paul, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Name one thing that was genius about Jesus/Paul.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. guest says:
    @syonredux

    But not all of them make the cut. I don’t see “Anglo” as short for white (primarily) English-speaker hitting the mainstream white populace any time soon.
     
    I think that it will. Or perhaps "White Anglo" will be the popular form. I'm certainly seeing a lot of both locutions on the internet. And they're both superior to "Non-Hispanic White."

    “they’re both superior to non-hispanic white”

    But far inferior to simple “white.”

    “Hispanic” was always a clumsy formulation, cooked up to invent a identity because flight from white. And because no one wanted to call the category mestizo, or whatever.

    There’s no similar need to come up with another word for whites. Though I suppose browns and their white allies/enablers shall desire a neutral-enough term for the whites whom they wish to disposses. In my world, we shan’t require it, and it won’t catch on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “they’re both superior to non-hispanic white”

    But far inferior to simple “white.”
     
    White doesn't convey a sense of shared culture. Russians are White, but I have far more in common with fellow Anglos in Australia and Canada than I do with them.

    “Hispanic” was always a clumsy formulation, cooked up to invent a identity because flight from white. And because no one wanted to call the category mestizo, or whatever.
     
    Oh, as a census term, it makes no sense. But it does make sense as a cultural marker. After all, as an Anglo, I don't have much in common with White Hispanics.

    There’s no similar need to come up with another word for whites. Though I suppose browns and their white allies/enablers shall desire a neutral-enough term for the whites whom they wish to disposses. In my world, we shan’t require it, and it won’t catch on.
     
    I disagree. Anglo brings the cultural aspect to the fore, and it reminds us that Anglo-America is separate from Latin America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. guest says:
    @syonredux

    I think that it is very good for social reconciliation, but Judeo-Christian tradition is a myth. As I quote the great scholar of Hebraic matters Jacob Neusner as saying, “Judaism and Christianity are different groups of people talking different languages about different Gods to very different people.” There is no Judeo-Christian tradition anymore than there could be, say, a Christian-Islamic tradition.
     
    Seeing as how the Christian Bible incorporates the Tanakh (The Old Testament), I would argue that Judeo-Christian makes a bit more sense than Christian-Islamic.....

    And, of course, one can also speak of all three religions as the Abrahamic Faiths.

    The simple fact that they share some holy books is no reason to hyphenate them into one thing. It’s been thousands of years since the broke off from one another.

    There’s probably more historical justification for combining Muslims and Jews than Christians and Jews into one tradition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. guest says:
    @syonredux

    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I’m aware of.
     
    As noted elsewhere, it's used with increasing frequency in academia. And I've run into it fairly often on the internet.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can’t be actual or cultural Anglos, because they’re in no way English.
     
    I disagree. If people are raised in Anglo-America, they are Anglos. After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic.

    “If people are raised in Anglo-America”

    There’s no such thing as Anglo-America. There’s the U.S.–which has been separate from Britain for more than 200 years–and there’s Britain (plus the Commonwealth). Two different countries. Sharing traditions and a cultural heritage, yes, but different countries nonetheless.

    “After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic”

    Presumably, unless they grew up isolated in a Nazi fortress or something. But Anglo isn’t like Hispanic. It doesn’t inclue all Americans who aren’t Hispanic, on account of what? The fact that they speak English and America was once an English colony?

    That meaning doesn’t exist yet in the wider culture. Anglo still means English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “If people are raised in Anglo-America”

    There’s no such thing as Anglo-America. There’s the U.S.–which has been separate from Britain for more than 200 years–and there’s Britain (plus the Commonwealth). Two different countries. Sharing traditions and a cultural heritage, yes, but different countries nonetheless.
     
    Sure there is. Anglo-America even has a WIKIPEDIA entry:

    Anglo-America most often refers to a region in the Americas in which English is a main language and British culture and the British Empire have had significant historical, ethnic, linguistic and cultural impact.[2] Anglo-America is distinct from Latin America, a region of the Americas where Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French) are prevalent.[2]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America

    “After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic”

    Presumably, unless they grew up isolated in a Nazi fortress or something. But Anglo isn’t like Hispanic. It doesn’t inclue all Americans who aren’t Hispanic, on account of what? The fact that they speak English and America was once an English colony?

    That meaning doesn’t exist yet in the wider culture. Anglo still means English.
     
    Dunno. I think that you are fighting a losing battle on this one....

    Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles, England, the English people, or the English language, such as in the term Anglo-Saxon language. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to people of British Isles descent in the Americas, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo

    While the term is primarily used to refer to people of English ancestry, it (along with terms like Anglo, Anglic, Anglophone, and Anglophonic) can also be used to denote all people of British or Northern European ancestry[10] or all English-speaking people and their descendants in the New World, regardless of their prior racial or ethnic background, much like Hispanic refers to people of any race.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Americans
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. istevefan says:
    @guest
    German-Americans are NOT Anglo-American. Not unless they have some connection to England outside of being American. Otherwise, they're German-American or just plain American.

    There isn't any point in making Anglo the baseline ethnicity here. We have our own country. Its culture and most of its Founding Stock was English, but we're America, not England.

    There's no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.

    Your entire post is nutty, unless we were to set up Anglo as the white version of Hispanic. But first of all there's no need to when we have whiteness, and anyway that'd be doubling up on the mistake.

    There’s no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.

    There is no reason to call Europeans ‘non-hispanic whites’ or blacks ‘non-hispanic blacks’. I am not English, but I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation. Ditto for the blacks that have been here since colonial times. It makes as much sense to refer to me as Anglo as it does to call Bruce Chen or Marco Scutaro hispanic.

    Using hispanic as the key identifier for whether someone is or is not hispanic gives undo importance to this term in regards to the US and its history. It would also deflate the potential political power of a so called hispanic voting bloc as the term would simply not be used.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "There is no reason to call Europeans non-hispanic whites"

    Indeed, but we're in that mess because of the stupid decision to invent the census-term "Hispanic" in the first place. Let us not extend the mistake.

    "I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation"

    Nonsense. I refuse to participate in such debasement of language.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English, despite the fact that I speak English and my country was founded primarily by Englishmen 40 or so years before my earliest ancestors settled here.

    That is not enough to make me Anglo. Anglo is not the white version of Hispanic. There is none, as yet. Let's ensure it stays that way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. guest says:
    @syonredux

    Increasingly common where? Possibly in elite-controlled enclaves like academia, government, or even journalism. But not in the general culture. Not that I’m aware of.
     
    As noted elsewhere, it's used with increasing frequency in academia. And I've run into it fairly often on the internet.

    However, a German raised here cannot be culturally Anglo. No way. They can only be Anglo in the sense of white, and no white people in the normal, general culture refer to themselves as Anglos.

    They can be cultural Americans (though not Founding Stock). They can participate in Anglo American traditions. But they can’t be actual or cultural Anglos, because they’re in no way English.
     
    I disagree. If people are raised in Anglo-America, they are Anglos. After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic.

    By the way, the term for Italians and Germans growing up in the U.S. instead of Argentina would be “American,” not “Anglo.”

    If you wish to distinguish them from Hispanic-Americans, just call them “white” or “European.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    By the way, the term for Italians and Germans growing up in the U.S. instead of Argentina would be “American,” not “Anglo.”

     

    Anglo-American. We gave to distinguish them from White Latinx

    If you wish to distinguish them from Hispanic-Americans, just call them “white” or “European.”
     
    Doesn't confront the problem of White Latinx. The biggest Anglo-haters in academia tend to be White Latinx.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Joe Joe says:

    Hasn’t this Senator ever watched Magnum P.I.? On that show Higgins frequently mentions that he is president of the “Anglo-Hawaiian Society”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  220. guest says:
    @istevefan

    There’s no reason to call all Europeans Anglo. Anglo-Black is a ridiculous construction outside of places like Jamaica.
     
