1825: When the US South Was Not Yet White

Repost from the old site.
Most people take it as a given that the USA as a nation and society is and always has been basically White, even mostly British or Northern European White. We have only to look at the authors of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration of Independence to see that all of them where White. And as the Christian fundamentalists love to remind us, they were all “Christians” too. Too bad most of them were actually Deists.
It’s true since 1830 or so (see 1830 census figures Excel, pdf ), this has been a majority-White land, and that is the picture most people’s memory and cultural knowledge of this country gives them.
But Whites have only been here a short while, and we were immigrants, or actually invaders at first, ourselves. Previously, this land was inhabited 100% by Amerindians, a race close to Northeast Asians. Before this was even a nation, huge numbers of Black slaves were imported to this land, such that most Black lineages in the US go back farther than most White lineages.
In California and the Southwest, we have even had Hispanics (almost all Mexicans) living here before those states were even a part of the US. A Filipino was part of the party that founded Los Angeles before California was even a state. He got sick in Baja and ended up staying there, but he was still present on the voyage. See below where many more Filipinos were already in this country even before 1781.
On the eve of the Gold Rush, there were a mere 1,000 Chinese in the US. Only seven of them were in California. But within a year of becoming a state, California was full of East Indians (Hindoos), Samoans/Hawaiians, Mexicans and other Pacific Islanders (Kanakas) and Chinese, all come for the Gold Rush.
By 1852, there were 25,000 Chinese alone in California. All of these groups stayed on through the whole decades-long Gold Rush and afterwards remained here as residents in the US.
So are West Africans, as this is where many of the American slaves came from. There was a Filipino settlement in St. Malo, Louisiana, in 1763, before the US was even formed. The first Chinese immigrants came to the US in 1820, but before the Gold Rush, only 1,000 or so had arrived.
Japanese and Filipinos have been present in Hawaii in large numbers since 1890, and Koreans have been present in much smaller numbers there from 1896. Hawaii was only made into a state in 1959. Cubans have also been here a very long time. Hundreds of Cubans came to St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, over 200 years before there was a USA.
Similarly, the first Jamaicans (a party of 20) in America were already in Jamestown, the first White British colony in the US, by 1619. Further, many Jamaicans were included in slave shipments to the US since Jamaica was a way station along the way between Africa and the US.
Significant numbers – two large ships full of Chilean and Peruvian miners were in California for the Gold Rush as early as 1848. A couple of thousand Brazilian and Caribbean Blacks also came for the Gold Rush. Note that California did not become a state until 1850.
Pakistanis (people from what later became Pakistan) were in the US since the 1700’s and continuing into the 1800’s in Oregon and Washington, working in agriculture, logging and mining in California. The first known East Indian Hindu came to the US in 1790, soon after the Declaration of Independence, as a maritime worker.
Mexicans, Samoans, Blacks, Cubans, East Indians, Pakistanis, Chileans, Peruvians, Filipinos, American Indians, Canadians, Japanese, West Africans, Hawaiians, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have been here in significant, not trivial, numbers, from the very start.
They are not, as groups, wholly immigrants or foreigners to this land. They are not foreign to American culture – they are part of the very building blocks of it. Perhaps Germany, Russia, Sweden, France and most of Europe can lay claim to being predominantly White countries for centuries or millenia, but the US cannot.
On the inside back cover of a recent issue of American Heritage Magazine was a painting of the Antediluvian American South with some text below. The text took me aback. I shook my head and read it again and again and it’s stuck in my head ever since.
It said that in 1825, the US South1 was estimated to be 37% Black (almost all slaves), 25% American Indian2, and only 38% was White3. Neither the Blacks nor the Indians could vote and none were citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, but so what.
Both the US South, and the nation as a whole, were already White-minority as early as 35 years after signing of the Constitution. Take that, “White America” fools!
The White America of movies, TV, magazines, books and memories was just a temporary mirage, a ship passing in the night.
Now, as the USA moves back to becoming a White-minority land, we are not changing the basic nature, culture and essence of this nation. We just reverting to our roots.
I am not arguing for unlimited immigration to this land (In fact, I want to seriously limit it) and I am a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. Nevertheless, it angers me when White Nationalists act like this is some kind of a “White country”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
1I misremembered the text in the issue – it referred to the US South only, not the US as a whole. A look at the US Census Bureau information (Excel file here, pdf here) clears up the mystery. A 37% Black figure is apparent for Blacks in the US South.
The 25% Indian figure quoted was obviously for Amerindians in the South. Therefore, the article claimed that Whites were 38%, Blacks 37%, and Indians 25% in the US South in 1825.
Figures for the whole of the US reveal a White majority, however, if we include the Amerindians living in the Louisiana Purchase at that time (recently part of the US in 1825), we can still make a case for a non-White majority in the US. See note 3 below for more on that.
2There were numerically small numbers of Filipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, pre-Pakistanis (people from the land that would later become Pakistan), East Indians and Cubans here in 1825, but they probably added up to less than 1% of the population.
3The American Heritage figures quoted have now been called into question (see comments at the end of this post and the comments at the end of the frankly White racist American Renaissance article that linked this piece); the suggestion is that Blacks made up 19% of the US at the time, and Whites made up the rest.
The mystery is cleared up in note 1, where the magazine text referred to only the US South, not the US as a whole.
Indians were not counted in either the 1820 or 1830 censuses, and may have numbered 8 million in the US at the time (recall that the Louisiana Purchase had just been added to the nation).
Figure 12 million Indians in the US and Canada pre-contact, with 90% of those in the US (compare US and Canadian populations now for a 9-1 disparity in US versus Canadian population – a similar distribution was probably extant pre-contact). Assume 2 million Indians gone from the original population by 1825, mostly East of the Mississippi, and 2 million living in New Spain and the Oregon Territory.
This leaves us with 7 million Indians in the US in 1825. Further, runaway slaves were clearly not counted, probably 10% of the Black population. Figuring 7 million Indians, 9.2 million Whites and 2.5 million Blacks in 1825 still leaves us with a bare minority-White population in the US. The US was probably non-White majority from 1803-1825. By 1830, Whites were the majority entire nation, and have remained so ever since.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

