The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
The Culture Trump Defends Encompasses Far More Than Racial Division
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

President Trump is making plain the degree to which the country remains divided by the American Civil War. His threat to veto the $718bn Defence Bill if it renames military bases called after Confederate generals harks back to 1861. His stand highlights the bizarre way that the US military has named its biggest bases, like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.

Critics suggest derisively that this tradition of naming military installations after defeated enemies should mean that future bases will include at least one named after Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, and another after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Isis, both killed by US soldiers.

The fury generated by the dispute over the renaming of the bases and the removal of the statues of Confederate commanders underlines the contemporary relevance of the outcome of the civil war. A tweet by Trump gives a clue as to why this should be the case a century and a half after the Confederate surrender. “It was sad,” Trump wrote, “to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.”

But which “history and culture” is Trump talking about? The US has two sources of political culture: one derives from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and a popular revolution against a distant imperial power, the other flows from the slave states with their vastly different tradition. Much of what non-Americans find peculiar and contradictory about the US stems from the uneasy cohabitation of these two cultures, whose democratic and authoritarian strands alternately repel each other and blend together. Americans are often in denial about this tainted legacy, preferring to see their past through the lens of the intentions of the founding fathers and the struggles of the frontier, playing down the civil war over slavery that left 750,000 dead.

The version of culture and history that Trump defends is that of the American South and is primarily to do with contemporary relations between black and white. Most of the statues to Confederate war commanders were erected long after the war and unblushingly asserted white supremacy. Memphis, Tennessee, for instance, until recently boasted a statue erected in 1905 to the Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest, a plantation owner, slave trader and Confederate commander whose troops massacred some 300 black Union army soldiers who surrendered at Fort Pillow in 1864. He later became the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan. As recently as 1998, another statue to Forrest was erected in Nashville, Tennessee.

The reason that the “cultural wars” resonate so strongly in the US is that they have their roots in a real war and have little to do with quaint military nostalgia, like people in England who dress up as 17th-century Cavaliers and Roundheads to restage civil war battles. The real message those statues carried was that the south might have lost the civil war and slavery might have been abolished, but black people would still be segregated, discriminated against and denied civil rights.

Trump’s racism is blatant and unconcealed, but the culture he is pledged to defend encompasses far more than racial division. It includes a whole set of fiercely defended attitudes to women, gun ownership, abortion, evangelical Christianity, paramilitary policing, crime and punishment, affirmative action, and the role of government in society. This matters because of a surprising development in the US since the de jure granting of civil rights to black Americans in the 1960s. This was seen by many as the moment that the US put the past behind it and the toxic traditions of the Old South would disappear into history. But no such thing happened. On the contrary, the counter-reaction to civil rights was in many respects more powerful and influential than the original movement that had tried to break the racist status quo.

This counter-reaction was so strong that the south was able to expand its culture in the broadest sense to the north and west, far beyond the boundaries of the old Confederacy. As Godfrey Hodgson wrote at the turn of the century in his prophetic book More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century, it had been “assumed that the South would become more like the rest of the country, [but] in politics and in many aspects of culture, the rest of the country has come to resemble the South”.

This “southernisation” explains many strange aspects of American culture that appear inexplicable, such as the way in which attitudes over everything from gun ownership to abortion have become a mark of identity. It also explains a lot about Trump’s rise to power, which caught most Americans, including many of his supporters and almost all non-Americans, by surprise. He is occasionally referred to as “the last Confederate president”, which is over-simple; but the description does point the way towards the identity of his base, whose loyalty is so impervious to his failures.

The beliefs and values that mutated out of the defeated Confederacy produced a distinct variant of American nationalism. It combined with right-wing conservatism in the rest of the country to produce a winning political formula used by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. A Democratic president like Bill Clinton seemed to be an exception to this, but in many respects his record only confirmed the trend. In 1996, Peter Applebome, The New York Times correspondent in Atlanta, wrote a book called Dixie Rising: How the South is Shaping American Values, Politics and Culture. In a passage quoted by Hodgson, he says, “Bill Clinton is coming out for school prayer along with sweeping Republican legislation shredding welfare” and “the Supreme Court is acting as if [the Confederate president] Jefferson Davis were chief justice”.

The title of Applebome’s book explains its theme. He concludes that “to understand America you have to understand the South”.