    There is no reason to call Europeans 'non-hispanic whites' or blacks 'non-hispanic blacks'. I am not English, but I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation. Ditto for the blacks that have been here since colonial times. It makes as much sense to refer to me as Anglo as it does to call Bruce Chen or Marco Scutaro hispanic.

    Using hispanic as the key identifier for whether someone is or is not hispanic gives undo importance to this term in regards to the US and its history. It would also deflate the potential political power of a so called hispanic voting bloc as the term would simply not be used.

    “There is no reason to call Europeans non-hispanic whites”

    Indeed, but we’re in that mess because of the stupid decision to invent the census-term “Hispanic” in the first place. Let us not extend the mistake.

    “I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation”

    Nonsense. I refuse to participate in such debasement of language.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English, despite the fact that I speak English and my country was founded primarily by Englishmen 40 or so years before my earliest ancestors settled here.

    That is not enough to make me Anglo. Anglo is not the white version of Hispanic. There is none, as yet. Let’s ensure it stays that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English,
     
    You're writing in English.....
    , @syonredux

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent
     
    White Anglo-American says all that in fewer words....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. istevefan says:
    @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    I am familiar with him and Robert Morris. He is a good example, but my point still stands that we would not have had this nation without the English Protestant mass who hacked out of the wilderness their new nation and volunteered to fight for its independence.

    That the others helped is great. But it is also a fact that Jews, Spaniards and others were on the ground floor of the founding of other new world nations. Nations that haven’t quite got the appeal of the ones founded by the English. If they had something special, was it only brought out under English influences?

    Also, any idea why it took the post office until 1975 to commemorate this man? Any idea why Jews don’t really promote him, at least not in the same way they do Emma Lazarus?

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    Don’t most people who believe they owe something to someone also treat that person’s kids with the utmost respect? Isn’t that how we get legacies in schools and social networking in business?

    “Hey, this is Dan. He is the son of John Doe.”

    “Why didn’t you tell me? We have to find a place for him. John saved my butt on occasion and I owe him.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. syonredux says:
    @guest
    "they're both superior to non-hispanic white"

    But far inferior to simple "white."

    "Hispanic" was always a clumsy formulation, cooked up to invent a identity because flight from white. And because no one wanted to call the category mestizo, or whatever.

    There's no similar need to come up with another word for whites. Though I suppose browns and their white allies/enablers shall desire a neutral-enough term for the whites whom they wish to disposses. In my world, we shan't require it, and it won't catch on.

    “they’re both superior to non-hispanic white”

    But far inferior to simple “white.”

    White doesn’t convey a sense of shared culture. Russians are White, but I have far more in common with fellow Anglos in Australia and Canada than I do with them.

    “Hispanic” was always a clumsy formulation, cooked up to invent a identity because flight from white. And because no one wanted to call the category mestizo, or whatever.

    Oh, as a census term, it makes no sense. But it does make sense as a cultural marker. After all, as an Anglo, I don’t have much in common with White Hispanics.

    There’s no similar need to come up with another word for whites. Though I suppose browns and their white allies/enablers shall desire a neutral-enough term for the whites whom they wish to disposses. In my world, we shan’t require it, and it won’t catch on.

    I disagree. Anglo brings the cultural aspect to the fore, and it reminds us that Anglo-America is separate from Latin America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. syonredux says:
    @guest
    By the way, the term for Italians and Germans growing up in the U.S. instead of Argentina would be "American," not "Anglo."

    If you wish to distinguish them from Hispanic-Americans, just call them "white" or "European."

    By the way, the term for Italians and Germans growing up in the U.S. instead of Argentina would be “American,” not “Anglo.”

    Anglo-American. We gave to distinguish them from White Latinx

    If you wish to distinguish them from Hispanic-Americans, just call them “white” or “European.”

    Doesn’t confront the problem of White Latinx. The biggest Anglo-haters in academia tend to be White Latinx.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. syonredux says:
    @guest
    "If people are raised in Anglo-America"

    There's no such thing as Anglo-America. There's the U.S.--which has been separate from Britain for more than 200 years--and there's Britain (plus the Commonwealth). Two different countries. Sharing traditions and a cultural heritage, yes, but different countries nonetheless.

    "After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic"

    Presumably, unless they grew up isolated in a Nazi fortress or something. But Anglo isn't like Hispanic. It doesn't inclue all Americans who aren't Hispanic, on account of what? The fact that they speak English and America was once an English colony?

    That meaning doesn't exist yet in the wider culture. Anglo still means English.

    “If people are raised in Anglo-America”

    There’s no such thing as Anglo-America. There’s the U.S.–which has been separate from Britain for more than 200 years–and there’s Britain (plus the Commonwealth). Two different countries. Sharing traditions and a cultural heritage, yes, but different countries nonetheless.

    Sure there is. Anglo-America even has a WIKIPEDIA entry:

    Anglo-America most often refers to a region in the Americas in which English is a main language and British culture and the British Empire have had significant historical, ethnic, linguistic and cultural impact.[2] Anglo-America is distinct from Latin America, a region of the Americas where Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French) are prevalent.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America

    “After all, Argentines of Italian or German descent are culturally Hispanic”

    Presumably, unless they grew up isolated in a Nazi fortress or something. But Anglo isn’t like Hispanic. It doesn’t inclue all Americans who aren’t Hispanic, on account of what? The fact that they speak English and America was once an English colony?

    That meaning doesn’t exist yet in the wider culture. Anglo still means English.

    Dunno. I think that you are fighting a losing battle on this one….

    Anglo is a prefix indicating a relation to the Angles, England, the English people, or the English language, such as in the term Anglo-Saxon language. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to people of British Isles descent in the Americas, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo

    While the term is primarily used to refer to people of English ancestry, it (along with terms like Anglo, Anglic, Anglophone, and Anglophonic) can also be used to denote all people of British or Northern European ancestry[10] or all English-speaking people and their descendants in the New World, regardless of their prior racial or ethnic background, much like Hispanic refers to people of any race.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Americans

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. syonredux says:
    @guest
    "There is no reason to call Europeans non-hispanic whites"

    Indeed, but we're in that mess because of the stupid decision to invent the census-term "Hispanic" in the first place. Let us not extend the mistake.

    "I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation"

    Nonsense. I refuse to participate in such debasement of language.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English, despite the fact that I speak English and my country was founded primarily by Englishmen 40 or so years before my earliest ancestors settled here.

    That is not enough to make me Anglo. Anglo is not the white version of Hispanic. There is none, as yet. Let's ensure it stays that way.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English,

    You’re writing in English…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. syonredux says:
    @guest
    "There is no reason to call Europeans non-hispanic whites"

    Indeed, but we're in that mess because of the stupid decision to invent the census-term "Hispanic" in the first place. Let us not extend the mistake.

    "I am an Anglo white in the sense that I am a native English speaker brought up in an Anglo derived nation"

    Nonsense. I refuse to participate in such debasement of language.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent. I am not at all English, despite the fact that I speak English and my country was founded primarily by Englishmen 40 or so years before my earliest ancestors settled here.

    That is not enough to make me Anglo. Anglo is not the white version of Hispanic. There is none, as yet. Let's ensure it stays that way.

    I am a white, native-born American of Western European descent

    White Anglo-American says all that in fewer words….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Wilkey
    It’s exceedingly strange how none of them explain how or why it’s racist. I don’t even get a hint. We’re just supposed to know.

    It's racist to use the term "Anglo-American heritage," but it's also racist if you happen to know why using the term "Anglo-American heritage" isn't racist - kinda like how you're a "white nationalist" if you happen to know that the French didn't hand deliver the Statue of Immigration with Emma Lazarus's quote already emblazened upon it.

    I guess it's racist because you've bothered to read on your own, instead of the bullshit you're spoonfed in schools these days. And the only place you can learn those facts is on racist sites, who are racist because they teach you facts you aren't supposed to know.