34 thoughts on “1825: When the US South Was Not Yet White”

  1. ” Take that, “White America” fools!”
    Was this posted on AMREN a couple of years ago? I remeber this exact line and some similar claims, but I remeber it being written by some ranting black guy.
    ” Hundreds of Cubans came to St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, over 200 years before there was a USA.”
    Were these people form Cuba or Spain? Also, you imply in this article that before independence from Britain that we were not a nation when you sya that before we were a nation there were a bunch of blacks here. Yet, in this line, you imply the existence of a Cuban nation at a time which was over 300 years before they gained independence from Spain. It just seems like the typical blather that calls a guy who’s parents move to Cuba and gave birth and then move to the US a cuban while calling someone who’s ancestors have been here hundred of years an englishmen.
    Also Robert, it doesn’t matter who was where before that land became the US. If it was not part of the US yet, then it should not be included into the US population figures for that time.

  2. Now, as the USA moves back to becoming a White-minority land, we are not changing the basic nature, culture and essence of this nation. We just reverting to our roots.
    It will be Brazil dominated by the same white Hispanic assholes who drove all the lumpenstizos up here in the first place.
    Hoo boy, can’t wait.

    1. “It will be Brazil dominated by the same white Hispanic assholes who drove all the lumpenstizos up here in the first place”
      I doubt that it will be run by white hispanics, at least not outside of South Florida. The jews will be an elite group still. An of course the “anglo” elite will remain. I don;t think that the white elite is really as race unconcious as we think. They’re in to race, but they’re even more into class. I doubt that the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers are going to go anywhere soon. I think the other group will be the Indians. I do not think that East Asians will be allowed into the elite, especially not the Chinese. They may be rich, but I don’t think they’ll be let in to “high society” in the way indians will. India is emerging, but it will in no way be as important as China. China however, is and will be a major competitor and I doubt that the american elite will want them in the more influential upper ranks. It also seems that there is some non-inclusion of east asians. There is a couple of east asian news people, but it doesn’t seem as prevalent as indians. Even non-chinese cultures don’t seem to attract upper classes as much. I think that many upper class americans find indians less threatening, even if they are totally rude. For one thing, a lot are anglophilic to some degree and India was a major part of the british empire. Even without that though they seem to just not warm up to east asians, other than Tibet (which is of course used against China). You see indian doctors on CNN, Indian actors playing important roles in some new tv shows, Deepak Chopra, and of course India is the world largest democracy and a shining beacon of the future. Other than a few translations of east asian literature by penguin(which is british), all most hear of east asian culture is anime. Even chinese food doesn’t seem to get attention as a sort of high quality food that indian food gets. It is largely just seen as something that chinese people tyring to get into the middle class make for middle and lower class consumers. East asia seems to get shit on a lot. China and North Korea are unredeemable totalitarian states who are mass murderers, Koreans eat dog, and apparently the japanese are only good for bukake and hentai(anime porn). Vietnam is the jungle where american soldiers go to die and you can get a wife cheap from the Phillipines. And of course east asian women are hypersubmissive women who all love giving head. It seems that the average east asian is seen by most as a dork scientist with a small penis or the chink* who stocks the buffet at the Eat First Garden. Maybe I’m just not in the loop or am not as into the scene as many others, but I just don’t think that these people will be admitted the same way indians seem to be being “admitted to the club”. Anyone else have an opinion?
      * used sardonically

      1. I guess I’m thinking more on a local/state level – since Hispanics tend to run their own candidates as soon as there are enough of them in an area.
        You’re right, I don’t think the real elite will change much at all.

  3. Wade, it’s true East Asians are the one nonwhite group that gets pissed on by the kike establishment. I guess it’s something to be proud of. We’re the one group that is proud and defiant enough that we can’t be digested into this rotten decadent piece of shit country. Fuck the Indians. No matter how many curry-munchers are doing well here, India will always be a subhuman cesspool filled with Australoid savages.

