Are Medved’s Untermenschen Kathleen Parker’s “White Americans?”

Washington Post syndicated columnist* Kathleen “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F├╝hrer” Parker writes about the “patriot divide” (italics mine):

It’s about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.
Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry’s political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants–and we are. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice
What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.
They’re not racist or anything, they just have strong ties to where they’re from. They have deep roots that go back generations stemming from a multi-generation attachment to their country.

OK, so now let’s add some Michael Medved (italics mine):

In “American Mania,” Peter C. Whybrow of U.C.L.A. argues that even in grim epochs of starvation and persecution, only a small minority ever chooses to abandon its native land and to venture across forbidding oceans to pursue the elusive dream of a better life. The tiny percentage making that choice (perhaps only 2%, even in most periods of mass immigration) represents the very essence of a self-selecting group. Compared to the Irish or Germans or Italians or Chinese or Mexicans who remained behind in the “Old Country,” the newcomers to America would naturally display a propensity for risk-taking, for restlessness, for exuberance and self-confidence -traits readily passed down to subsequent generations….
Some three million black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean arrived since 1980 alone and in big cities like New York, Boston and Miami close to half of the African-American population consists of immigrants, their children or grandchildren. The entrepreneurial energy of these newcomer communities indicates that their members display the same adventurous instincts associated with American DNA.

So on the one hand, you have Parker claiming that ‘real Americans’ have a strong connection to place, and, on the other hand, Medved claims that the American genetic constitution favors “restlessness” and a willingness to break with one’s homeland. Does this mean that Americans who have an attachment to place are ‘less American’ than the ‘rootless’? One praises the immigrant tradition, and the other denigrates it. At this point, movement conservatism isn’t even internally coherent.
Oh, the stupidity. And yes, it burns.
Of course, Medved and Parker are both full of crap, but it’s always fun to see two rightwing nuts contradict each other.

This entry was posted in Conservatives, Fucking Morons, Racism. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Are Medved’s Untermenschen Kathleen Parker’s “White Americans?”

  1. Edward says:

    Well, I’ve got ancestors who came over on the Mayflower and I think we need a more open immigration policy.
    Medved’s argument would only make sense if there were a major gene “for risk-taking, for restlessness, for exuberance and self-confidence.” Behavioral geneticists have been looking for these for years and can’t find them. The current thinking is that any genetics associated with such traits is multi-factorial. And there is this phenomenon called “regression to the mean” that has been observed – these traits are actually not always passed down to the next generation.
    People seem to know deep down that bigotry is wrong. Thus, bigots tend to spew tripe at great lengths to justify their prejudice.

  2. Orac says:

    We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants–and we are. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice…
    What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.

    This sort of attitude is nothing new. I recall reading screeds published in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s at the height of the wave of immigration then that said almost exactly the same thing. They may not have used terms like “diversity” and would have said “more than 100 years” instead of 200, but the sentiments were exactly the same. Nothing ever changes, and every generation seems to think that the next wave of immigrants will “ruin America.” 100-125 years ago, it was the Catholic instead of the Muslim, the Irish instead of the Mexicans, but the words were almost identical.

  3. WeeDram says:

    When I immigrated to Canada in1971, I quickly learned about a social mosaic as opposed to the melting pot.
    It tuns out mosaics are much more vibrant and beautiful (and interesting) than the mud grey of that which has combinded into dull monochrome.

  4. mirc says:

    thankss

Comments are closed.