    Or something like that. This is all getting very so hard to keep track of. The only thing I know for sure is that all the complaints I'm reading about how racist it is to mention our "Anglo-American heritage," from Brian Schatz and everyone else, appear to be written in a language called English.

    Did you just say the language we use is English?

    That’s totally racist, man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    The Postal Service began playing ethnic politics with commemorative stamps during the Roosevelt Administration. Do you fancy the contention on the back of the stamp is at all credible?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @ben tillman

    So far this thread has two of the most annoying monomanias here on eye Steve with Jews and Cromwell.
     
    Cromwell isn't a separate topic; he's just part of the Jewish story.

    Whenever Cromwell shows up in a thread you can expect certain posters to show up with copy/paste from their last 3 minute hate on the topic, just like certain posters will lose their minds about the JQ when it comes up but ignore Cromwell (and vice versa).

    Ergo, its a monomania.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    By the way, when did the Angles invade invade what would become England? Like the 5th century AD?

    Do you think that might have been long enough to be distinguishable from other Germans?

    Look, if you want to call all Anglo-Saxons Germans, that's fine. But just because the Angles were Germanic doesn't mean all Germans are Anglos.

    Do you think that might have been long enough to be distinguishable from other Germans?

    No. Why would it be?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    And Jewish genius, including Jesus/Paul, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Name one thing that was genius about Jesus/Paul.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @CCZ
    Erosion of the heritage of law:

    Courts Force Owners to Pay Vandals Who Deface Their Property, I Kid You Not
    by Becky Akers

    In the People’s Democratic Republic of New York City, the owner of a building covered in graffiti must pay the “artists” who trespassed on and defaced his property because he whitewashed their “work,” a clown in a federal gown has decreed. And he must pay a lot: $6.7 million.

    The clown fulminates in his ruling about “the formidable works of aerosol art”—oh, brother—and mourns that the building “would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved” had its owner not acted as if he owned the place.

    Lest you smirk that such blatant Marxism confines itself to the PDR of NYC, consider that the “law” giving this dung its legal cover is a federal one, the “Visual Rights Act.” Ergo, you, too, could forfeit your property should thugs appropriate it with spray-paint—excuse me, “aerosol art.”

     

    http://video.usnews.com/Judge-Awards-Graffiti-Artists-67-Million-for-Destroyed-Murals-33532661

    Not quite the level of Banksy, Basquiat, or Haring, although I suppose it’s a cut above the usual tags from CoolBreeze and Fernandito.

    The real issue is the owner wanted to maintain or even raise property values by keeping his buildings graffiti-free. That’s gentrification and therefore rayciss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ed
    Jewish resentment towards America or “Anglo-America” just seems so odd. The USA has never had the type of latent anti-semitism that has been found in almost all of Europe. There has not been a country better to Jews than the USA. If Israel would implode, I suspect the majority of the Jewish refugees would end up in the USA with nary a peep of objection.

    Yet through the media & politics many Jews seem to advocate for policies that threaten to destroy or diminish American power. They must know if America goes, so does Israel and a resurgent anti-semitism in Europe. I just don’t get the hostility.

    Jews are just angry people, always in a rage against something or other. Nowadays this is explained/excused because of the Holocaust, but they were like this even before WWII. They were always this way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Jews are just angry people, always in a rage against something or other.

    No, the fantasy Jews in your head are angry people. Ordinary people in meatworld bear no responsibility for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Plural of “shat”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  235. Gellero says:
    @El Dato
    Anglo-American is just a step away from Nazi-American. It's literally a Holocaust dog-whistle. #Resist

    Sessions blasted for praising sheriffs as ‘Anglo-American heritage’

    Jews are not Anglo-American?
    In what universe?
    We are not Germanic, but certainly Caucasian…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @Jack D
    The others you mention like Jews and Spaniards were not here in numbers and did not appreciably affect the outcome of the founding.

    The Postal Service begs to differ:

    https://img.etsystatic.com/il/daaa0e/409515980/il_570xN.409515980_qxky.jpg

    I owed a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers but not to those who claim to be their descendants. They get no special credit for what their dead relatives did.

    Haym Solomon’s “role” in the Revolution is one of the most brazen fabrications in American history.

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    “False claims made by the son of the revolutionary patriot, Haym Moses Salomon (1785-1858), wildly distorted the factual role of his father. Through the zealous, and misguided, efforts of the younger Salomon his father came to be known as a “Financier of the American Revolution.” It was construed that Salomon the elder loaned, or gave, vast sums of his own personal assets to the revolutionary cause to such an extent that he was greatly responsible for the survival of the Revolution…Solomon’s son was undeterred. He campaigned in 1846 to press a claim in the U.S. Congress for repayment of a Revolutionary War debt he asserted was owed due to loans made by his father to the Continental Congress. At first he demanded $353,000. Later, the sum increased until it reached $3,000,000…”

    and so on…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America […] — I completely reject this.

    Of course you would.

    I never made the claim the English were the absolute “one and only”—Paul Revere and others were American patriots. I also mentioned Haym Salomon in our past argument. But the term stock refers to the founding breed—those who were not merely present, but also pushed for Revolution, and whose existing dominant culture and numbers made the American Revolution possible, with its peculiar ‘Anglo’ ideals and character baked into the cake.

    The patriotic population base and principal changemakers were overwhelmingly of English descent, certainly to the almost total numerical exclusion of non-whites and non-Christians, the acknowledgement of which triggers the likes of you and Schatz.

    Latecomers whose breed primarily arrived after both voluntary colonization (slaves and aboriginals don’t count—Plymouth Rock “was landed on us!”) and especially Revolution (1775) categorically cannot be called “founding stock” of the United States. This is basic vocabulary.

    There are no classes of membership in the American club – either you are a citizen or you ain’t.

    Wrong. There are classes of membership—some de facto, some de jure.

    First, de jure membership classes:

    There are obvious official classes amongst citizens. Some citizens are in a class known as criminals who have their otherwise naturally enjoyed rights curtailed due to their ‘antisocial’ actions. Also, legal discrimination based on race (affirmative action) is the law of the land, despite an Equal Protection Clause.

    As for non-citizens, particularly foreign trespassers—in many localities (sanctuary cities) these invaders are given special privileges not enjoyed by American citizens, e.g. protection from federal law enforcement.

    Second, de facto membership classes:

    There are first-class patriot citizens, and there are second-class citizens who sympathize with invaders and criminals, or want to gut the Bill of Rights, or actively work against founding stock (and racial whiteness in general) by denying its existence or promoting its relative numerical and cultural diminishment. In a word: Traitors.

    Your precious term citizen, while an improvement in status over subject or slave, is neutral praise. The plaintive cry (not actual quote) of the fickle citizen—

    Hath not Jack D eyes? Hath not Jack D hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, a valid Social Security number?

    It’s about more than all that, Jack. You may be a legal fact on the ground here, but whose side are you on—All citizens, including traitors and criminals? I should hope not. You can start by recognizing there are, indeed, different classes of citizen, justly deemed or not.

    … you have no right to reject [Emma Lazarus] as not being a “real American”. She was as real as any other American.

    You misquote me. I never said Lazarus herself wasn’t a “real American,” I said her people (“fellow Jews,” as you wrote) are not founding stock, as I’ve explained above.

    She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American).

    Another feverish fantasy of my position. I never implied (as per your hypothetical) that some random immigrating Englishman would automatically be a higher class of citizen…

    It would also depend on his appreciation of (1) the existence of actual American founding stock, (2) their history and culture, and (3) their ideals of individual freedom, i.e. negative rights—something that you (imagine my shock) have a majorly deficient appreciation of (#393 and earlier).

    Emma Lazarus fails on the first two counts by calling for the importing of “wretched refuse” and by dismissing the “storied pomp” of Old World nations greater than her (scattered) own.

    If your hypothetical Englishman—in addition to freedom and liberty—values beauty, glory, the historic achievements of European Civilization, and the continued prevalence of its people, those are points in his favor against earlier arrival Lazarus. She is second-class by comparison.