    1. “Fuck the Indians”
      The pro-india fetish really mystifies me. I can somewhat understand the British Commonwealth as they were in the same empire as India and share a small bit of history. They Indophilia in America really mystifies me. Historically, we seem to have more contact with China and the rest of East Asia. I know that out west the East Asians were not well liked much of the time, but I think that would go for many people other than the East Asians. Maybe the 20th conflicts really turned the US against East Asia. In the early 20th century we fought a brutal war to suppress the Phillipines after freeing them from Spain. We won, but the war was extremely brutal. Many view it as the first time the US became an imperial power. However, it was really that way from the begining if you ask the native americans and native hawai’ians. The annexation was also opposed by some on the grounds that it may lead to race mixing. Later came WWII and the evil jap propaganda. Then Korean War where we went back and forth and then China intervened. After that Vietnam. Richard Nixon did reach out to China, but that was largely to get at the Soveit Union. I think the one of the largest reasons is that the East Asia has been one of the few areas that, for several reasons, the western powers haven’t been able to dominate to some degree. Western powers never conquered Saudi Arabia, but that was probably becasue without knowledge fo the massive oil deposits it wasn;t really worth conquering. The west never totally conquered Turkey either. Russia would have, but Britain and France kept helping those pieces of shit. It’s too bad too. Fuck Turkey. Back on topic, Japan was the first country to beat a white power in a major war in the modern age (Russo-Japanese war). Even though russia certainly wasn’t the most advanced power at the time. The they kicked out asses throughout the first half of WWII. Then they were going to take down our economy in the 1980s. Now China has begun to challenge the western powers. It all seems to be part of the “yellow peril” that Lothrop Stoddard talked about.
      Also, I think that zionists see hindus as allies against the muslims, whereas east asia doesn’t seem to be a place that will get involved in their anti-islamic crusade. China even allies itself with Pakistan.
      Personally, I think that the western powers need to come to terms with east asia. I don’t think that East Asia has to be an enemy of the western coutries, at least not Europe (outside of Britain). Both are areas of great culture and achievement. The Europeans could also learn a lesson about not kissing jew ass from China. Europe has greater enemies like Turkey and the Jewnited States. They should try to turn East Asia into a friend and partner against the jewnited States. I think the US for sure will have a major run in in East Asia if the Chinese don’t settle down and become jewpawns. The US is almost hopeless, but we must at least try to change it.

      1. FP3YP
        stop calling yourself a victim. It’s tired and overused. East Asians (at least the ones in the US) are not getting shit on by jews.

  4. What’s ironic is that without China’s financial support, the Jewnited States would collapse like a house of cards. So the kikes and Anlgo-scum can keep on laughing.

  5. @Wade
    The Amerikwan view of Asians seems to be bipolar. First, we are effeminate, small-dicked nerds to be mocked. Later, they are the most fierce, brutal competitors to Anglo-Jew societies. Genghis Khan and the Mongols are still portrayed as nothing but a bunch of yellow rapists, murderers and plunderers. Arabs and Slavs are also two other groups that it’s okay to bash in this country. I guess all the best peoples are hated, while the scum of the Earth are exalted: niggers, kikes etc.

    1. “Genghis Khan and the Mongols are still portrayed as nothing but a bunch of yellow rapists, murderers and plunderers”
      Well, the Mongol Empire did have many positives, but there was a large element of violence. I think there is to some degree with every empire. There was a book a few years ago that did say a lot of good things about Genghis Kahn and his influence on the world. Part of it talks about the positive reaction that they got in some parts of Europe and China.
      http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1296031150&sr=8-3

  6. I guess you could say that Hitler’s alliance with Japan represented an early version of an alliance between continental Europe and East Asia against the Judeo-plutocracy that you just mentioned.

    1. “I guess you could say that Hitler’s alliance with Japan represented an early version of an alliance between continental Europe and East Asia against the Judeo-plutocracy that you just mentioned.”
      Maybe, but I really don’t like Hitler. He also allied himself with a bunch of camelfuckers and frankly I don’t think Nazism would have been good for Europe. On the Muslim/jew question I really don’t care who wins. I just don’t want them to move here.
      Also, before allying itself with Germany, Japan allied itself with Britian, so maybe we should always look to the past.

  7. “Arabs and Slavs are also two other groups that it’s okay to bash in this country.”
    It’s also okay to bash Germans (nazis), French people (fags), Greeks (pederasts), and pretty any european nationality that is not British. As far as Arabs go, I really don’t care about them. Are they unfairly targeted sometimes? Sure, but I’m still against them. However, I usually support them against the US. It’s their historical activites (attacks on Europe, Ethiopia, and any part of christendom that didn’t want to throw on a burqa and fuck a camel. I guess arab christians aren’t that bad) that make them bad. I think we need to bash turks more in this country though. I don’t mean bash as in make fun of. I mean bash as in bash their brains in.