The same is true of Trump and Trumpism. Southern political culture, which has percolated to all parts of the US, is his political base, which explains why the fate of the statues and the renaming of military bases matters so much to him.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. g8way says:

    What does it accomplish to republish uninformed British anti-American hit pieces on the US Independence Day weekend?

    • Agree: ThreeCranes, SteveK9
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Anonymous
    , @Hans
  2. Judging by the titles of his articles, Cockburn seems to be getting stupider every week. Decided to read the article for a change to confirm it. Yep, I was right.

    • Agree: BuelahMan, nickels, L.K
  3. ….the US military has named its biggest bases, like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.

    That’s as far as I got. Total historical ignorance.

  4. blacks are currently and will always be their own worst enemy. 60 years of every hand out, hand up, set asides in unqualified employment, food, housing, medical care and the 24/7 (((special people))) public relations and history revision lies and blacks still can’t function in a White first world society. Too bad there were no submarines in the 1700s to sink the kosher slave ships. The nose and the pets gotta go.

    • Agree: restless94110, nickels
    • Replies: @JustBrooklynHere
    , @Duke84
  5. G. Poulin says:

    What an asshole. Dump this moron, Ron.

    • Agree: Alden
  6. @Fidelios Automata

    Thanks for taking the time. You have saved me 10 minutes I might not have ever gotten back.

  7. I’m not fan of the Confederacy (or the Union), but I’m pretty sure their goal was not to destroy the US.

    • Replies: @Angharad
  8. Sean says:

    Eugene McCarthy was from Minnesota, a genetically Scandinavian and also socialist by DNA (Farmer Labour) state. It hasn’t changed and periodically infects the rest of the country, as now. The previous epidemic was when George McGovern got on the McCarthy bandwagon during the wind down of Vietnam, and advocated a foreign policy of withdrawal from confrontation with the Soviet Union, thereby causing the Neocons to split from the Democrats. None can say how emboldened for adventurism the USSR might have been, had McGovern’s revolt against the settled policy of Democratic presidents from FDR through LBJ succeeded in winning over Americans. McGovernism would have been a risky gambit for the USA, considering the conventional steamroller that the Warsaw Pact then was.

    You can blame Civil Rights for the huge fall in the Dem’s popular vote between 1968 and 1972, but that was hardly due to areas outside the South being converted to Southern ideas of racial justice, it was rather a case of the South failing to feel under any obligation to continue to vote for the Democratic party in view of their policies. Carter won back those votes through his Bible Belt appeal and an Old Southern endorsement from George Wallace. But the McGovernite infection proved disastrous. I happen to believe a study of history shows the primacy of foreign policy.

    Purely domestic political agitation tends to produce reaction. Were it not for John Brown, the militias that coalesced into the Confederacy’s army would not have existed. Although renowned Confederate partisan ranger John S. Mosby said he never knew of any cause but slavery the monument building, like making surviving Confederate generals US generals in 1898, was part of a national myth that preservation of the Union was the real reason the Civil War had to be fought. It happens to be true. There was, of course no chance of the South winning that war. because the Union would never–could never–allow another state, be it based on slavery or anything else.

    In my opinion the essential point is if the Confederacy had withdrawn from the Union because Southern whites demanded mandatory freeing of slaves, reparations to born free Blacks for their ancestors’ enslavement, integrated schools, affirmative action, and encouraging of intermarriage of white women with black men, then the North would still have attacked and conquered the South. The main tenet of foreign policy is security, but a Confederate state if left alone would form relationships with European powers, which could only be a future threat against the US and it could not allow. So war was necessary, as it so often is between countries.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  9. “Memphis, Tennessee, for instance, until recently boasted a statue erected in 1905 to the Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest,

    The reason that the “cultural wars” resonate so strongly in the US is that they have their roots in a real war and have little to do with quaint military nostalgia…. The real message those statues carried was that the south might have lost the civil war and slavery might have been abolished, but black people would still be segregated, discriminated against and denied civil rights.”
    Maybe there’s something to what you say, maybe not. The statues do embody a sense of southern identity & pride. The simple fact is, that the South produced, like Nathan Bedford Forrest, some of the greatest soldiers & generals in US history, & indeed in world history. Further, whether you agree with the Confederate cause or not, no one can say that the Confederate Army didn’t perform prodigies of endurance & bravery in the face of an enemy that was many-many-many times bigger, & better supplied etc.
    After the traumas of reconstruction, its hardly surprising that southerners (& some Americans generally) might want to celebrate the positives & forget the negatives.