    A counter-hypothetical would be White House advisor Stephen Miller versus a ‘lily white’ incoming English immigrant who voted (New) Labour, is an open-borders race-agnostic globalist, and thinks ‘hate speech’ should be abolished. Miller is first-class by comparison.

    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on.

    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    … in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose …

    I’m partial to 1775, but I repeat myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    Bingo.
    , @3g4me
    @237 Jenner Ickham Errican: +1,000,000 Superb comment, but as you are well aware, you are wasting your time and intellect. Jack D is impervious to goyishe logic, reasoning, and history. After all, he reminded us all not long ago that Jefferson himself declared us all to be equal and genuinely believed so in all particulars. How can antisemites retcon history to challenge that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. sb says:
    @Anonymous
    Time to roll out my great fictitious hero, Horace Rumpole QC, (MUST be played by Leo McKern).
    Can someone (please!) post a YouTube link to the 'Rumpole of the Bailey' opening credits.

    Horace Rumpole is no QC rather if not exactly the bete noire of QCs he does have a rather jaundiced view of same

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Art Deco says:
    @Anonymous
    Jews are just angry people, always in a rage against something or other. Nowadays this is explained/excused because of the Holocaust, but they were like this even before WWII. They were always this way.

    Jews are just angry people, always in a rage against something or other.

    No, the fantasy Jews in your head are angry people. Ordinary people in meatworld bear no responsibility for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed – a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc.

    1. About 20% of the population was black. No component of the black population was a part of civic life until the 1830s.

    2. The ‘Irish’ were British subjects. They were also flinty protestants with an affinity for the Scots (if for anyone), not for the Catholic Irish who appeared 60 years later.

    3. There was no ‘state just for Catholics’. The Catholic Church was populous and treated congenially under law in Lower Canada, which remained a British territory after 1783. If you’re referring to Maryland, the Catholic population therein was about 10% of the whole and subject to a menu of legal disabilities into the early 19th century.

    4. There was a tiny population of Portuguese Jews living in Rhode Island. There were knots of Swedes (in New Jersey), Dutch (in the Hudson Valley), and French (around Charleston). The Spaniards were to be found in Florida, which was a British possession only between 1763 and 1783. All of these sets were demographically inconsequential.

    5. The aboriginal population was small (~1% of the population when enumerated in 1860), geographically remote, and largely alien to civic life. IIRC, there were five tribes granted American citizenship during the 19th century, with the rest not receiving it until 1924.

    6. The largest minority which held property was composed of anabaptists from the German periphery – Mennonite, Amish, Dunker, &c. (Colloquially, “Pennsylvania Dutch”). These people also had low levels of civic engagement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Your characterzation of German immigration to the US is misleading.

    German Immigration to America Timeline
    http://www.datesandevents.org/us-immigration-timelines/german-immigration-america-timeline.htm

    The German History Timeline of Immigration to America provides a fast overview of the immigrants from Germany who helped to build America. Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the majority of the country adhered to Lutheran Protestantism. The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them. German Immigration to America in the 1700's constituted one of the largest single immigrant groups during the colonial period......

    1607 The first German American was Dr. Johannes Fleischer joined English colonists to establish the Jamestown settlement in the Virginia Colony

    1620 Other Germans including sawyers, glassmakers and mineral experts joined the English colonists.

    1669 Map-maker Johannes Lederer, aka John Lederer, was hired by Sir William Berkeley to explore the lands to the west of the Virginia colony. Johannes Lederer was the first to see the Allegheny Mountains.

    1683 The first wave of 50 German immigrants were a radical wing of the Protestant Reformation called the Mennonites (Anabaptists). Their congregation led by Francis Daniel Pastorius purchased 43,000 acres of land and founded Germantown (aka Germanopolis) in Pennsylvania.

    1700 The search for religious freedom and employment opportunities prompted other Germans to immigrate in the 1700's. Many poor Germans opted to sign contracts for 5- 7 years as indentured servants, called Redemptioners. 50 - 70% of Germans made their way to America as redemptioners settling in Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Between 1708 - 1760, war, poverty, hunger, and persecution drove 100,000 German immigrants ("Auswanderungs") to America....

    ....... 1790 According to the U.S. census of 1790 it is estimated Germans migrants constituted nearly 9% of the white population in the United States

    ________________________________________

    It is also worth noting that Americans of German ancestry now constitute the largest single immigrant group in the US.

    German Americans - Wikipedia
    German Americans (German: Deutschamerikaner) are Americans who have full or partial German ancestry. With an estimated size of approximately 44 million in 2016, German Americans are the largest of the ancestry groups reported by the US Census Bureau in its American Community Survey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D
    I think to say that American law was founded on the principles of the English common law (and is therefore Anglo-American) should not be controversial to anyone who is not insane. In fact, Obama and many other Democrats have said this many time before, but when Sessions says it, he is saying it as an all but hooded clansman, so it is evil for HIM to say it. The statement is not inherently evil, but only depending on who is uttering it. This is very basic to "liberal" discourse.

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate "founding stock" of America and as such, have a claim to America that is superior to the claim of other American citizens who ancestors are more recently arrived or from a group the majority of which is more recently arrived - I completely reject this. There are no classes of membership in the American club - either you are a citizen or you ain't. You might disagree with Emma Lazarus's views about immigration (keeping in mind she was writing a century & a half ago when the country was a lot less full anyway) but you have no right to reject her as not being a "real American". She was as real as any other American. She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American). If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn't make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on. From colonial days onward, ethnic Americans have retained affinity for their co-ethnics - the 1st St. Patrick's parade was held in NY in 1762.


    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed - a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc. Also keep in mind that since 200 years have gone by, even the most pure DAR member probably has some ancestors that came later - even if one of your direct ancestors was say Thomas Jefferson you probably have a number of other ancestors who were black or Dutch or something.

    There are no classes of membership in the American club –

    You and I both know that in the minds of the educational apparat, the legal profession, the media, and Democratic pols there certainly are classes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Art Deco says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America […] — I completely reject this.
     
    Of course you would.

    I never made the claim the English were the absolute “one and only”—Paul Revere and others were American patriots. I also mentioned Haym Salomon in our past argument. But the term stock refers to the founding breed—those who were not merely present, but also pushed for Revolution, and whose existing dominant culture and numbers made the American Revolution possible, with its peculiar ‘Anglo’ ideals and character baked into the cake.

    The patriotic population base and principal changemakers were overwhelmingly of English descent, certainly to the almost total numerical exclusion of non-whites and non-Christians, the acknowledgement of which triggers the likes of you and Schatz.

    Latecomers whose breed primarily arrived after both voluntary colonization (slaves and aboriginals don’t count—Plymouth Rock “was landed on us!”) and especially Revolution (1775) categorically cannot be called “founding stock” of the United States. This is basic vocabulary.

    There are no classes of membership in the American club – either you are a citizen or you ain’t.
     
    Wrong. There are classes of membership—some de facto, some de jure.

    First, de jure membership classes:

    There are obvious official classes amongst citizens. Some citizens are in a class known as criminals who have their otherwise naturally enjoyed rights curtailed due to their ‘antisocial’ actions. Also, legal discrimination based on race (affirmative action) is the law of the land, despite an Equal Protection Clause.

    As for non-citizens, particularly foreign trespassers—in many localities (sanctuary cities) these invaders are given special privileges not enjoyed by American citizens, e.g. protection from federal law enforcement.

    Second, de facto membership classes:

    There are first-class patriot citizens, and there are second-class citizens who sympathize with invaders and criminals, or want to gut the Bill of Rights, or actively work against founding stock (and racial whiteness in general) by denying its existence or promoting its relative numerical and cultural diminishment. In a word: Traitors.

    Your precious term citizen, while an improvement in status over subject or slave, is neutral praise. The plaintive cry (not actual quote) of the fickle citizen—

    Hath not Jack D eyes? Hath not Jack D hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, a valid Social Security number?
     
