I am not a classical liberal, more of a mutant mix. but that is something else.
One:
the modern concept of nationhood goes back to the thing known as the "Peace of Westphalia" Before then, the dominant concept had the nation identified with the Monarch, etc. After, It was not so wed to the concept of personal royal property, and was a more abstract thing.
We also got things like not messing around (so much) with the internal affairs other countries, the concept of national sovereignty, etc.
Two:
the early pre-scientific concept of mankind is rather biblical, dividing human kind into the descendants of the various children of Noah, etc. Some of this reveals some cultural memories of historical events, but much of it is rather fanciful, or a dramatic re-write history. from this we get the initial division of mankind into several "races"
Note that common practice was to identify different tribal people and cultures as different races. Thus the "Irish Race" or the "German Race" or the "English Race" There is nothing technically wrong with this so long as we understand it to be a tribal identity, and recognize that there is a lot of mixing going on over the ages during wars, etc.
To this day in Europe, there is no one real "white European" identity - it is subdivided into regional and sub-regional differences, Thus in Germany we have things like Bavarians, etc not just Germans. In Europe, nationalism tends to be focused on the people.
In the United States the equivalent would be Texans vs Southerners vs New England Yankees, etc --- The different cultural regions of the country.
The identities run across the various strains of ancestry, although different regions are dominated to one degree or another by ancestry from one region or another (Scots and Irish vs English vs German)
this comes out in virulent form in Nazism. Nazism conceives of the world as a struggle between races.
Three:
As seen here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/922202212457070592.html
Nazism conceives of the world as a struggle between races.
That's not "race" in the 20c US "black/white" sense; Jews, Slavs, Britons, and so on are all "races," too.
And Nazis believe that races have certain characteristics, which are passed on through the blood; and that they are bound to some land.
There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races).
And that the strength of a race is most strongly exemplified through the untrammeled Will of its leaders.
(If you're thinking, "Wait, you just made an ideology around obeying people who don't think?" you may have spotted one of the problems.)
so the American idea of a "white race" has nothing to do with any idea of race used in Europe, or even used by the Nazis. The origins of the idea of a "white race" as used in the United States originated in the United States.
Four
Looking into the history of the very idea of a white race, we have this very detailed article via http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-262
Since the beginning of European exploration in the 15th century, voyagers called attention to the peoples they encountered, but European, American Indian, and African “races” did not exist before colonization of the so-called New World. Categories of “Christian” and “heathen” were initially most prominent, though observations also encompassed appearance, gender roles, strength, material culture, subsistence, and language. As economic interests deepened and colonies grew more powerful, classifications distinguished Europeans from “Negroes” or “Indians,” but at no point in the history of early America was there a consensus that “race” denoted bodily traits only. Rather, it was a heterogeneous compound of physical, intellectual, and moral characteristics passed on from one generation to another. While Europeans assigned blackness and African descent priority in codifying slavery, skin color was secondary to broad dismissals of the value of “savage” societies, beliefs, and behaviors in providing a legal foundation for dispossession.
“Race” originally denoted a lineage, such as a noble family or a domesticated breed, and concerns over purity of blood persisted as 18th-century Europeans applied the term—which dodged the controversial issue of whether different human groups constituted “varieties” or “species”—to describe a roughly continental distribution of peoples. Drawing upon the frameworks of scripture, natural and moral philosophy, and natural history, scholars endlessly debated whether different races shared a common ancestry, whether traits were fixed or susceptible to environmentally produced change, and whether languages or the body provided the best means to trace descent. Racial theorization boomed in the U.S. early republic, as some citizens found dispossession and slavery incompatible with natural-rights ideals, while others reconciled any potential contradictions through assurances that “race” was rooted in nature.
[...]
The construction of Native “savagery” provided a foil for Europeans’ conceptions of themselves as “civilized” and the justification for dispossession. Convergence of ideas of “savagery” with those of lineage, in turn, provided crucial foundations for the emergence of “race” in the 18th century.
[...]
While diverse Indians in the region might lump all whites together, only violence in the backcountry in the era of the Seven Years’ War and War for Independence (c. 1754–1795) brought motley Europeans—English, Scot-Irish, German; Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pietist—to refer to one another and to themselves as “the white people.” Those whites, increasingly, despite material and spiritual exchange between Indians and settlers, insisted that Indians were inherently savage. Some settlers understood them to be analogous to “the Canaanites, who by God’s commandment were to be destroyed,” according to the Moravian missionary John Heckewelder, while others “maintained, that to kill an Indian, was the same as killing a bear or a buffalo.”
[...]
So overall, the history of the concept of the "white race" as such is uniquely american, and has an extensive and complex history. It gets complicated.
Five
Given all of the above. what does "White Nationalism" mean today?
To over-simplify this since we already have a wall of text . . .
The white identity was a major component of the Confederate Identity. In deed white nationalists often parade to this day the flag of a failed state: the confederacy. The confederacy was a nation that died in its birth.
White Nationalism draws upon the romance of a white washed memory of a white nation as a justification of their superior status. This is basking in the glories of the fading light cast by the embers of what was the Confederacy.
Thus we have something that
- uses a bad understanding of race, different that was used in Europe (even by the Nazis!)
- uses a definition of race that developed over time to justify the crime of slavery
- uses a bad history that excuses the criminal system of slavery as it once existed.
- promotes feelings of superiority based on something your ancestors may have done that you consider admirable.
- Promotes success through a sort of a caste system, through the process of keeping other people down, or "in their place"
so the thing
- promotes feelings of superiority based on something your ancestors may have done that you consider admirable.
is not so bad, depending on the deeds in question.
But the rest is basically foundations for a broken philosophy based on bad facts, bad history, and the establishment of a sort of caste system.
The American revolution was fought to get rid of the use of Nobility, titles, foreign interference, etc The principles of the Declaration include the phrase "all men are created equal"
The idea of White Nationalism ultimately rests on an idea that is against the most basic principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Six
It's actually kind of sad, really
Your Mileage May Vary
As promised, I am just now getting to this. I am impressed - and I will read every word after I make it home from work this evening. Thank you for the answer.
Okay - there's a lot to read here. I've been ripping little pieces of it off today and digesting them slowly between my work and I find myself in a strange place of neither disagreeing with you, nor completely agreeing with all of your points. Admittedly, there's a lot of context here that I didn't have before I asked the question, and I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to answer.
It may help a bit if I share where I'm coming from. I identify as being from the state I hail from originally, then as an American, and then as a white dude, in that order, pretty much. I don't take pride in really any of it but being American, though - I would rather be an American than any other nationality. I'm a classical liberal for the most part - I lean a little bit to the right these days...voted Republican for the first time ever in 2016. Honestly not sure if I'll do it again. The point, though, is the fact that I am white and I am a proud American makes me, by definition, a "White Nationalist".
As I understand it, America was founded by a bunch of pissed off white dudes who were sick of the latest-numbered monarch of England and decided that they'd have a go of it over here. England didn't like this idea, so we beat the snot of each other for a while until they decided that it was too much of a pain in the ass and left to Canada. Then, again as I understand it, we kicked all of the indigenous people off of their land, moved in, renamed a lot of stuff but kept some of the stuff named the same, and then got in touch with the Arabs and had them sell us a bunch of African slaves (that they got from the Jews, who in turn got them from the slaves' own people), which we treated like shit. Then, we kind of reluctantly let them go, and we offered to send them back home for free but no one went, so we said, okay, you can stay here, but we're not going to be super cool about it. You can't, like, vote or any of that shit. Meanwhile, the indigenous people opened a bunch of casinos and all became alcoholics.
So far, I see a fair bit to cringe about, for sure. We were an imperialistic, conquering-ass people, make no mistake, and we didn't really care who we ran roughshod over. But man alive, did we get shit done! Any problem is completely solvable if you're willing to throw enough brown people, or yellow people, or black people at it. Need a railroad? Blam! Sorry about your dead Chinamen, btw. I suspect that the Founding Fathers didn't actually see these folks as people, so that made it okay.
To be perfectly clear, though, I do not feel even remotely responsible for any of this. Not even a little guilty, either. I have my own issues to deal with, just like everyone else - I have mouths to feed, a roof to provide, etc, etc - I'm busy, and most of it is doing shit I really, really don't want to do. So I'm pretty bitter most of the time - and I have to bust my ass for what little I have (and it's precious little). When I see an article that says something like "White people suck, and here's 7 reasons why", I don't read it and think to myself "Oh, geez, I should do better" - I get LIVID. When I hear Bernie say shit like "White people don't know what it's like to be poor" literally right after I spent hours upon hours traveling and standing in line so I could see the back of his head for 2 seconds, I don't say to myself "Oh, what a privileged life I've led" - I wonder out loud how many times he's had to eat tomato soup made out of stolen ketchup packets and hot water, or how many nights he slept under a viaduct. When I see people screaming online that white people need to "give them everything", I don't immediately pull out my wallet and start frantically typing in my debit card number - I ask myself what they have personally done for ME. And then I put my wallet away, because who in the fuck sends money to people who demand it online?
I think what we're seeing isn't anything more than a normal response to a people who, while they may not have much in common with one another outside of their skin color, can all agree that they are sick and tired of everyone else bitching at them for everything. I don't have the bandwidth to ponder shit that happened 200 years ago...or even really 2 hours ago. I imagine lots of other white folks are in the same boat. Hell, I bet LOTS of Americans of all colors are in the same boat. But the constant media affront is taking a toll on white folks - white suicide is way up for folks in my demographic, and there are people who are happy about this! Gleeful, even. To say that there's not a coordinated attack on white people right now is silly.