  8. What do you make of the Kurds? Supposedly, they are being oppressed by the Turks and the Levantine Arabs. I think it’s quite revealing that Jews view even their closest ethnic kin (Levantine Arabs) as subhumans to dominate and murder. If that’s how they treat their fellow Semites, there’s no point wondering how they view and wish to treat others.

    1. “What do you make of the Kurds?”
      Well, I think it sucks when any language or culture is being threatend with extinction. However, the Kurds we major players in the Armenian Genocide. The were told by the turks that if they killed them then they could take their land. I think that they were also involved in attacks on the Assyrians. Honestly, I hope Turkey falls apart, but I doubt that it will happen. It almost happened a few time between 1700 and 1900. The British and French were constantly propping the Ottoman Empire up in the east to block Russia from the Meditteranean. The knew full well what kind of people the turks were and that they were the enemies of european civilization, yet they still supported them because of their extreme greed and lust for power. After they faded, America began to take up the turk-lover mantle. However, there is some hope. It seems that since the flotilla incident last year Turkey and Israel (and therefore many influential lobbyists in Washington) have had somewhat of a falling out. I know that China is friends with Russia and Serbia so I don’t think that they too close to Turkey, but I’m not totally sure.
      “I think it’s quite revealing that Jews view even their closest ethnic kin (Levantine Arabs) as subhumans to dominate and murder”
      Yes it is, but it really shouldn’t be surprising. When a main part of your mythology involves raining sulfur down on a neighboring country it probably is not a good sign.
      What really angers me is when people call post invasion Iraq “the first arab democracy”. It wasn’t. Lebanon was. The one really good thing about Israel is that they kill a lot of muslims. Otherwise they’re shit.

      1. he one really good thing about Israel is that they kill a lot of muslims.
        No, I disagree
        One of the main reasons why Muslims hate/attack the U.S. is because of our support for Israel, which angers the Muslims world by, well, killing Muslims.
        Personally, I wouldn’t mind Israel if it weren’t for the fact that American Jews keep fucking up our foreign/domestic policy on behalf of them.

        1. “One of the main reasons why Muslims hate/attack the U.S. is because of our support for Israel, which angers the Muslims world by, well, killing Muslims.”
          Israel killing muslims is independent of it’s US support. If the US didn’t support Israel, it would still probably kill a lot of muslims. In fact, if the US didn’t use revocation of aid to restrain it sometimes, it might kill even more.
          Also, one of the good things about muslims is that they kill a decent number of jews.

        2. Also, one of the good things about muslims is that they kill a decent number of jews.

          Hey just let the Semites kill each other off! 🙂

  9. As far as the rabid anti-Americanism (and anti-Britishism) goes, I think you types don’t have a very nuanced view of American history. “It seems all the problems in the world today revolve around America,” you say. Well of course, we’re the dominant power now; I’m sure that around say, AD 400 all of Europe’s problems revolved around Rome.
    We’ve become decadent now just like Rome eventually did; but don’t be surprised if the fall of America heralds another dark age like the fall of Rome.
    America has had one of the most impressive anti-imperial cultures in history. Even today the American empire only exists because most Americans are brainwashed into thinking it doesn’t; if they knew, they’d be too uncomfortable with it to allow its continuation. Some of our founding fathers didn’t even believe in a standing army, and at the outbreak of WWI we barely made it into the list of the 20 largest militaries in the world– though considering our economic prowess even then, we could have been a world class military empire already had we chosen that path.
    Before things heated up again after WWI, we were encouraging disarmament and actually following through with it- setting an example by reducing the size of our military, navy etc.
    Whoever was responsible for WWI and II, it certainly wasn’t America (maybe we provoked the Japs a little but they didn’t need much provoking). We didn’t enter the first one until the Germans stupidly insisted on their submarine warfare (that was short term effective but in the grand scheme a catastrophe), and their ambassador stupidly sent his telegram proposing a potential Mexican-German military alliance to retake the US southwest. WWII we didn’t enter until after Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war. The stupid European and Asian catastrophic failures– not American– of policy are what caused the tragedies of WWI and II, the most tragic, barbaric and disgusting events of the 20th century, perhaps all history.
    The Japanese created a mess in Asia, the Nazis in Europe, and were so arrogant that they didn’t really worry about waking the sleeping giant, America– but in fact voluntarily chose us as their enemy. Once this happened we had little choice but to crush them completely. But even “crush them completely,” for us wasn’t as bad as what was normal for their policy. And as a near inevitable consequence is we have been permanently stuck with an ineradicable military-industrial complex and been practically forced into the role of a world power.
    As far as mistakes in our imperial policy, yes they’re there. But what other counterfactual hypothetical scenarios are within the realm of possibility? Nazi dominated Europe, Soviet dominated Europe-Eurasia, Japanese dominated Asia– all regimes which behaved much worse than the US at its moments of greatest shame.
    Say what you will, but since Americans have been stewards of the world we haven’t had a repeat of WWI or II, we’ve done a lot better than the European and Jap stewards of the early 20th century.