    It’s about more than all that, Jack. You may be a legal fact on the ground here, but whose side are you on—All citizens, including traitors and criminals? I should hope not. You can start by recognizing there are, indeed, different classes of citizen, justly deemed or not.

    … you have no right to reject [Emma Lazarus] as not being a “real American”. She was as real as any other American.
     
    You misquote me. I never said Lazarus herself wasn’t a “real American,” I said her people (“fellow Jews,” as you wrote) are not founding stock, as I’ve explained above.

    She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American).
     
    Another feverish fantasy of my position. I never implied (as per your hypothetical) that some random immigrating Englishman would automatically be a higher class of citizen…

    It would also depend on his appreciation of (1) the existence of actual American founding stock, (2) their history and culture, and (3) their ideals of individual freedom, i.e. negative rights—something that you (imagine my shock) have a majorly deficient appreciation of (#393 and earlier).

    Emma Lazarus fails on the first two counts by calling for the importing of “wretched refuse” and by dismissing the “storied pomp” of Old World nations greater than her (scattered) own.

    If your hypothetical Englishman—in addition to freedom and liberty—values beauty, glory, the historic achievements of European Civilization, and the continued prevalence of its people, those are points in his favor against earlier arrival Lazarus. She is second-class by comparison.

    A counter-hypothetical would be White House advisor Stephen Miller versus a ‘lily white’ incoming English immigrant who voted (New) Labour, is an open-borders race-agnostic globalist, and thinks ‘hate speech’ should be abolished. Miller is first-class by comparison.

    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on.
     
    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    … in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose …
     
    I’m partial to 1775, but I repeat myself.

    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    Bingo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Tiny Duck says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    I "engaged with" your beloved African - Americans at my majority black inner city high school. It mostly involved a lot of violence directed at me because I was too light skinned and my hair was too straight. (And perhaps also because I have an iq above 80, unlike the majority of students at good ole Pembroke High School in Hampton, VA.)

    So save your sanctimonious bs for someone who hasn't hasn't experienced "diversity" up close and personal. If you are white, I doubt you would have survived what I did. You seem like the type who would have been balled up in a corner weeping like a little bitch.

    You=ignorant pussy

    You would never say this to a Black Mans face

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    I have many times, pussy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. 3g4me says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    But this is completely different from saying that the English are the one and only legitimate “founding stock” of America […] — I completely reject this.
     
    Of course you would.

    I never made the claim the English were the absolute “one and only”—Paul Revere and others were American patriots. I also mentioned Haym Salomon in our past argument. But the term stock refers to the founding breed—those who were not merely present, but also pushed for Revolution, and whose existing dominant culture and numbers made the American Revolution possible, with its peculiar ‘Anglo’ ideals and character baked into the cake.

    The patriotic population base and principal changemakers were overwhelmingly of English descent, certainly to the almost total numerical exclusion of non-whites and non-Christians, the acknowledgement of which triggers the likes of you and Schatz.

    Latecomers whose breed primarily arrived after both voluntary colonization (slaves and aboriginals don’t count—Plymouth Rock “was landed on us!”) and especially Revolution (1775) categorically cannot be called “founding stock” of the United States. This is basic vocabulary.

    There are no classes of membership in the American club – either you are a citizen or you ain’t.
     
    Wrong. There are classes of membership—some de facto, some de jure.

    First, de jure membership classes:

    There are obvious official classes amongst citizens. Some citizens are in a class known as criminals who have their otherwise naturally enjoyed rights curtailed due to their ‘antisocial’ actions. Also, legal discrimination based on race (affirmative action) is the law of the land, despite an Equal Protection Clause.

    As for non-citizens, particularly foreign trespassers—in many localities (sanctuary cities) these invaders are given special privileges not enjoyed by American citizens, e.g. protection from federal law enforcement.

    Second, de facto membership classes:

    There are first-class patriot citizens, and there are second-class citizens who sympathize with invaders and criminals, or want to gut the Bill of Rights, or actively work against founding stock (and racial whiteness in general) by denying its existence or promoting its relative numerical and cultural diminishment. In a word: Traitors.

    Your precious term citizen, while an improvement in status over subject or slave, is neutral praise. The plaintive cry (not actual quote) of the fickle citizen—

    Hath not Jack D eyes? Hath not Jack D hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, a valid Social Security number?
     
    It’s about more than all that, Jack. You may be a legal fact on the ground here, but whose side are you on—All citizens, including traitors and criminals? I should hope not. You can start by recognizing there are, indeed, different classes of citizen, justly deemed or not.

    … you have no right to reject [Emma Lazarus] as not being a “real American”. She was as real as any other American.
     
    You misquote me. I never said Lazarus herself wasn’t a “real American,” I said her people (“fellow Jews,” as you wrote) are not founding stock, as I’ve explained above.

    She, having colonial ancestors, was MORE real than say an Englishman just off the boat last week (who according to you is MORE American than an actual American).
     
    Another feverish fantasy of my position. I never implied (as per your hypothetical) that some random immigrating Englishman would automatically be a higher class of citizen…

    It would also depend on his appreciation of (1) the existence of actual American founding stock, (2) their history and culture, and (3) their ideals of individual freedom, i.e. negative rights—something that you (imagine my shock) have a majorly deficient appreciation of (#393 and earlier).

    Emma Lazarus fails on the first two counts by calling for the importing of “wretched refuse” and by dismissing the “storied pomp” of Old World nations greater than her (scattered) own.

    If your hypothetical Englishman—in addition to freedom and liberty—values beauty, glory, the historic achievements of European Civilization, and the continued prevalence of its people, those are points in his favor against earlier arrival Lazarus. She is second-class by comparison.

    A counter-hypothetical would be White House advisor Stephen Miller versus a ‘lily white’ incoming English immigrant who voted (New) Labour, is an open-borders race-agnostic globalist, and thinks ‘hate speech’ should be abolished. Miller is first-class by comparison.

    If she still retained affinity for her suffering fellow Jews elsewhere, this didn’t make her any less American than sympathy for the Irish makes Irish Americans not American and so on.
     
    There’s a difference between affinity for one’s co-ethnics (which is understandable) and antipathy towards one’s founding stock hosts and their overarching cultural legacy. The combination of the two sentiments can be especially treacherous.

    … in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose …
     
    I’m partial to 1775, but I repeat myself.

    @237 Jenner Ickham Errican: +1,000,000 Superb comment, but as you are well aware, you are wasting your time and intellect. Jack D is impervious to goyishe logic, reasoning, and history. After all, he reminded us all not long ago that Jefferson himself declared us all to be equal and genuinely believed so in all particulars. How can antisemites retcon history to challenge that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. hyperbola says:
    @Jack D
    This is a completely false version of history. Mexico banned slavery only in 1829, during the brief rule of the mulatto Guerrero. If it had been banned already they wouldn't have needed to abolish it. That being said, Mexico had very few black slaves to begin with. Unlike the US, when the Spanish conquered Mexico it already had plenty of people and they didn't need to import a lot of black slaves except in very early days when the local population was decimated by disease - their ecological niche was filled by locals. The economics of slavery in Mexico was such that throughout the colonial period the price of slaves kept dropping because they were not in demand. But this was all based on economic grounds and not upon any moral superiority of the Spanish.

    Nope, it is real history. The prohibition of slavery in the New World by the Spanish monarchy dates from the 16th century. It could not always be enforced rigorously in distant colonies (especially as the Spanish empire declined), but already Isabel la Catolica told Colon (Columbus) to stop making slaves of the Indians.

    Bartolomé de las Casas

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    These were confused times in Spanish history because the next monarchs (Carlos I and Carlos II) were actually German (holy roman emperors), but Carlos I confirmed the ban on slavery in the New World.