  10. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Ever wonder why there’s suddenly a national food fight over monuments that have gone largely ignored for over a century?

    We are “divided” over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms to ensure that we remain conquered by an Establishment that cares nothing for us as fellow countrymen. Otherwise, more than a few of us might question the lack of any “division” in the Senate’s 96-0 vote to use a virus to, yet again, bail out Wall Street.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  11. fnn says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    He literally comes from a Communist family-the truth is unimportant to him.

  12. Black Dog says:

    I’m only an ignorant (of USA society as it is, not how Brits hear of it) Englishman, but I’m pretty sure the American civil war wasn’t primarily fought over slavery, nor did the South fight to destroy America. Besides, there’s hardly an episode in any country’s history that doesn’t have a morally ambiguous side to it. History is, or should be, an accurate account of what happened and why. Not propaganda or distorted and selective facts. Happy Independence Day.

    • Thanks: Digital Samizdat, SteveK9
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  13. America is a cake boken by a shitty recipe with even shittier ingredients and now it is crumbling.

    Imagine how dumb on must be to chose Anglo cake over Gemanic cake.

    • Troll: Chris Mallory
  14. There’s so much wrong–laughably wrong–with this article that it’s hard to know where to begin. Just for the heck of it, I think I’ll start with this passage where Cockburn effectively refutes himself:

    This “southernisation” explains many strange aspects of American culture that appear inexplicable, such as the way in which attitudes over everything from gun ownership to abortion have become a mark of identity.

    Two issues that literally have nothing to do with the South or the American Civil War! Historically and presently, the majority of American states oppose(d) abortion and support(ed) the Second Amendment, not just the states of the South. These days, all of them are rural states, including not only the South, but also most of the Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states–and many of the latter didn’t even exist during the Civil War. No, this new culture war is not about the North versus the South; it is about town versus country.

    His stand highlights the bizarre way that the US military has named its biggest bases, like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.

    The Confederacy did not fight to “destroy” the US, Mr. Cockburn. That’s just asinine! No, they simply fought to secede from it. Did the original thirteen states fight to destroy Britain? Of course not. But that’s how ridiculous your statement sounds to an informed American.

    The US has two sources of political culture: one derives from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and a popular revolution against a distant imperial power, the other flows from the slave states with their vastly different tradition.

    Are you seriously unaware of the fact that Jefferson and Madison were both planters from Virginia–i.e., the South? Really? All of the original thirteen colonies, North and South, fought for independence in the 18th century. In case you’ve now fallen under the spell of the post-Modernists and Critical Theorists, let me remind you that the War of Independence had nothing to do with slavery. If it did, after all, it would have split the colonies between those with slavery and those without, just as the Civil War would later do.

    ***

    Seriously, fifteen years ago during the Iraq War, Cockburn used to be one of my favorite writers over at Counterpunch. But I now see that his views on American history and culture are so completely daft and uninformed that I’m starting to wonder whether I can, in retrospect, trust any of his analysis of a culture as alien as that of the Middle East!

    • Agree: SteveK9, Curmudgeon
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    , @L.K
  15. @Digital Samizdat

    BTW, if anyone here’s interested, Cockburn’s fellow Brit Alistair Crooke did a much, much better job of dissecting the current American culture-war, without resorting to the tired old clichés of ‘Blue versus Gray’:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/06/15/statues-fall-amidst-civil-war-the-coup-vs-the-woke-revolution/

  16. BuelahMan says:

    When one starts with moronic garbage such as:

    who fought a war to destroy the US

    One immediately knows that this puke should stfu.

    Why is this here? I barely made it thru the first paragraph. We could have had even more “Covid Bad” drivel.

  17. @g8way

    Apparently Cockburn missed Lincoln’s reconciliation speech “With malice towards none and charity towards all.”

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  18. jsinton says:

    Cock lives in a fantasy world. What the current unrest shows is the power of the NWO to manipulate useful idiots, and the depth and power of the Davos crowd to rule the proles. Trump is just a carnival barker that thought he was a “President” and didn’t know he was just an asset manager.

