The Fourteenth Amendment

Sen Howard author of 14th amendment

I expect we will be hearing a lot about the Fourteenth Amendment in the near future. It seems there is a lot of confusion among Americans about what it means, what the framers of the amendment intended. Maybe the quote from Sen. Howard spells out what was intended. But surely nobody believes that the people of that era (just after the War Between the States) anticipated the massive waves of immigrants that we saw in the late 20th century and in the present. It was probably never imagined that people would and could travel from every corner of the globe to avail themselves of the benefits and privileges of being an American.

The irrationality of the left is illustrated (if we even need further illustration) by their idea of open-ended, perpetual immigration, no end foreseen. The situation at the border shows the outcome of carelessness in having porous borders and lax (or no) enforcement of our immigration laws.

Who knows how this will all play out, but it’s not too late to correct the wrongheaded policies of the last several decades.

An end to ‘birthright citizenship’?

President Trump is reportedly planning to end so-called ‘birthright’ citizenship, according to this source. 

Trump is quoted as saying that America is the only country in the world which gives automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, along with all the benefits thereof. The writers of the article contradict him, saying that more than 30 countries offer birthright citizenship, many of them ‘within the Western Hemisphere. True, but how many first world countries are in the Western Hemisphere? How many Latin American countries or Caribbean countries are desirable destinations for economic migrants? Not many, so the attempt to confuse matters by comparing our immigration policies with those of other Western hemisphere countries is disingenuous.

As with everything the President does, the left will raise a ruckus and try every means to derail this plan. Let’s hope their efforts fail.

 

What’s in a name?

Donald Trump’s act of claiming the name ‘nationalist’ was significant. It will probably — in fact, already has — drawn jeers and condemnations from the crazy left, but maybe it will act as a ”permission” for those people on the right who always seem to need permission — to follow his example.

As he said, or implied, most people have been told, tacitly or explicitly, that the word is bad, for the usual reasons. But the fact is, until a couple of generations ago, just about everybody in this country was a nationalist by principle, even if they didn’t designate themselves as such.

There is, as those on the right are aware, that nationalism can mean civic nationalism, that is, loyalty to the state or the government or to the abstract ideas of ‘freedom’ or ‘equality’. But the truest nationalism is that which means loyalty to, and a real attachment to one’s own people, kindred. After all, throughout history, many peoples have been conquered, displaced, essentially being deprived of the ‘state’ which was once theirs, yet they still remained a people connected by blood, sharing a common language, religion (oftentimes), culture, and history. Governments and even states rise and fall, while peoples endure — as long as they are not dispersed, blended away amongst other peoples, or extinguished altogether.

Reading some comments on a blog frequented by the ‘civic’ type, I was astounded that the commenters seem never to have heard of any kind of nationalism other than the flag-waving kind, loyalty to a state or system. They evidently thought that this was all there is, where nationalism is concerned. Few seem to have heard of ethnonationalism, which is, after all, the primal kind of patriotism, or nationalism.

So many people have become deeply cynical about our country (more specifically our government, usually), and I’ve become more so myself; it’s impossible not to be if you have open eyes and a brain and a heart. But the really destructive thing about this attitude is that so many come to despise many of their fellow Americans, if not most of them. There’s the warfare between the sexes, and amongst various ethnic groups, regions, religions, and age groups as well as the real vitriol between political factions. How is it possible to have real group loyalty and solidarity when there is such antipathy? I firmly believe much of it is stirred up and stoked by our foes; I can’t help thinking that the bloggers and commenters who specialize in fomenting this loathing, many of them supposedly part of the ‘right’ are in fact shills or operatives, not what they purport to be.

Ethnopatriotism involves a sense of belonging to a group, to our kinsmen and neighbors — and our families, even though it seems as Scripture says, today’s enemies are ‘those of our own household’ — the ‘young’ vs. the old.

There is no common ground with the left; there can be no ‘reaching out’ to them. Even families are now divided because of  politics, mainly intransigent, fanatical leftism.

But with a house so divided, the solidarity we like-minded need in order to be real advocates and defenders of our folk is just not there. I hope that some leadership arises, somebody outside today’s internet culture of vilification, and infighting. If President Trump can do anything toward changing that, then so much the better.

 

 

 

I just want to say…

Thanks to those who have offered words of encouragement and who have continued to visit this blog despite the sparse posting of late. I truly hope to get back to a regular posting schedule.

I also wanted to say thanks to Cambria Will Not Yield for the generous and kind mention on his blog  recently. As I have no way of contacting him I hope that he might see this post. CWNY: your words lifted my spirits, and gave me the boost I needed to return to blogging.

Thanks to those who have offered prayers. I appreciate it deeply.

Misconceptions and urban legends

In the wake of the Elizabeth Warren DNA farce, a lot of attention has been devoted to the subject of DNA and ancestry. In a way this is good in that it seems to have prompted many Americans to consider having DNA tests done. My own observation, when talking about the subject to many Americans, show evidence that a lot of us know little about our actual ancestry, and what we do know is often wrong. Warren’s case illustrates this: she was convinced (supposedly) that she was Cherokee, and enough Cherokee to warrant calling herself by that tribal name.

It seems that the belief in Indian ancestry, most often Cherokee, amongst Americans, is persistent. So persistent is it that many Americans who get their DNA tested, still maintain their belief in their Indian ancestry even when the tests show all-European genetics. They claim that the tests have to be wrong, because Grandma or Granddad told them that they had Indian blood, even a ‘Cherokee Princess’ in the family tree. As I’ve written before, this does not hold up when the actual testing results are negative. People will believe what they want to believe, reality be damned. This is true in many areas of life, to our detriment.

How much Indian blood does the ‘average American’ have? Many recent news articles mentioned an average percentage, which I don’t have at hand now, but it was very low, but still more than the minute percentage Rep. Warren’s tests showed. Unfortunately lots of bloggers and commenters took that ‘average American’ phrase as meaning that pretty much all pre-Revolution families have some Indian blood. I saw this claim made on dozens of comment sections, and even by a couple of bloggers. But is this true? Obviously not; firstly there were just not that many “Native Americans” in the early days of this nation, their having been either relocated, as well as dwindling in numbers. How could literally every family find Native Americans to mate with, if there was any wish to do so?

True, it was not uncommon for the men who were among the early settlers of the western frontier to take Indian wives or concubines, since women of their own stock were few and far between. But otherwise there was not a lot of miscegeny amongst the early colonials or the post-Revolution Americans.

So how much Indian blood is found amongst White Americans on average? This  shows it as very low.
From the link:

“If I were to give a percentage, I’d say the vast majority of White Americans have no Native American ancestry at all. A small percentage of White-identified families have Native ancestry of varying degrees and this will show up on genetic tests and provide a low average for the overall White population of somewhere around 2-3%.”

But remember, ‘average’ does not mean that every American has 2-3% ”Native” ancestry. According to many sources most Americans do not have Indian ancestry. So an individual White American’s chances of having Indian DNA are pretty small.

In the South there is a tendency for most Whites to say they have some Indian ancestry, usually female ancestors, most often Cherokee. I can’t count the number of people I know that say their great-grandmother was a “full-blood Cherokee”. In some areas this is plausible but overall it can’t be as prevalent as people’s self-reports make it.

I still believe everyone should be interested in their ancestry, interested enough to try to verify the often-erroneous oral traditions of the family. Contrary to what my liberal professors said in college, oral traditions are not as accurate as actual data.

But if most Americans learned of their true ancestry, and some of their ancestors’ stories, they might just learn to care more about what our forebears endured in order to come to this land, and to help create this country.

I also suspect that with more extensive testing, the estimates of the numbers of various ethnic groups would change considerably.

Are DNA tests unreliable and useless? There are skeptics who assert that they are, but in my own case and others, the DNA testing tallied very closely with what the genealogy research and family lore told us.

As to Warren, Ward Churchill (remember him?) and many others like them, the question remains as to why the need to claim the Indian heritage? Oddly the same phenomenon occurs in Australia, where many White Australians, with a very White phenotype, claim Aboriginal descent, and insist on being called Aborigine. I leave it to others to explain why.