    “…. el rey Carlos I promulgó el 20 de noviembre de 1542 las Leyes Nuevas. Ellas prohibieron la esclavitud de los indios y ordenaron que todos quedaran libres de los encomenderos y fueran puestos bajo la protección directa de la Corona. Disponían además que, en lo concerniente a la penetración en tierras hasta entonces no exploradas, debían participar siempre dos religiosos, que vigilarían que los contactos con los indios se llevaran a cabo en forma pacífica dando lugar al diálogo que propiciara su conversión. Las Leyes Nuevas fueron uno de los más importantes aportes al derecho de gentes que efectuó el rey Carlos I como consecuencia de sus conversaciones con fray Bartolomé de las Casas….”

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    There are historians that claim this was the beginning of human rights legislation in the European world.

    It is perhaps worth also noting that when the New World was originally divided between the Spanish and Portuguese by the Pope, the Portuguese were given West Africa. That eventually led to the main slave traders being Portuguese, Dutch and British (jews). To this day, the main centers of African population in the New World are centered on the British, Dutch and British colonies. For example Brazil (portuguese), but not Argentina or Uruguay (spanish).

    Remember also that the Guanari people of Paraguay survived (and about 50% of the population can still speak Guanari) because they were originally a spanish colony (although later ceded to Portugal). “La Mision” is a reasonable film depictation of the controversies in Paraguay (and the role of the Jesuits), although somewhat disorted by its British origins.

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_misión

    As for Mexico banning slavery in 1829 (or 1821, these were years when Spanish recognition of Mexican independence varied), that was when the newly independent Mexicans could confirm for themselves that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The excerpt you pasted speaks only of the enslavement of indigenous people, not of Africans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. hyperbola says:
    @Art Deco
    Factually, in 1776 or 1789 or whatever date you choose, the majority of Americans were of British Protestant descent but there were already many other groups either in the 13 colonies or in areas that would later be annexed – a small number of Jews, a whole state just for Catholics, Germans, Swedes, Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, blacks, Indians, etc.

    1. About 20% of the population was black. No component of the black population was a part of civic life until the 1830s.

    2. The 'Irish' were British subjects. They were also flinty protestants with an affinity for the Scots (if for anyone), not for the Catholic Irish who appeared 60 years later.

    3. There was no 'state just for Catholics'. The Catholic Church was populous and treated congenially under law in Lower Canada, which remained a British territory after 1783. If you're referring to Maryland, the Catholic population therein was about 10% of the whole and subject to a menu of legal disabilities into the early 19th century.

    4. There was a tiny population of Portuguese Jews living in Rhode Island. There were knots of Swedes (in New Jersey), Dutch (in the Hudson Valley), and French (around Charleston). The Spaniards were to be found in Florida, which was a British possession only between 1763 and 1783. All of these sets were demographically inconsequential.

    5. The aboriginal population was small (~1% of the population when enumerated in 1860), geographically remote, and largely alien to civic life. IIRC, there were five tribes granted American citizenship during the 19th century, with the rest not receiving it until 1924.

    6. The largest minority which held property was composed of anabaptists from the German periphery - Mennonite, Amish, Dunker, &c. (Colloquially, "Pennsylvania Dutch"). These people also had low levels of civic engagement.

    Your characterzation of German immigration to the US is misleading.

    German Immigration to America Timeline

    http://www.datesandevents.org/us-immigration-timelines/german-immigration-america-timeline.htm

    The German History Timeline of Immigration to America provides a fast overview of the immigrants from Germany who helped to build America. Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the majority of the country adhered to Lutheran Protestantism. The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them. German Immigration to America in the 1700′s constituted one of the largest single immigrant groups during the colonial period……

    1607 The first German American was Dr. Johannes Fleischer joined English colonists to establish the Jamestown settlement in the Virginia Colony

    1620 Other Germans including sawyers, glassmakers and mineral experts joined the English colonists.

    1669 Map-maker Johannes Lederer, aka John Lederer, was hired by Sir William Berkeley to explore the lands to the west of the Virginia colony. Johannes Lederer was the first to see the Allegheny Mountains.

    1683 The first wave of 50 German immigrants were a radical wing of the Protestant Reformation called the Mennonites (Anabaptists). Their congregation led by Francis Daniel Pastorius purchased 43,000 acres of land and founded Germantown (aka Germanopolis) in Pennsylvania.

    1700 The search for religious freedom and employment opportunities prompted other Germans to immigrate in the 1700′s. Many poor Germans opted to sign contracts for 5- 7 years as indentured servants, called Redemptioners. 50 – 70% of Germans made their way to America as redemptioners settling in Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Between 1708 – 1760, war, poverty, hunger, and persecution drove 100,000 German immigrants (“Auswanderungs”) to America….

    ……. 1790 According to the U.S. census of 1790 it is estimated Germans migrants constituted nearly 9% of the white population in the United States

    ________________________________________

    It is also worth noting that Americans of German ancestry now constitute the largest single immigrant group in the US.

    German Americans – Wikipedia
    German Americans (German: Deutschamerikaner) are Americans who have full or partial German ancestry. With an estimated size of approximately 44 million in 2016, German Americans are the largest of the ancestry groups reported by the US Census Bureau in its American Community Survey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them.
     
    That is an unbelievably stupid comment......
    , @Art Deco
    I have no clue whose remarks you're responding to. None of this makes any sense as a response to mine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @hyperbola
    Nope, it is real history. The prohibition of slavery in the New World by the Spanish monarchy dates from the 16th century. It could not always be enforced rigorously in distant colonies (especially as the Spanish empire declined), but already Isabel la Catolica told Colon (Columbus) to stop making slaves of the Indians.

    Bartolomé de las Casas
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    These were confused times in Spanish history because the next monarchs (Carlos I and Carlos II) were actually German (holy roman emperors), but Carlos I confirmed the ban on slavery in the New World.

    ".... el rey Carlos I promulgó el 20 de noviembre de 1542 las Leyes Nuevas. Ellas prohibieron la esclavitud de los indios y ordenaron que todos quedaran libres de los encomenderos y fueran puestos bajo la protección directa de la Corona. Disponían además que, en lo concerniente a la penetración en tierras hasta entonces no exploradas, debían participar siempre dos religiosos, que vigilarían que los contactos con los indios se llevaran a cabo en forma pacífica dando lugar al diálogo que propiciara su conversión. Las Leyes Nuevas fueron uno de los más importantes aportes al derecho de gentes que efectuó el rey Carlos I como consecuencia de sus conversaciones con fray Bartolomé de las Casas...."
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    There are historians that claim this was the beginning of human rights legislation in the European world.

    It is perhaps worth also noting that when the New World was originally divided between the Spanish and Portuguese by the Pope, the Portuguese were given West Africa. That eventually led to the main slave traders being Portuguese, Dutch and British (jews). To this day, the main centers of African population in the New World are centered on the British, Dutch and British colonies. For example Brazil (portuguese), but not Argentina or Uruguay (spanish).

    Remember also that the Guanari people of Paraguay survived (and about 50% of the population can still speak Guanari) because they were originally a spanish colony (although later ceded to Portugal). "La Mision" is a reasonable film depictation of the controversies in Paraguay (and the role of the Jesuits), although somewhat disorted by its British origins.
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_misión

    As for Mexico banning slavery in 1829 (or 1821, these were years when Spanish recognition of Mexican independence varied), that was when the newly independent Mexicans could confirm for themselves that they would retain the Spanish ban on slavery.

    The excerpt you pasted speaks only of the enslavement of indigenous people, not of Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population. It is also worth noting (e.g. the Bartolomeo de las Casas link I provided) that many of the arguments the Spanish considered against indigenous slavery were also applied to African slaves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @Tiny Duck
    You=ignorant pussy

    You would never say this to a Black Mans face

    I have many times, pussy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. syonredux says:
    @hyperbola
    Your characterzation of German immigration to the US is misleading.