  19. sonofman says:

    The culture Trump defends? Why is, all of a sudden, American history a ‘culture’ that needs to be abolished? Why are, all of a sudden, mayhem, destruction, censor and negation accepted tactics to protect someone against symbols and monuments that are, all of a sudden, too offensive to confront. All of a sudden, historical figures and soldiers (how can you not honor a soldier?) who are celebrated for their actions are questioned according to modern moral standards. All of a sudden, a resolved conflict fundamental to defining the nation is being misappropriated to rectify accusations of racism and instigate division. The all of sudden demands are only superficial and flimsy concerns that direct focus away from the real issues that need to be tackled.

  20. Wyatt says:

    “after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.”

    They fought a war to leave the Union, you quasi-Redcoat. It wouldn’t have destroyed New York or Vermont. It would have weakened the US’ power and potentially stopped America from having the power necessary to become the world’s policeman.

    “playing down the civil war over slavery ”

    Corwin Amendment. The Northern states were perfectly willing to protect the institution of slavery from any law, including Constitutional amendment if the South was willing to sign onto that particular amendment. The South said no because the war was about a more populous, authoritarian North imposing taxes and tariffs on Southern goods.

    This is why I hate Europeans talking about America. They don’t know dick about it. Patrick in particular compelled me to bring this gem out.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-placed-low-on-academic-s-iq-table-1.1289495

    • Agree: Chris Mallory
  21. Pretty sure it’s not Trump encouraging racial division, Mr Unbiased “Journalist”.

  22. @Hood Oracle

    Quite an annoying article. Did his Brittanic majesty Sir Cockburn ever think that these bases were named after Confederate generals as part of a healing process after the Civil War? That was a war when brother truly fought brother – and the British were all set to capitalize on it and possibly capture the American South. The little barb about naming future bases after al Baghdadi and bin Laden were as worth pondering as a belch after a good meal. Those men and the battles accompanying them cannot be seen in the same light as the American Civil War. The total dismantling of slavery was not the primary reason for the Civil War. Yes, the spread of slavery into the developing territories/future states was an issue, but the primary issue of the war was the right to secede from the federal government. The North was content with letting slavery exist where it had been. Abolitionists, although very vocal, did not have the unmitigated support of the population in the North. Most Northerners were mildly supportive or unconcerned. What would a European like Sir Cockburn know about nationalism? Europeans have given up, for the most part, any scintilla of nationalism in regard to their own countries and identities in place of being nannied over by the Karen in Chief herself, Mama Merkel. I do not take kindly to such criticism, but it’s people like myself that are not going to be the ones to censor you.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:

    This fellow repeats the long ago thoroughly exposed lies about Fort Pillow. His history is all absurdly superficial.

  24. Duke84 says:
    @Hood Oracle

    The Bell Curve cannot be overcome.

  25. @Black Dog

    the American civil war

    There was no American civil war. A civil war is a war fought over control of the government. The Confederacy had voted to secede. They wanted no part of the government in Washington.

    On July 2,1776, the Second Continental Congress, assembled in Philadelphia, formally adopted Richard Henry Lee’s resolution for independence from Great Britain. The vote was unanimous, with only New York abstaining.

    How is that any different, in kind, than what the States of the Confederacy did?

  26. The US has two sources of political culture: one derives from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and a popular revolution against a distant imperial power, the other flows from the slave states with their vastly different tradition.

    Evidently Cockburn is too ignorant of US history to realize that these are the same tradition. Both Jefferson and Madison were southern slave owners. So were a majority of those contributing most to the early foundations of the USA as it once was.

  27. ruralguy says:

    The South warned the North what would happen if they freed the slaves. Blacks never evolved to fit into a modern society. It’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Forcing the peg just creates conflict. It’s not good for them and it’s not good for us.

  28. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:
    @g8way

    Patrick Cockburn is Irish. He was born in Cork, Ireland but lives England.

  29. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:
    @JustBrooklynHere

    The Independent newspaper is owned a Russian and Saudi. Mr. Cockburn wouldn’t accept a knighthood because he an anti-British Irishman.

  30. Ko says:

    Patrick, any credibility you once had is finished. You are severely infected with leftist lies and TDS and you are a real threat to freedom and democracy in the United States.

    In three years Trump has done more for blacks than that half white “black” Muslim that was in office for eight years.