    1. “We’ve become decadent now just like Rome eventually did; but don’t be surprised if the fall of America heralds another dark age like the fall of Rome.”
      If you really want to believe that the germanic invasions were the cause of some “Dark Ages” then that’s you’re prerpgative, but I don’t believe it. First, I don;t beleive that the germanic invasions were really the cause of the terrible destruction that we’re lead to believe. Second, I don’t believe that it is fair to call the centuries after “dark”. Third, I think that what we call “Middle Ages” were essential to much of what is good in our current times. Roman civilization continued in the east. The eastern Roman Empire was quite rich and powerful at times in the centures after the fall of the west, but it did not produce anything that would lead to what we call “modern civiliation”.
      If the US were to disintegrate then there may be massive upheavals in North America, but the effect overseas would be less drastic. If america would instead just reigned in and the greedy rich parasites lost their power that would be much better.
      “America has had one of the most impressive anti-imperial cultures in history”
      No it hasn’t. Americans like to make anti-imperial claims, but their always hypocritical and self-interested. Americans proclaimed that all men are created equal and then spent decades enslving blacks only emancipating them so that they could live under Jim Crow. The talk about self rule on one hand and then conquer, slaughter, and steal from American Indians on another. Americans regularly are involved in imperialism under the guise of “human rights”, “democracy”, or my favorite, anti-imperial imperialism (to use a phrase from british neocon Niall Ferguson). American anti-imperialism meant throwing out elected leaders in Chile and Guatemala who didn’t want to kiss american ass. It meant inserting the Platt Amendment into the Cuban Constitution after the Spanish-American War and claiming that we liberated Cuba despite the fact that almost every historian who has studied the period thinks that Cuba was extremely close to independence when we entered the conflict and would have won their independence without us. I could go on but you should be able to get the point…
      ” and at the outbreak of WWI we barely made it into the list of the 20 largest militaries in the world”
      Do you have a source for that? Also, you can’t just refer to number, but also to modernity. Either way the US had no problem invading countries all over the Carribean and of course occupying the Phillipines during the period.
      “We didn’t enter the first one until the Germans stupidly insisted on their submarine warfare ”
      Oh yes, they should have just let the British starve out their population.
      Also, the idea that something like the Lusitania is a reason to go to war is complete nonsense. A british ship going thourgh and area that Britain called a war zone and then getting sunk is no reason to invade a continent on the other side of the world. The fact is that Britain and anglofiles in influential positions lied to the american public.
      “their ambassador stupidly sent his telegram proposing a potential Mexican-German military alliance to retake the US southwest. ”
      Oh yes, Germany, a country that couldn’t make it across the english channel and Mexico an extremely poor country in the middle of a massive revolution were really going to take back the american southwest. Why couldn’t they throw Pershing out of their country if they were so mighty?
      “WWII we didn’t enter until after Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war”
      I guess our sending money and supplies to Germany’s enemies and supporting embargos against Japan really counts as neutrality.
      “The Japanese created a mess in Asia, the Nazis in Europe”
      One could also make the case that Britain and France had created a mess in Africa too.
      “Once this happened we had little choice but to crush them completely.”
      We didn’t crush anyone completely. The Soviets did though. Besides, Churchill could have gone for peace, but he had a bloodthirst for war.
      ” But even “crush them completely,” for us wasn’t as bad as what was normal for their policy.”
      I guess the Japanese hadn’t yet learned the humane ways of atomic radiation.
      “And as a near inevitable consequence is we have been permanently stuck with an ineradicable military-industrial complex and been practically forced into the role of a world power.”
      Did you get that one out of Commentary or National Review?
      ” all regimes which behaved much worse than the US at its moments of greatest shame”
      You think that slavery and genocide are not that bad as long as their done by the US? Typical, and kind of sick.
      ” we’ve done a lot better than the European and Jap stewards of the early 20th century”
      Not really. We’re just better at spreading american anti-culture than they were at spreading their cultures.

  10. “If you really want to believe that the germanic invasions were the cause of some “Dark Ages” then that’s you’re prerpgative, […] I think that what we call “Middle Ages” were essential to much of what is good in our current times.”