    German Immigration to America Timeline
    http://www.datesandevents.org/us-immigration-timelines/german-immigration-america-timeline.htm

    The German History Timeline of Immigration to America provides a fast overview of the immigrants from Germany who helped to build America. Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the majority of the country adhered to Lutheran Protestantism. The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them. German Immigration to America in the 1700's constituted one of the largest single immigrant groups during the colonial period......

    1607 The first German American was Dr. Johannes Fleischer joined English colonists to establish the Jamestown settlement in the Virginia Colony

    1620 Other Germans including sawyers, glassmakers and mineral experts joined the English colonists.

    1669 Map-maker Johannes Lederer, aka John Lederer, was hired by Sir William Berkeley to explore the lands to the west of the Virginia colony. Johannes Lederer was the first to see the Allegheny Mountains.

    1683 The first wave of 50 German immigrants were a radical wing of the Protestant Reformation called the Mennonites (Anabaptists). Their congregation led by Francis Daniel Pastorius purchased 43,000 acres of land and founded Germantown (aka Germanopolis) in Pennsylvania.

    1700 The search for religious freedom and employment opportunities prompted other Germans to immigrate in the 1700's. Many poor Germans opted to sign contracts for 5- 7 years as indentured servants, called Redemptioners. 50 - 70% of Germans made their way to America as redemptioners settling in Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Between 1708 - 1760, war, poverty, hunger, and persecution drove 100,000 German immigrants ("Auswanderungs") to America....

    ....... 1790 According to the U.S. census of 1790 it is estimated Germans migrants constituted nearly 9% of the white population in the United States

    ________________________________________

    It is also worth noting that Americans of German ancestry now constitute the largest single immigrant group in the US.

    German Americans - Wikipedia
    German Americans (German: Deutschamerikaner) are Americans who have full or partial German ancestry. With an estimated size of approximately 44 million in 2016, German Americans are the largest of the ancestry groups reported by the US Census Bureau in its American Community Survey.

    The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them.

    That is an unbelievably stupid comment……

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Lots of unknown influences and contradictions in American history. Kind of frustrating for you that the "puritans" were essentially a product of German protestantism? Here is another conundrum. Medieval catholicism included the idea that indigenous peoples had the right to their own governments and religion in their own countries. That got lost in British culture when Henry VIII broke with catholicism. Eventually that led to the major differences in genocides of indigenous populations in the British and Spanish empires in the New World. For all the scorn heaped on the Spanish Inquisition (almost the last to expel the jews - the Brits were about the first in 1290, followed by the Germans), we see that today the indigenous populations in countries like Peru, Bolivia, Central America, ...... were not subject to the same genocide as in British colonies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. hyperbola says:
    @syonredux

    The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them.
     
    That is an unbelievably stupid comment......

    Lots of unknown influences and contradictions in American history. Kind of frustrating for you that the “puritans” were essentially a product of German protestantism? Here is another conundrum. Medieval catholicism included the idea that indigenous peoples had the right to their own governments and religion in their own countries. That got lost in British culture when Henry VIII broke with catholicism. Eventually that led to the major differences in genocides of indigenous populations in the British and Spanish empires in the New World. For all the scorn heaped on the Spanish Inquisition (almost the last to expel the jews – the Brits were about the first in 1290, followed by the Germans), we see that today the indigenous populations in countries like Peru, Bolivia, Central America, …… were not subject to the same genocide as in British colonies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lots of unknown influences and contradictions in American history. Kind of frustrating for you that the “puritans” were essentially a product of German protestantism?
     
    John Calvin was a bigger influence, dear boy.

    Here is another conundrum. Medieval catholicism included the idea that indigenous peoples had the right to their own governments and religion in their own countries. That got lost in British culture when Henry VIII broke with catholicism. Eventually that led to the major differences in genocides of indigenous populations in the British and Spanish empires in the New World. For all the scorn heaped on the Spanish Inquisition (almost the last to expel the jews – the Brits were about the first in 1290, followed by the Germans), we see that today the indigenous populations in countries like Peru, Bolivia, Central America, …… were not subject to the same genocide as in British colonies.
     
    Dunno, dear boy. The Amerind death-toll in Latinx America is alpine in proportions:

    Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)

    Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M ("lower figure commands more support") fell to 1.25M (1625)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
    Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M ("recent commentators favoring the higher") fell to 1M
    Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
    Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)
     

    Caribbean
    Hispanola (1492-1550)
    General native population decline
    Trager, People's Chronology: from 200-300,000 (1492) to 60,000 (1508) to 14,000 (1514) to <500 (1548)
    Wertham: plummmet from 1,000,000 to 14,000.
    Stannard: from 8M (1492) to 4M or 5M (1496) to less than 100,000 (1508) to less than 20,000 (1518) to extinction (1535)
    Jan Rogozinski, A Brief History of the Caribbean (1994): Assessments of the number of Indians throughout the Caribbean in 1492 range from 225,000 to 6M, half in Hispaniola. All gone within a few decades.

     

    Then there are the post-colonial events:


    Mayan Caste War:approx 300,000

    Argentina, the Conquest of the Desert:

    The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia and ended the possibility of Chilean expansion there.

    Argentine troops killed more than a thousand enemy combatants and displaced over 15,000 more from their traditional lands. Ethnic European settlers developed the lands for agriculture, turning it into a breadbasket that made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century.[1][2] The Conquest used to be commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.

    The Conquest is highly controversial. Apologists have described the Conquest as bringing civilisation, while revisionists have labelled it a genocide.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert



    Brazil:

    Indian Genocide
    Gerald Colby, Thy Will Be Done: the Conquest of the Amazon (1995)
    800,000 Indians "disappeared into extinction" since 1900.
    40,000 to 100,000 died, 1957-68.
    Robin Hanbury-Tenison, A Question of Survival (1973): The Indian population of Brazil declined from a half million in 1900 to 80 thousand in 1957 to 50 thousand in 1973.
    Robert Hitchcock & Tara Twedt: Indian population of Brazil declined from 1.0M to 0.2M between 1900 and 1957, a net loss of 800,000 (in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
    Porter estimates that 100,000 Brazilian Indians were victims of genocide during the 1960s.
    Darcy Ribeiro, "Indigenous Cultures and Languages in Brazil", in Indians of Brazil in the Twentieth Century, Janice Hopper, ed. (1967): 87 Indian tribes in Brazil went extinct between 1900 and 1957 (Out of an original 230) This, by the way, is the authoritative study of Brazilian Indian population, which is why every other author discussing the decline of Indian population uses 1957 as a milestone.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. hyperbola says:
    @Anonymous
    The excerpt you pasted speaks only of the enslavement of indigenous people, not of Africans.

    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population. It is also worth noting (e.g. the Bartolomeo de las Casas link I provided) that many of the arguments the Spanish considered against indigenous slavery were also applied to African slaves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population.
     
    Spanish African slave trade was most consequential in the Caribbean, dear boy, places like Cuba and what we now call the Dominican Republic.

    In Mexico and Central America, Amerind peons provided labor for their Spanish masters....


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repartimiento
    , @Jefferson
    "The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa,"

    No the the Spanish were not largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa. All genetic DNA tests say that the average Hispanic has some West African DNA.

    The Amistad slave ship was run by the Spaniards.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Art Deco says:
    @hyperbola
    Your characterzation of German immigration to the US is misleading.

    German Immigration to America Timeline
    http://www.datesandevents.org/us-immigration-timelines/german-immigration-america-timeline.htm

    The German History Timeline of Immigration to America provides a fast overview of the immigrants from Germany who helped to build America. Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in Germany and the majority of the country adhered to Lutheran Protestantism. The foundation of the United States of America was built upon the religion, ideals, skills and culture that the first immigrants from Germany brought with them. German Immigration to America in the 1700's constituted one of the largest single immigrant groups during the colonial period......

    1607 The first German American was Dr. Johannes Fleischer joined English colonists to establish the Jamestown settlement in the Virginia Colony

    1620 Other Germans including sawyers, glassmakers and mineral experts joined the English colonists.

    1669 Map-maker Johannes Lederer, aka John Lederer, was hired by Sir William Berkeley to explore the lands to the west of the Virginia colony. Johannes Lederer was the first to see the Allegheny Mountains.