    Your newest fake saviour, Biden, is the rel racist. He’s displayed his racism numerous times throughout his career bit none so more than this one time when he used the word “nigger” two times during an official proceeding while a US Senator.

    Biden is the real racists. And you are abusing your effete white privilege by virtue signalling, or faking, your supposed great education and lifetime achievements by knowingly delivering a false narrative about my President. You have no shame, obviously. If you did, you’d be honest, fair, introspective about your own prejudices about being a self-hating white man. In short, you are sick in the head. Keep drinking, it’s the only asset you have in your beyond dull life. No one cares about you anymore. How does that make you feel?

    Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1276951745403420672

  31. Cockburn says:

    “Critics suggest derisively that this tradition of naming military installations after defeated enemies should mean that future bases will include at least one named after Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, and another after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Isis, both killed by US soldiers.”

    No, that would actually fall in with the tradition of naming military bases after those who fought for the US government…

  32. America is a nation and the ancestors of many American soldiers fought for the South. And yes of course, they are proud of it, as Americans. They are proud of the devotion and sacrifice of their ancestors. As one nation, America commemorates the men who fought on both sides of the Civil War, as both sides of the Civil War represent the population of the Nation.

    It isn’t confusing or complicated. Honoring Civil War veterans of both sides was a way to heal the wounds. The attempt to obliterate the heritage of the United States as some sort of criminal legacy is nothing but an attack on the heritage of white Americans, and the sinister motives are easily seen by the way in which the vandals immediately moved on to other icons of American history. Of course the final objective is the obliteration of Christian iconography and the total subjugation of European Christians to Jews.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
    , @Pat Kittle
  33. The argument of the Left is that we don’t honor Nazis for losing. Well, we should honor those who fought against Bolshevism and for their homelands, and their struggle and sacrifice. The Nazi movement is now embedded into the greater scheme of European history as some sort of cancer that spreads its tentacles into every aspect of our culture and heritage This is how the Jews sees the white man, as the Nazi, and so our whole history becomes the prelude to Nazism. We need a cure for Jew rabies. The truth is that the men who fought for the Axis were not, from their point of view, fighting for a bad cause, anymore than the Soviets who ended up dominating half of Europe were, from our point view, fighting for a good cause. The Communist dream is revived with magic holocaust dust every twenty years in the University. We we need is to wipe clean the poisonous legacy of Leftism, and learn to judge the past fairly and accurately, with full disclosure of Judeo-masonic criminality, before it’s too late.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  34. Trump, Biden…..Who gives a shit, they both have a pair of black balls hanging from their chins.

  35. Daniel H says:

    This “southernisation” explains many strange aspects of American culture that appear inexplicable, such as the way in which attitudes over everything from gun ownership to abortion

    Because only an unreconstructed, robe-wearing, cross-burning, Black-lynching terrorist would be at all concerned with the civil, nay, human rights, the very right to life, of the unborn.

  36. Hans says:
    @g8way

    It’s cock burn. Like Alex on his Descent into Fascism tour circa 2005 ignoring and trying to ridicule 9/11 facts.

  37. Tick Tock says:

    The problem with the British and it only gets worse with time is that they have been Inbreeding on that Bloody Island for Centuries. In the beginning it was OK but now, WOW!!! Patti can’t help he never got all the cards from the get go. But he should consider to only say moronic things about Great Britain. Then we won’t care and can laugh along.

    Now in Great Britain (it really is an oxymoron isn’t it), we have massive waves of 3rd world imbeciles and criminal (oxymoron again) flooding the Country so that the white mutants you used to see as you walked down a London street are being diluted out by the knife wielding maniacs who may kill you before you can get out.

    As the son of an Irishman I cannot say that God did not have a hand in this.

    • Troll: Gordo
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  38. El Dato says:

    playing down the civil war over slavery that left 750,000 dead

    Someone who pretends to to write about history should maybe not write propagandist retconning in articles about history.

    I dunno, there once was a tradition of “good writing”, sticking to facts etc. Now losers scribble whatever they want. What happened.

    This counter-reaction was so strong that the south was able to expand its culture in the broadest sense to the north and west, far beyond the boundaries of the old Confederacy. As Godfrey Hodgson wrote at the turn of the century in his prophetic book More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century, it had been “assumed that the South would become more like the rest of the country, [but] in politics and in many aspects of culture, the rest of the country has come to resemble the South”.