    The dark ages weren’t quite as dark as the previous consensus would have them, and many of the centuries often included in the dark ages shouldn’t; but, it’s hard to deny that there are a few centuries after Rome fell that were in most ways inferior to the previous ages. We can quibble about the specifics, but my main point is that the fall of Rome put a lot of people through a lot of suffering for a long time and set back the level of civilization in most parts of the former Roman Empire very far for quite a while. The recovery process was long, grueling and painful.
    “If the US were to disintegrate then there may be massive upheavals in North America, but the effect overseas would be less drastic. If america would instead just reigned in and the greedy rich parasites lost their power that would be much better.”
    Don’t be so sure.
    “Americans like to make anti-imperial claims, but their always hypocritical and self-interested. Americans proclaimed that all men are created equal and then spent decades enslving blacks only emancipating them so that they could live under Jim Crow. […] I could go on but you should be able to get the point…”
    I could go on and on too about how imperialism and treating minorities poorly is the norm for almost all countries at almost times. Give me your examples of countries who had the right power and circumstances to be imperial but chose not too. This is a point of comparison I was trying to make. Besides, the English and Americans, when they have been imperial, have been better than most empires in terms of human rights and economic management. Places like Barbados and Hong Kong are still benefitting from the gift of being former British colonies.
    “Do you have a source for that? Also, you can’t just refer to number, but also to modernity. Either way the US had no problem invading countries all over the Carribean and of course occupying the Phillipines during the period.”
    I read it in a history of WWI. GJ Meyer (uh oh, turn jewdar to full throttle)
    Anyways, the US imperialism of the time wasn’t as bad as relative to most imperial nations.
    “Oh yes, they should have just let the British starve out their population.
Also, the idea that something like the Lusitania is a reason to go to war is complete nonsense.”
    It’s not a fringe position that from the perspective of German self interest, submarine warfare was bad. They Germans ultimately got very little benefit from it in the long run and pushed the US closer to war.
    “Oh yes, Germany, a country that couldn’t make it across the english channel and Mexico an extremely poor country in the middle of a massive revolution were really going to take back the american southwest. Why couldn’t they throw Pershing out of their country if they were so mighty?”
    It’s not that they were “so mighty,” it’s that you can’t tolerate foreign powers rabble rousing in your neck of the woods. It’s like how you and Lindsay (if my memory serves me right) talk about the missile shield in East Europe and the whole Georgia situation as US anti-Russian imperialism. Of course Georgia and Poland pose no real threat to Russia in the sense that they might invade and conquer it, but Russian interests are involved.
    “I guess our sending money and supplies to Germany’s enemies and supporting embargos against Japan really counts as neutrality.”
    No it doesn’t but there are several important points I was trying to make.
    1. Both of these were horrendous regimes doing worse things than the US has ever done and US interests were seriously threatened– and still we held back on war for a long time.
    2. We didn’t choose war; they did. There was no reason Hitler had to declare war on us, it was his choice. The Japanese also didn’t have to attack Pearl Harbor. Our embargo was hurting them, but it wouldn’t have led to their complete demise like the war with us did.
    Bottom line: they both wanted war and they got it.
    (curiously– you still want to paint America as the warmonger)
    ““The Japanese created a mess in Asia, the Nazis in Europe”
    One could also make the case that Britain and France had created a mess in Africa too.”
    Puh-leeze. If anyone made a mess in Africa it was Belgium– but even those Congans were better of under European rule than Afro-mob rule. Africa has always been a mess, but was less of a mess under whitey rule.
    Anyhow, my original point stands.
    Also, I’ll note a pattern: you have a habit of making absolutist type judgements about America or Britain, but then going relativistic when it concerns any but America or Britain. If my point is right that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was not caused by America or Britain, but rather by the very countries you have a crush on, you deflect to something about Africa.
    Just in case you misunderstand my point and try to pull a tu quoque, I’ll note that my intention is not to make America out to be perfect, just really good relative to other key players in the 20th century. Whereas your intention seems to be constant demonization of America, and the claim that it is worse than most countries in the 20th century (and actually stretching back further than that).
    “We didn’t crush anyone completely. The Soviets did though. Besides, Churchill could have gone for peace, but he had a bloodthirst for war.”
    Yep, it was all Churchill who had a “bloodthirst,” not Hitler or Stalin.
    “I guess the Japanese hadn’t yet learned the humane ways of atomic radiation.”
    The Japanese were barbarians in that time. If they had the bomb, they would have used it. Yes, it is a stain on America’s honor to have done what we did, but it doesn’t mean we were as bad as the Japanese.
    “” all regimes which behaved much worse than the US at its moments of greatest shame”
    You think that slavery and genocide are not that bad as long as their done by the US? Typical, and kind of sick.”
    I never said the US is perfect. Just that we’ve never been as brutal as the Nazis or imperial Japs.
    “” we’ve done a lot better than the European and Jap stewards of the early 20th century”
    Not really. We’re just better at spreading american anti-culture than they were at spreading their cultures.”
    Then point out a time the US started a war that killed 40 or so million people. That’s what would make your point.