    1683 The first wave of 50 German immigrants were a radical wing of the Protestant Reformation called the Mennonites (Anabaptists). Their congregation led by Francis Daniel Pastorius purchased 43,000 acres of land and founded Germantown (aka Germanopolis) in Pennsylvania.

    1700 The search for religious freedom and employment opportunities prompted other Germans to immigrate in the 1700's. Many poor Germans opted to sign contracts for 5- 7 years as indentured servants, called Redemptioners. 50 - 70% of Germans made their way to America as redemptioners settling in Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Between 1708 - 1760, war, poverty, hunger, and persecution drove 100,000 German immigrants ("Auswanderungs") to America....

    ....... 1790 According to the U.S. census of 1790 it is estimated Germans migrants constituted nearly 9% of the white population in the United States

    ________________________________________

    It is also worth noting that Americans of German ancestry now constitute the largest single immigrant group in the US.

    German Americans - Wikipedia
    German Americans (German: Deutschamerikaner) are Americans who have full or partial German ancestry. With an estimated size of approximately 44 million in 2016, German Americans are the largest of the ancestry groups reported by the US Census Bureau in its American Community Survey.

    I have no clue whose remarks you’re responding to. None of this makes any sense as a response to mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I have no clue whose remarks you’re responding to. None of this makes any sense as a response to mine.
     
    I don't think that "hyperbola" understands English very well....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. syonredux says:
    @hyperbola
    Lots of unknown influences and contradictions in American history. Kind of frustrating for you that the "puritans" were essentially a product of German protestantism? Here is another conundrum. Medieval catholicism included the idea that indigenous peoples had the right to their own governments and religion in their own countries. That got lost in British culture when Henry VIII broke with catholicism. Eventually that led to the major differences in genocides of indigenous populations in the British and Spanish empires in the New World. For all the scorn heaped on the Spanish Inquisition (almost the last to expel the jews - the Brits were about the first in 1290, followed by the Germans), we see that today the indigenous populations in countries like Peru, Bolivia, Central America, ...... were not subject to the same genocide as in British colonies.

    Lots of unknown influences and contradictions in American history. Kind of frustrating for you that the “puritans” were essentially a product of German protestantism?

    John Calvin was a bigger influence, dear boy.

    Here is another conundrum. Medieval catholicism included the idea that indigenous peoples had the right to their own governments and religion in their own countries. That got lost in British culture when Henry VIII broke with catholicism. Eventually that led to the major differences in genocides of indigenous populations in the British and Spanish empires in the New World. For all the scorn heaped on the Spanish Inquisition (almost the last to expel the jews – the Brits were about the first in 1290, followed by the Germans), we see that today the indigenous populations in countries like Peru, Bolivia, Central America, …… were not subject to the same genocide as in British colonies.

    Dunno, dear boy. The Amerind death-toll in Latinx America is alpine in proportions:

    Coe, Snow and Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (1986)

    Mexico: Original population of 11M to 25M (“lower figure commands more support”) fell to 1.25M (1625)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 9M (1533) to >500,000 (early 17th C)
    Brazil: Original population of 2.5M to 5.0M (“recent commentators favoring the higher”) fell to 1M
    Massimo Livi-Bacci, Concise History of World Population History 2d (1996)
    Mexico: Population fell from 6.3M (1548) to 1.9M (1580) to 1M (1605)
    Peru: Pop. fell from 1.3M (1572) to 600,000 (1620)

    Caribbean
    Hispanola (1492-1550)
    General native population decline
    Trager, People’s Chronology: from 200-300,000 (1492) to 60,000 (1508) to 14,000 (1514) to <500 (1548)
    Wertham: plummmet from 1,000,000 to 14,000.
    Stannard: from 8M (1492) to 4M or 5M (1496) to less than 100,000 (1508) to less than 20,000 (1518) to extinction (1535)
    Jan Rogozinski, A Brief History of the Caribbean (1994): Assessments of the number of Indians throughout the Caribbean in 1492 range from 225,000 to 6M, half in Hispaniola. All gone within a few decades.

    Then there are the post-colonial events:

    Mayan Caste War:approx 300,000

    Argentina, the Conquest of the Desert:

    The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia and ended the possibility of Chilean expansion there.

    Argentine troops killed more than a thousand enemy combatants and displaced over 15,000 more from their traditional lands. Ethnic European settlers developed the lands for agriculture, turning it into a breadbasket that made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century.[1][2] The Conquest used to be commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.

    The Conquest is highly controversial. Apologists have described the Conquest as bringing civilisation, while revisionists have labelled it a genocide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

    Brazil:

    Indian Genocide
    Gerald Colby, Thy Will Be Done: the Conquest of the Amazon (1995)
    800,000 Indians “disappeared into extinction” since 1900.
    40,000 to 100,000 died, 1957-68.
    Robin Hanbury-Tenison, A Question of Survival (1973): The Indian population of Brazil declined from a half million in 1900 to 80 thousand in 1957 to 50 thousand in 1973.
    Robert Hitchcock & Tara Twedt: Indian population of Brazil declined from 1.0M to 0.2M between 1900 and 1957, a net loss of 800,000 (in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
    Porter estimates that 100,000 Brazilian Indians were victims of genocide during the 1960s.
    Darcy Ribeiro, “Indigenous Cultures and Languages in Brazil”, in Indians of Brazil in the Twentieth Century, Janice Hopper, ed. (1967): 87 Indian tribes in Brazil went extinct between 1900 and 1957 (Out of an original 230) This, by the way, is the authoritative study of Brazilian Indian population, which is why every other author discussing the decline of Indian population uses 1957 as a milestone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. syonredux says:
    @Art Deco
    I have no clue whose remarks you're responding to. None of this makes any sense as a response to mine.

    I have no clue whose remarks you’re responding to. None of this makes any sense as a response to mine.

    I don’t think that “hyperbola” understands English very well….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. syonredux says:
    @hyperbola
    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population. It is also worth noting (e.g. the Bartolomeo de las Casas link I provided) that many of the arguments the Spanish considered against indigenous slavery were also applied to African slaves.

    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population.

    Spanish African slave trade was most consequential in the Caribbean, dear boy, places like Cuba and what we now call the Dominican Republic.

    In Mexico and Central America, Amerind peons provided labor for their Spanish masters….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repartimiento

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. @Anonym
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo_people

    We were discussing America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    We were discussing America.

    Here is the part of the post I was replying to. FWIW. Note the plural "ventures" and "projects".

    It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. FPD72 says:
    @Federalist
    While the legal systems of the rest of the U.S. are based on common law, Louisiana has a civil law system (or a mixed system). Louisiana's civil law system is based on French and Spanish law and ultimately on Roman law. Though they have the same sources, Louisiana was never under the Napoleanic Code as it was enacted after the Louisiana Purchase.

    And that is why Louisiana has “parishes” while the rest of the country has “counties.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. Anonym says:
    @Almost Missouri
    We were discussing America.

    We were discussing America.

    Here is the part of the post I was replying to. FWIW. Note the plural “ventures” and “projects”.

    It also brings up the sore point of the relative stability, success, and freedom of English colonial ventures as opposed to the projects of other powers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Jefferson says:
    @hyperbola
    The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa, which was Portuguese, Dutch and British. As a consequence, Spanish colonies in the New World never had anywhere near the same levels of African slaves. As I noted before, this is still evident today in the distribution of the African population. It is also worth noting (e.g. the Bartolomeo de las Casas link I provided) that many of the arguments the Spanish considered against indigenous slavery were also applied to African slaves.

    “The Spanish were largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa,”

    No the the Spanish were not largely excluded from the slave trading from West Africa. All genetic DNA tests say that the average Hispanic has some West African DNA.

    The Amistad slave ship was run by the Spaniards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?