    Gun ownership bad, Abortion good. Liberal cities are best cities. Got it.

    Flyover country is “The Confederate South” now and must be destroyed and burnt down by all means.

  39. Angharad says:
    @Butler T. Reynolds

    Lincoln the Crypto gutted the Constitution. The South had EVERY legal right to LEAVE. Lincoln turned Federal troops into Janissaries. He was a monster.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  40. Angharad says:

    Cockbunrt – you are bottom, with your black boyfriend, right?

  41. Realist says:

    The Irish have never been known for their high IQ.

  42. vot tak says:

    Excellent article throughout. The north won the civil war, but lost the reconstruction when they retreated in the 1870s. Had the north followed through and actually detoxified the south, the usa would be a very different country today.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Hans
    , @Alden
  43. M.Clements says: • Website

    President Trump’s defense of the “Natural Order of Things” represents the white race’s last stand, and therefore America’s Last Stand.

    I was paying close attention to President Trump’s speech at Mt. Rushmore, and it was nothing less than a call for White Unity, and God bless him for that. It was a call for the white man to finally stand up and protect his pride, his heritage, his history, his accomplishments, and of course his family and his home. It was not quite a “Blood and Soil” speech, Trump did not quite say he would protect our “Euro-Christian Heritage”, but in my heart, I heard the real message.

    With so much racial and political division in America, it felt good to hear Trump say the right words about how our nation was formed, and why the original vision of the Founding Fathers must be preserved.

    God Bless America.

    • Replies: @Leon Haller
  44. MarkinLA says:
    @Sean

    considering the conventional steamroller that the Warsaw Pact then was.

    The Warsaw Pact was Russia and Russia alone. Russia invading the west while hostile Polish, Czech, Romanian, Hungarian, and Baltic State troops were behind the lines was something every military intelligence agency was well aware of but it had to be propagandized away.

  45. His stand highlights the bizarre way that the US military has named its biggest bases, like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.

    Well, the Confederates may have tried to “destroy” the US as a concept, but they never had any intent of destroying lives. The Union, on the other hand, thought that it was necessary to destroy lives in order to save the concept. And their victory planted a time bomb that is still ticking.

  46. Mr. Grey says:

    Trump is not racist. Calling someone racist is a trick where a Leftist practices mind-reading and denounces someone they find disagreeable.

  47. Hans says:
    @vot tak

    But black leaders had already rejected Lying Abe’s repatriation to Mother Africa offer for some odd reason.

  48. Dannyboy says:
    @GazaPlanet

    Excellent post, Sir.

    Thank you.

    • Thanks: GazaPlanet
  49. Dannyboy says:

    With this latest bit of scribbling, Mr Cockburn perfectly illustrates the wisdom in the saying “The only good Marxist is a dead Marxist”.

    Too bad he’s an Irishman, but we certainly won’t hesitate to put his kind down like dogs when the times comes. Just like our boys did at Fredericksburg. 😉

    Sumner’s original order called for the division of Brig. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock to support French and Hancock sent forward his brigade under Col. Samuel K. Zook behind Palmer’s. They met a similar fate. Next was his Irish Brigade under Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Meagher. By coincidence, they attacked the area defended by fellow Irishmen of Col. Robert McMillan’s 24th Georgia Infantry. One Confederate who spotted the green regimental flags approaching cried out, “Oh God, what a pity! Here comes Meagher’s fellows.” But McMillan exhorted his troops: “Give it to them now, boys! Now’s the time! Give it to them!”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg#Marye’s_Heights,_December_13

  50. Anon[671] • Disclaimer says:

    Here’s another one for the sad sack self loathing Marxist “Irishman”.

    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/videos/battle-port-republic-crisis-coaling

    The Louisiana Tigers.

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

    Unfortuntely, now only thought of as a bunch of pampered nigger football players from LSU.

  51. L.K says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    But I now see that his views on American history and culture are so completely daft and uninformed that I’m starting to wonder whether I can, in retrospect, trust any of his analysis of a culture as alien as that of the Middle East!

    Well said. My thoughts exactly.

  52. @M.Clements

    America is and only ever will be a White nation. It was founded, settled and built by whites for future generations of their own (white) genetic posterity. What is happening now is the intersection of five variables:

    1. A moral panic and mass hysteria among a certain type of mentally defective white. This has happened to whites at other times (eg, leading up to the mentioned first Civil War). The white race is uniquely evolutionarily maladaptive in being prone to these types of periodic utopian hysterias.