    1. “, it’s hard to deny that there are a few centuries after Rome fell that were in most ways inferior to the previous ages”
      That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was the fault of the germanic invaders. The Ostrogoths were not really all that bad in Italy. The war the Byzantines waged to get Italy back along with the masssive plague around to same time and during the next few generations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian)
      is what really fucked up the meditteranean. Also, it’s unfair to criticize the germans in the north. They were also hit by outsiders which is why they moved. North of the Med basin it makes no sense to talk about a dark age. Many of the things that declined in the med didn’t even exist further north. That’s not to say that they were primitives. Many had megaliths and other such things, but no writing. These “dark ages” saw the first instances of wiriting in languages like England and German. Some would say that they spread civilization north, but maybe it’s more correct to say that they spread some useful influences onto the beginings of civiliation that already existed there.
      “I could go on and on too about how imperialism and treating minorities poorly is the norm for almost all countries at almost times. ”
      Including the USA. We’re really no different. I’m not saying that other countries are the bees knees when it comes to imperialism. I’m just saying that America is not either.
      “Puh-leeze. If anyone made a mess in Africa it was Belgium– but even those Congans were better of under European rule than Afro-mob rule. Africa has always been a mess, but was less of a mess under whitey rule.”
      I never said Belgium didn’t. I just said that France and Britain did. As far as who was better when I really don’t care. I believe that self-determination is the best when possible. All of Africa was not always a mess. If we limit ourselves to black africa we can see Ethiopia and Somalia which had ancient and medieval civilizations. Later, ther swahili states became prominant. Great Zimbabwe was also a large center to settled life too. West africa has the Mali and Songhai empires. Granted these states may not have been as advance as some others, but then areas like Scandinavia were not always that civilized either
      “you deflect to something about Africa.”
      My point about Africa is that these countries fuck areas up too. I’m sure that if Germany and Japan had taken over decisively like Britain and France had in Africa then things may have become less combative even if many would not like the peace.
      “Places like Barbados and Hong Kong are still benefitting from the gift of being former British colonies.”
      LOL The original inhabitants of Barbados no longer exist and the ones who live there are the descendents of slaves.
      “Yep, it was all Churchill who had a “bloodthirst,” not Hitler or Stalin.”
      no one ever said that hitler or stalin weren’t blood thirsty. I’m just saying that Churchill should be included in “the club”.
      ” If they had the bomb, they would have used it”
      Sure, but we did have the bomb and we used it. We were just acting like the japanese, a group of people you have labeled barbarians.
      ” Just that we’ve never been as brutal as the Nazis or imperial Japs. ”
      Dresden? Fire bombing Japanese cities and nuking them? Wounded knee? My Lai? Abu Ghraib?
      “Then point out a time the US started a war that killed 40 or so million people”
      An unfair request as the hemisphere we’re located in has always been less densely populated than the other. Had the indians been here in greater numbers we would have had to kill even more of them to get to the Pacific.
      My point is not to say that america is uniquely bad. In fact, quite the opposite. I think that america is really not different than any other empire or state in history. We are not the root of all evil or all good in the world. America acts in it’s interest. Anything good for others that comes of that is just coincidental.

  11. Anyhow, the main point I’m trying to make is that Wade, fpy and other anti-Americans are judging America by unreasonable standards. I’m not as much of an apologist for American imperialism as I may seem, but rabid anti-Americanism brings out my patriotic side.
    In any period of history there are dominant powers. The Germans, Russians, Japanese etc. had their turns in the 20th century (even if briefly lived) to be dominant powers on, if not a world scale, a large continental or near-continental scale. Their rule was worse than US rule. Their rule lead to conflicts costing some 40 million or more lives. America has never fucked up that badly.
    Yes America has started more than a few unnecessary wars, but compared with the 20th century before American domination of the world, there has been a lot less unnecessary bloodshed. It’s not at all unreasonable to talk about a post WWII pax Americana comparable to the lauded pax Romana considering how bloody the 20th century was before American dominance.
    I don’t claim to know the future, but all you anti-Americans seem so sure that everything will be perfect and peaceful once American dominance fades. I say don’t be surprised if that turns out to be the case, but also don’t be surprised if the breakdown of American world domination leads to bloodshed on a scale not seen since WWI and II.
    Wade, fpy, etc. all anti-American bigots (and almost all, if not all Americans). They’ve got a pathological hatred of America (and Britain) that causes them to always judge America and England in the worst possible light, never give them the benefit of the doubt, and constantly compare them at their worst to other countries at their best, but never vice-versa. This also leads them to defending the indefensible (Nazis and Imperial Japan) just because they aren’t America or Britain. They seem to have more hate and negativity for America and Britain (and Jews) than they do for any real country. They’re also “nationally homeless,” i.e. they want to live in imaginary or no longer existent countries– Wade in the Holy Roman Empire or Byzantium, fpy in some sort of Neo-Nazi Russophile Korea (I guess?). But of course they’ll stay here in America, funny eh?
    lolz Wade, I actually do think you’re an okay guy overall though… just not on anti-America/Britain stuff… maybe we should unite against a common enemy– fuck the Turks!

    1. I don’t think Wade sees the United States as somehow exceptionally evil.
      You should see some of the harsh words he’s had for other nationalities/countries.
      I just think he’s weary of this whole notion of American exceptionalism.
      While I like my country, I don’t subscribe to American exceptionalism. Sound confusing? It isn’t.
      I’m an America firster, in a Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis sense. I support my country and believe its national interests come before all others.
      That being said, I recognize that my country has done a lot of bad shit, and that there’s a reason why there’s anti-American resentment in the world.
      I believe in realism and self-interest, not lofty ideals of American exceptionalism. In fact, I think American exceptionalism is very dangerous. You see it invoked to justify the invasion of Iraq (which wasn’t caused by American exceptionalism but the Israel lobby, but that’s another story), it’s used to justify the whole notion of the “credal nation” (ie. anyone can become American, so let everybody immigrate here!), etc.
      One can be an America first patriot without subscribing to American exceptionalism.

      1. Well I agree with a lot of this.
        I don’t consider myself an American exceptionalist either, and do admit America has a lot of stains upon its honor. And I actually do agree with Wade that American “culture,” today is mostly “anti-culture.”
        Where I part company is in the manner I think one should go about criticizing America when it is appropriate to do so. A critical American nationalist points out flaws when they need exposure, and offers suggestions. But he hopes that America can fix itself, and doesn’t cheer on its defeat and say he’ll be glad when America is finally gone. The difference is between being disappointed in America for not being the America it should be– yet still hoping for the best, versus cheering on America’s destruction. Anti-Americans think America is rotten to the core, cannot be fixed and do not want it to be fixed because they want to see it gone forever. They seem to derive a sadistic pleasure from every sign of America’s decline and tend to adopt an enemy of my enemy attitude.
        It’s like a parent whose child becomes a misfit criminal/alcoholic or something, and in response tries their hardest to help him become normal again versus the parent who kicks him out onto the street and gives up any hope of recovery. And worse, when he hears a rumor that his son has been say, put in the hospital for injuries from a bar fight, he says: “Great! Hopefully he’ll die from his wounds so I can finally get the chance to spit on his grave and dance at his funeral!”
        Maybe you’re right about Wade, I dunno, he may not be as anti-American as he seems; but he does tend to exaggerate and go over the top, so it shouldn’t be too much of a problem if I’m a little over the top in response.

    2. “The Germans, Russians, Japanese etc. had their turns in the 20th century (even if briefly lived) to be dominant powers on,”
      I disagree. The germans were a rising power before WWI. They were beating the shit out of British industry and were cranking out some exceptional scientists and mathematicains. Britain was declining. Also, Britain had been having conflicts for the century leading up to WWI. A US friendship with Germany would have been much better. Not that imperial germany was perfect. It was lead by Prussia so it was far from perfect. I think that Britain and France went out of their way to start a war they didn’t have to by going through with a complex web of treaties that the could have just said no to at any time. I also think that they intentionally made the after war settlement especially crippling for the reason on preventing Germany’s rise instead of some war reparations nonsense. Hitler really was born at Versailles.
      ” It’s not at all unreasonable to talk about a post WWII pax Americana comparable to the lauded pax Romana considering how bloody the 20th century was before American dominance.”
      We could also talk about Pax Mongolica, but that doesn’t mean that the mongol conquests were cake walks. Also, pax americana was in america’s interest as the main trading nation, not some idealist sentiment.
      ” This also leads them to defending the indefensible (Nazis and Imperial Japan”
      I’ve never defended nazis. Sometimes Mussolini and Franco, but not nazis.
      “fuck the Turks!”
      Best thing you’ve said today.

      1. “Also, Britain had been having conflicts for the century leading up to WWI”
        This should be,”Also, Britain had been having conflicts with US for the century leading up to WWI.”

    1. I’m Belarussian/Polish on my father’s side and English/German/French on my mother’s, no Jewish blood though. While I do have some degree of special sympathy for each country of my European ancestry, I ultimately see myself as American first and foremost since I was born and raised here.
      I’m not a Judeophile, but may seem like it in comparison to extreme anti-semitism. I’d like to see Jews melt away through intermarriage if it proves too hard for them to reform themselves.
      I’m a kind of an Anglophile and Slavophile and don’t see why one can’t be both. It’s certainly less strange than being a Naziphile and Russophile.

      1. “I’d like to see Jews melt away through intermarriage if it proves too hard for them to reform themselves.”
        Don’t expect to win over anyone with that rhetoric. I don’t care about intermarriage at all, but even an assimilated jew will get upset when someone says they want my culture to disappear. If anything it’s counterproductive to your cause.

        1. well I did say “if it proves too hard for them to reform themselves.” If a reformed Jewish culture not hostile to the majority were to emerge that would be fine. Perhaps you’re right though, that its a counterproductive way of saying it.

  12. The one nation that knows the Anglo-Saxons best are the Irish – they experienced 500 years of English colonialism, and they have a very good, instinctive understanding of the English national character – and English trickery.
    Despite what some people here say, British rule in India was harsh and oppressive, being marked with a definite stamp of racial hierarchy and contempt for Indians, not to mention wholesale massacres of Indians (eg General ‘Reggie’ Dyer at Amritsar “teaching the bloody browns a lesson”, as he put it.

  13. Been interested in the Wild West lately.

    Arabs got into banking.

    Good Jewish boys got good jobs, wives, and nested in NY or Chicago. Some like Bavarian Jew Levi Strauss had success out West.

    South Asians were mostly Punjab Sikhs who worked in lumber mills or on farms out West. Their racial status was low but they were seen as dependable workers, working for half of what European Americans got paid. There were more Indiaphiles out East, hence the Boston Brahmins. In the East a Captain often had servants from India. The West was a rugged adventure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *