A few months ago, I responded to IM-1776’s discussion on America’s national identity. I argued the two participants—Lafayette Lee and Darryl Cooper—were too dismissive of white identity and too bullish on localism.
I got the chance to fully discuss the matter with the two and Benjamin Roberts. Here’s a snippet of the conversation:
Lafayette Lee: In our recent dialogue, Darryl Cooper and I explore American identity and ethnogenesis. We both found ourselves agreeing that the civic nationalism of our parents and grandparents is inadequate to provide meaning and sustain identity, but we also shared doubts that racial identitarianism could be a viable alternative. In the end, we arrived at a third way, emphasizing the uniqueness of American civilization, our sectional character, and our capacity to reinvent ourselves. In a response, you [Scott] wrote that “what lies ahead for the historic American nation is deciding between acceptance of the new multiracial model or embracing the racial foundation to its identity,” and that “there isn’t a third way out of this problem.” I think we can all agree that the 20th-century regime is dying, and with it goes the civic nationalism of an earlier generation. But is restoring the nation’s racial foundations required? Is that even realistic?
Scott Greer: I think it’s unrealistic to expect a colorblind national identity to thrive in a minority-white America. America is great because of the people who made it. Those people were whites with an Anglo-Protestant culture. Much of the Left understands this when they denounce America for its “whiteness” – the Left’s use of “whiteness” by the way. Whiteness refers to the way that whites, our customs, our culture, and our beliefs operate as the national standard. The Left sees this fact as an abomination. I see this as a great testament to our unique civilization and its contributions, and in turn what we should preserve.
The Left’s criticisms exhibit a clear understanding of the racial character of America. The Right shies away from this because of the great taboo around a positive white identity. Generations of whites have been taught to wince at this subject. Only hillbillies and other uncouth types would talk about being white. Respectable white people don’t see race. But even the old civic nationalism relied on an implicit understanding of the fundamental character of America. As the Left notices, it was a celebration of dead white men and their culture. Whites wouldn’t recognize this because we don’t see the Founding Fathers through a racial angle. We see them as deracialized individuals (which is a caricature of the ahistorical, liberal ideal; Locke and Jefferson obviously wouldn’t have seen themselves in that regard); but to non-whites, their whiteness is very apparent.
Civic nationalism thrived in a nation that was majority white. We could pretend race doesn’t exist and we’re all just individuals. Our history still glorified white men and Anglo-Protestant culture. It only made sure not to draw a racial conclusions. The values of, and ideas, of America were certainly prioritized over the founding stock of America in the telling of civic nationalists. But outsiders could still see the racial character of it all. Civic nationalism still posited whites as the generic Americans. That’s why the Left can’t resist an explicitly racial understanding of America. The DEI apparatchiks see whiteness as fundamental to the nation – and want to wipe it out. Leftists understand that they can mold a new country into the image they want if whiteness is dethroned.
Many normal white Americans would prefer we return to colorblindness or some other race neutral identity. But that’s unlikely to happen. Colorblindness is a luxury of a nation with an established, solidly positioned, yet tolerant majority. This is not America in 2024. We’re quickly heading towards a future without a racial majority. Non-whites, raised up on anti-white history, will bitterly resent the honors afforded dead white men and the relative prosperity of whites. They will cling to their racial and ethnic identities to distinguish themselves from the shallow consumer culture of the mainstream. Colorblindness doesn’t appeal to them. Colorblindness really only appeals to whites. They will prefer anti-whiteness.
This is a conflict being imposed on white America. It may not make for the best campaign message. It probably will discomfort a lot of middle Americans. And it will certainly invite attacks from the establishment. But it’s necessary to stand up for the truth. Whiteness is fundamental to America. Without it, it’s no longer America.
Read the rest of the discussion here. It’s a great one.
“Non-whites, raised up on anti-white history, will bitterly resent the honors afforded dead white men and the relative prosperity of whites. They will cling to their racial and ethnic identities to distinguish themselves from the shallow consumer culture of the mainstream. Colorblindness doesn’t appeal to them. Colorblindness really only appeals to whites. They will prefer anti-whiteness.”
It sounds like you’re arguing (contra Hanania) that some form of Balkanization is our destiny. But I think that Hanania is correct that this is mainly a black issue. Also, why would Balkanized groups overcome their differences to gang up on whites?
I wish there was a video!