    2. Raging resentment on the part of post civil rights / 1960s blacks who feel betrayed because their racial nationalist community still hasn’t reached much promised equality with whites (and many are starting to suspect it never will, and for reasons having nothing to do with non-existent “racism”).

    3. Post-1965 mass immigration, which has not only revolutionarily transformed America racially, but also culturally, ideologically, and electorally. In practice this means that the Democrat Party has both been driven far to the Left as working class whites have been chased from it, and avoided suffering any of the fallout that even affected Clinton in the 90s, due to implacable minority racist bloc voting for Democrats. De-whitening America was far worse than admittedly awful totalitarian Negro integration in its ultimate effects.

    4. The insurrectionary communicative potential of the internet.

    5. The lack of work combined with taxpayer supported idleness growing out of COVID-19 quarantine measures and relief bills. Many of these protesters just want to escape sheltering in place restrictions – and being mostly stupid and evil, have nothing better to do (like reading books). BLM is an excuse to congregate socially, as well as loot other people’s goods (and harass decent people generally).

  53. @Tick Tock

    “Now in Great Britain (it really is an oxymoron isn’t it), we have massive waves of 3rd world imbeciles and criminal (oxymoron again) flooding the Country…”

    Been to Ireland lately? The changes that took 60 years in the UK have happened in 30 in the Republic.

  54. truthman says:

    We truly see the Southernization of US politics in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the reinstatement of traditional marriage, death penalty in all US states, reillegalization of gay sex, etc, oh and of course the reintroduction of the poll tax in southern state after southern state, plus of course the massive lowering of legal immigration and the completion of an East German style border wall. What planet is Cockburn living on, and is he interested in buying this bridge I have for sale.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  55. Wielgus says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Lincoln was also shot a month later. John Wilkes Booth and a few cronies were in the crowd and Booth reflected that he could have killed Lincoln then had he wished to (probably he would not have escaped, however).

  56. Wielgus says:
    @truthman

    Cockburn is picking up on some obvious contradictions in American society, a British tradition going all the way back to Samuel Johnson during the War of Independence – “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

  57. RodW says:

    As a Brit, I used to assume that Southerners would generally have the character that Cockburn ascribes to them, but recently I’ve come to understand that they’re just as woke if not more so than Northerners. In the last few weeks, I’ve lost Texan and Virginian friends over my stated belief that black lives don’t matter to blacks.

    But then the South produced a very woke president, the Jew LBJ, so perhaps it’s not so surprising.

    I used to admire how Cockburn managed to get seemingly reliable stories out of ME war zones without becoming the story himself. Now he’s just a political hack.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  58. @Fidelios Automata

    Yes- this was complete anti Trump propaganda. I got nothing informative out of Cockburn’s article. What’s his agenda? He used to write about important things. I live by Fort Drum, NY. I guess the rabid leftists will have to review the life of Mr. Drum.

  59. Hey Patrick Cockburn:

    When are you going to go after our REAL enemies — the war-mongering thieving terrorists of the Israel lobby?

    Never??

    Just as we thought.

  60. @GazaPlanet

    Of course the final objective is the obliteration of Christian iconography and the total subjugation of European Christians to Jews.

    Not only Christians…

    The final objective is the total subjugation of any surviving Whites to Jews.

  61. @RodW

    I used to admire how Cockburn managed to get seemingly reliable stories out of ME war zones without becoming the story himself. Now he’s just a political hack.

    Cockburn has the courage to put himself in the front lines of Mideastern wars.

    But he utterly lacks the courage to expose the (((sociopaths))) responsible for those wars, benefitting only the Terrorist Theocracy of Israel.

    And he’s plenty smart enough to know who they are, and what they’d likely do to him if he ever mustered the courage. So he’s content to obsequiously serve (((their anti-White agenda))).

    • Replies: @RodW
  62. Alden says:
    @vot tak

    Like Cockburn, another foreigner displaying his ignorance of American history.

  63. “Bill Clinton is coming out for school prayer…”

    If that’s what the common people want, why stop them? What does Mr Cockburn have against the common people?

    It includes a whole set of fiercely defended attitudes to women…

    They need protection.

    gun ownership…

    The South pioneered gun control. I’m sure the British did the same in Ireland, for much the same reasons. In the early 19th century, London and New York had laxer gun laws than anything seen today. They trusted the common people.

    abortion…

    Abortion is more contentious in America because, unlike in Europe, it has been taken out of democratic politics by the courts. It’s less regulated than gun ownership.

    evangelical Christianity…

    The same people who voted for FDR.

    crime and punishment…

    We think these should go together.

    affirmative action…

    Who/whom.

    …and the role of government in society.

    Let society take care of itself.

    His stand highlights the bizarre way that the US military has named its biggest bases, like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, after Confederate generals like Braxton Bragg and John Hood who fought a war to destroy the US.

    “Bizarre”? It just reflects the ambiguity that honest Americans experience about that war. Many of the arguments made by each side were made by the other a generation earlier. Hood and Bragg, whether you like it or not, were fighting for multiracialism. Lincoln was a member of the Colonization Society, even if his eventual actions betrayed and ultimately destroyed that cause.

    When America was more grown up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2013/jul/01/civil-war-gettysburg-anniversary-pictures

  64. @Angharad

    Lincoln the Crypto gutted the Constitution. The South had EVERY legal right to LEAVE. Lincoln turned Federal troops into Janissaries. He was a monster.

    He saved Dixie from suicide. How could a country without a workforce even survive? Who would feed you?

    Show us anyone on the CSA side expressing this level of wisdom:

    “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but, this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side.”

    Too bad he did the opposite of what he should have– expelling every county that was less than 90% white.

    • Replies: @Dannyboy
  65. Dannyboy says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    He saved Dixie from suicide. How could a country without a workforce even survive? Who would feed you?

    Yes Suh, for years and years leading up to Mr Lincoln’s War, those virtuous Yankees tried their best to save their recalcitrant Southern brethren from the iniquity of slavery…by importing shit-tons of Africans and growing rich in the process….lol

    [MORE]

    Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, “An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory.”

    Boston and Newport were the chief slave ports, but nearly all the New England towns — Salem, Providence, Middletown, New London — had a hand in it. In 1740, slaving interests in Newport owned or managed 150 vessels engaged in all manner of trading. In Rhode Island colony, as much as two-thirds of the merchant fleet and a similar fraction of sailors were engaged in slave traffic. The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all, at various times, derived money from the slave trade by levying duties on black imports. Tariffs on slave import in Rhode Island in 1717 and 1729 were used to repair roads and bridges.

    The 1750 revocation of the Assiento dramatically changed the slave trade yet again. The system that had been set up to stock Spanish America with thousands of Africans now needed another market. Slave ships began to steer northward. From 1750 to 1770, African slaves flooded the Northern docks. Merchants from Philadelphia, New York, and Perth Amboy began to ship large lots (100 or more) in a single trip. As a result, wholesale prices of slaves in New York fell 50% in six years.

    On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.” It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships.

    The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships. “But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.” Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80. New England thrift made the rum cheaply — production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon — and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.

    A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region’s prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it’s difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn’t tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat — and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college’s first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family’s candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown’s University Hall.

    Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

    Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  66. @Dannyboy

    Yes Suh, for years and years leading up to Mr Lincoln’s War, those virtuous Yankees tried their best to save their recalcitrant Southern brethren from the iniquity of slavery…by importing shit-tons of Africans and growing rich in the process….lol

    They were drug dealers. The question is, why did they have so much success selling inferior goods? Putting the figures from the many posters still extant into one of the online inflation calculators is mindblowing.

    This fool is willing to spend $40,000 in 2020 cash for people who only pretend to work:

    That’s the price of a 2020 Ford Mustang with several luxury add-ons. The difference is, you can actually do something with a Mustang.

    There were plenty of young Irishmen available in America by 1853. Why didn’t this clown just hire them?

    The plantation economy worked like a Ponzi scheme, or multi-level marketing. The only way to get your money back was to find a greater fool down the line.

  67. RodW says:
    @Pat Kittle

    Cockburn had the good sense not to go to the front lines and get his head cut off. He stayed where it was safe and used local stringers who could get about without being murdered. Consequently he was able to supply his readers with well-informed reports and analysis for a decade or more.

    I seem to remember that he did on occasion point at the source of all the mayhem too.

    But his days of providing value seem to be over.

    • Agree: Pat Kittle
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr