You know, you can treat people equally under the law without marrying them, right?
Why would anyone disapprove of interracial marriage if they weren't racialist? This is an embarrassing and desperate attempt at damage control.
Also, the founding fathers were greatly concerned with Germanism plaguing America... which is something you embody.
I'm not even German, though I appreciate you making an allowance for essentialism when you want to attack (a specific ethnicity of) white people, like the good little liberal you are.
Why would anyone disapprove of interracial marriage if they weren't racialist? This is an embarrassing and desperate attempt at damage control.
You assume that most people were racial ideologues like yourself. Most of them weren't and just wanted to focus on having families with people they were already culturally similar to, and geographically near. Considering settler populations would have been culturally very distinct, Poles and Anglos marrying would have been odd. But it never really stopped American pioneers from hooking up with Indian Squaws and freed slaves.
Your perspective is that most Americans always had a strict racial-socialist ordering in mind for all of society. They didn't. Racial socialism is odd, even for bigots. Of all the actual racists I've met in real life, absolutely none of them were white nationalists, white supremacists, or racialist ideologues.
I'm not even German, though I appreciate you making an allowance for essentialism when you want to attack (a specific ethnicity of) white people, like the good little liberal you are.
You espouse a worse form of Germanism than the Hessians ever could have. And again, it's not the essential nature of a Germanic Volk. It's a culture that Germans who were bastardized by the 30 years war and conquered by Prussia end up resorting to, aiming towards collectivism, rather than supporting individualism and liberty in a society. It's the essence of a cultural difference. That's why American germans helped us firebomb German cities, rather than join the German-American Bund. They found National Socialist Germany so utterly repulsive that it's destruction was necessary.
They may have gone a little over-board, but we can argue about whether Germans are better off dead than Socialist. The long term damage of Socialism is worse than firebombing, I'd say.
Do I have to trot out the 1790 and 1920s immigration laws for you yet again?
Also, "colorblinded" people like you are the ideologues. Group-level differences are just the truth. Acknowledging them isn't ideological. Denying them is.
muh socialism muh socialism muh socialism
Could you make it more obvious that your playbook is all about assigning negative labels to my beliefs rather than engaging them substantively?
Also, "colorblinded" people like you are the ideologues. Group-level differences are just the truth. Acknowledging them isn't ideological. Denying them is.
I never said that group level differences don't exist. You're constructing a strawman.
And yes, I'm an American ideologue. The United States is a propositional nation built on a Liberal Revolutionary philosophy. Not a racial one, not even an ethnic one. That's the fundamental basis of what the American Experiment is. The Americans are not an English people, they are not Anglo-Saxons, and they stopped being Anglo-Saxons the moment they declared their independence. Fundamentally, it was a realization that the English couldn't actually live up to the standards of liberty they had set for themselves, and and didn't really want to. So the American Experiment was to see if you could build a nation on the idea of a Liberty built around a Lockean perspective.
All you are able to do is build upon the concerns that people had about who could perpetuate a Liberal Federal Republic. The first obvious answer was protestant anglos, but the next question was without a unifying religion, crown, or ethnic base (since the US was already multi-ethnic even in 1775) could a nation built on ideology survive. The answer has since been uncategorically: yes. Originally the concerns were whether indians, germans, catholics, irish, and freed blacks could actually replicate what is effectively summarized as "the protestant work ethic". In each case, despite the efforts of racial progressives like yourself, each population that adopted American values integrated without issue. Balkanizing each group and preventing them from integrating into America is what perpetually caused problems, because as you balkanize and divide people for your own political purposes; they are unable to unify along the uniform American proposition on individual liberty, because you keep demanding a focus on collectivism.
You know, you can treat people equally under the law without marrying them, right?
Also, the founding fathers were greatly concerned with Germanism plaguing America... which is something you embody.
Why would anyone disapprove of interracial marriage if they weren't racialist? This is an embarrassing and desperate attempt at damage control.
I'm not even German, though I appreciate you making an allowance for essentialism when you want to attack (a specific ethnicity of) white people, like the good little liberal you are.
You assume that most people were racial ideologues like yourself. Most of them weren't and just wanted to focus on having families with people they were already culturally similar to, and geographically near. Considering settler populations would have been culturally very distinct, Poles and Anglos marrying would have been odd. But it never really stopped American pioneers from hooking up with Indian Squaws and freed slaves.
Your perspective is that most Americans always had a strict racial-socialist ordering in mind for all of society. They didn't. Racial socialism is odd, even for bigots. Of all the actual racists I've met in real life, absolutely none of them were white nationalists, white supremacists, or racialist ideologues.
You espouse a worse form of Germanism than the Hessians ever could have. And again, it's not the essential nature of a Germanic Volk. It's a culture that Germans who were bastardized by the 30 years war and conquered by Prussia end up resorting to, aiming towards collectivism, rather than supporting individualism and liberty in a society. It's the essence of a cultural difference. That's why American germans helped us firebomb German cities, rather than join the German-American Bund. They found National Socialist Germany so utterly repulsive that it's destruction was necessary.
They may have gone a little over-board, but we can argue about whether Germans are better off dead than Socialist. The long term damage of Socialism is worse than firebombing, I'd say.
Do I have to trot out the 1790 and 1920s immigration laws for you yet again?
Also, "colorblinded" people like you are the ideologues. Group-level differences are just the truth. Acknowledging them isn't ideological. Denying them is.
Could you make it more obvious that your playbook is all about assigning negative labels to my beliefs rather than engaging them substantively?
I never said that group level differences don't exist. You're constructing a strawman.
And yes, I'm an American ideologue. The United States is a propositional nation built on a Liberal Revolutionary philosophy. Not a racial one, not even an ethnic one. That's the fundamental basis of what the American Experiment is. The Americans are not an English people, they are not Anglo-Saxons, and they stopped being Anglo-Saxons the moment they declared their independence. Fundamentally, it was a realization that the English couldn't actually live up to the standards of liberty they had set for themselves, and and didn't really want to. So the American Experiment was to see if you could build a nation on the idea of a Liberty built around a Lockean perspective.
All you are able to do is build upon the concerns that people had about who could perpetuate a Liberal Federal Republic. The first obvious answer was protestant anglos, but the next question was without a unifying religion, crown, or ethnic base (since the US was already multi-ethnic even in 1775) could a nation built on ideology survive. The answer has since been uncategorically: yes. Originally the concerns were whether indians, germans, catholics, irish, and freed blacks could actually replicate what is effectively summarized as "the protestant work ethic". In each case, despite the efforts of racial progressives like yourself, each population that adopted American values integrated without issue. Balkanizing each group and preventing them from integrating into America is what perpetually caused problems, because as you balkanize and divide people for your own political purposes; they are unable to unify along the uniform American proposition on individual liberty, because you keep demanding a focus on collectivism.