My proposed solution to these individuals: stop writing articles blaming white people for everything. Stop kicking them out of college campuses. Stop laughing at them when they kill themselves. Stop getting revenge. Start talking to them. Or there's going to be a war. :(
As I understand it, America was founded by a bunch of pissed off white dudes who were sick of the latest-numbered monarch of England and decided that they'd have a go of it over here. England didn't like this idea, so we beat the snot of each other for a while until they decided that it was too much of a pain in the ass and left to Canada. Then, again as I understand it, we kicked all of the indigenous people off of their land, moved in, renamed a lot of stuff but kept some of the stuff named the same, and then got in touch with the Arabs and had them sell us a bunch of African slaves (that they got from the Jews, who in turn got them from the slaves' own people), which we treated like shit. Then, we kind of reluctantly let them go, and we offered to send them back home for free but no one went, so we said, okay, you can stay here, but we're not going to be super cool about it. You can't, like, vote or any of that shit. Meanwhile, the indigenous people opened a bunch of casinos and all became alcoholics.
several points here that might be interesting.
Part of the situation for the revolution is the idea that people didn't give up being British when they came to the colonies, but then the mother country started treating then like their British rights did not matter so much. so they got pissed.
The extra taxes were to pay for the cost of the French and Indian wars about two decades before the revolution. And the attitudes of many in the mother land was something along the line of "we spend all this money to defend them, and now they won't chip in? how rude!"
George Washington had a weird role through all of this.
The War before the Revolution started because on an international incident in Ohio, featuring a young officer, named, you guessed it, George Washington
On March 15, 1754, Governor Dinwiddie commissioned Washington Lieutenant Colonel in the newly formed Virginia Regiment at age 22 and sent him to confront French forces at Pittsburgh. Dindwiddie ordered Washington to capture or kill those who resisted British control of the region.[41] He set out on April 2 with 150 men, and received news en route that a French force had driven out colonial traders and begun construction of Fort Duquesne. Half-King Tanacharison and a few warriors discovered a small detachment of French troops east of Uniontown, Pennsylvania, led by Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, so Washington built an entrenched camp at Great Meadows, which he called Fort Necessity. He then led his unit and their Mingo (Iroquois) allies in an ambush against the French on May 28 in the brief Battle of Jumonville Glen.[39] Jumonville was killed, and most of his party taken prisoner or killed; for this battle, Tanacharison gave Washington the name Conotocaurius ("Town Destroyer").[43]
In July 1754, the French responded by attacking the fort in the ten-hour Battle of Fort Necessity, which ended in Washington's only surrender after he had signed a surrender document which, when translated, stated that Washington had "assassinated" Jumonville (rather than killing him in battle); this mistranslated document became the pretext to blame him for starting a war.[44] Modern historian Joseph Ellis concludes that the episode demonstrated Washington's bravery and initiative, as well as his inexperience and impetuosity.
So everything that followed (the Revolution, etc) more or less followed out of the war that started because Washington made a mistake.
While is it entirely possible that some jews owned ships that bought and sold slave, there has been a major project to track and trace all available information for every slave voyage every made. Ship owners, captains, itineraries, etc.
And honestly I cannot find any jews. It is more likely in my mind that they might have be the general purpose bankers when people came to them for loans to to finance voyages. (but note, they had been expelled from Spain in 1492, the year Colombus sailed for the New World. So they would not be doing business in spain as it was)
you can see the database online here:
For example in north america, etc we have the Royal African Company. The Royal African Company was an English trading company set up by the Royal Stuart family and City of London merchants to trade along the west coast of Africa. They were definitely not Jewish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company
Also of Interest are the Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_pirates
most Jewish pirates were Sephardim who operated in the years following the Alhambra Decree ordering the expulsion of Iberia's Jews. Upon fleeing Spain and Portugal, some of these Jews became pirates and turned to attacking the Catholic Empire's shipping as both barbary corsairs from their refuge in the Ottoman dominions, as well as privateers bearing letters of marque from Spanish rivals such as the United Netherlands.
Many Jews also were involved in backing Spanish-attacking privateers economically. They viewed this campaign to be a profitable strategy of revenge for their expulsion and the Inquisition's continued religious persecution of their Jewish and converso brethren in both the Old and New Worlds.
So they specifically fought against the Spanish, etc. and so would not be interested in helping the Spanish make a profit by selling their slaves.
but as later British subjects, some of the pirates certainly did
Please explain to me what the issue is exactly with white nationalism. What exactly is white nationalism to you? You're a classical liberal, if I recall correctly?
Please also do this without being patronizing, condescending, or assuming that such an explanation is so basic and simple that it's beneath you - unfortunately, this is the response I typically get when I ask. I suspect I'll get a better response here than on Voat or CA, which is why I asked.
I'll let you or whoever else answer first before I chime in with my two cents. It may take a minute...I don't always remember to check in here. :p