Have I Been Nativist and Racist for Thinking of Myself as an Old-Stock American of English and Northwest European Descent?


2:54 AM Monday. 

The short answer is yes and no and yes.

1. Yes.

Here is what I wrote last Tuesday:

I am still kicking this all around. Am I white, Anglo-Saxon, American or all three? I am still a bit uncomfortable with the first two labels, and that requires some analysis. Would most Anglo-Saxons in the homeland consider me an Anglo-Saxon in diaspora? Is that how I should think of myself ethnically? Or am I ethnically just a generic white American? As far as my religious identity goes, I am not sure I should identify as a Christian. But I do suspect I am authentically somewhere between Jewish and Christian. Even as I am on the Red Road of the Turtle Island interfaith contemplative.

I thought I was just being precise about my heritage, but according to the American Psychological Association it's likely that I have been surfacing some unconscious nativism and racism. Here is how the admittedly left-leaning Google Gemini puts it.

Why does the APA consider a writer's identification as "old-stock American" potentially or likely nativist and racist?


When do scholars first see the phrase "old-stock American" in American literature, and is there a time when it was accepted even in the academic literature?


Has the new phrase "heritage American" emerged to replace it in some conservative circles, or does the term refer to something different than "old-stock American"? 


Say more about the APA distinction between a writer's intention and a writer's impact - can a writer have a benevolent intention using the term "old-stock American" and still have a harmful impact on his or her readers?


Does the APA approach arguably place too much responsibility on the writer - don't fair readers have an obligation to understand an author's intent and unique historical or cultural background?


On this basis, my use of the phrase "old-stock American" may be neutral or benevolent internally but taken as nativist and racist externally.

2. No

From another perspective, my use of the phrase "old-stock American" may have a more constructive social impact. Here's what Google Gemini has to say about this. First, I will provide my question thread, then I will give the link to the full Gemini response:

  • Is nativism widespread in world politics and is it inherently anti-immigrant and xenophobic or is that an extreme mischaracterization of moderate nativist discourse?
  • That sounds like an extreme leftist and globalist "open borders" approach to the topic of immigration - what do scholars call healthy concern with orderly migration and national assimilation?
  • What about the belief in the superiority of rights of the native-born population - while clearly not unlimited isn't this to some degree implied by nation-state sovereignty?
  • What about a welcoming attitude toward immigrants in principle but hostility toward immigrants who illegally enter the country and jump the queue ahead of those who are waiting for legal asylum - is this nativism by definition?
  • Is it common for some politicians to accuse their opponents of nativism when their opponents are really concerned about the rule of law?
  • Does the recent US immigration crisis credibly have roots in both nativism on the right and disrespect for the rule of law on the left?
  • Is nativism often linked to land rights?
  • What is the difference between settler colonialism and immigration?
  • How can immigration into a settler colonial state be legal?
  • Are all legal immigrants to settler colonial states part of the colonial project from an indigenous point of view?
  • In addition to the distinction between arrivants and settler colonizers, is there any difference in indigenous critical thought between the descendants of settler colonizers and those who are completely new immigrants to settler colonial states?
  • From an indigenous perspective "old-stock" Americans (descendants of original settler colonizers) have greater "guilt" and greater historical responsibility to be allies for truth and reconciliation?
  • If from an indigenous strategic perspective new immigrants who want to overturn the settler colonial state are preferred allies does this create lawful immigration concerns for the state itself?
  • Would a new immigrant like mayor-elect Mamdani who advocates a socialist revolution in America be viewed by indigenous strategists as a better ally for their cause than old-stock Americans or new immigrants who just want to get ahead in a capitalist economy?
  • Is it important from an indigenous truth and reconciliation perspective for old-stock Americans to know who they are and what their unique allyship responsibilities are?
  • This may not be an easy process for partners on both sides - indigenous and old-stock allies - and there may differences about tactics, strategy and even vision - how might truth and reconciliation partners manage these differences?

Here's the link:


On this basis, it may be important for me to know and identify as an old-stock American in public discourse. 

3. Yes

However, before I become too comfortable with that last thought, there is another level of difficulty to consider. Here is the full thread.

How do most American Jews define their race on medical forms - do they go with white?


Can someone be half-Jewish from a Jewish standpoint?


Do American Jews who identify as white tend to view it as more of a medical term or a political term?


How do Jewish rabbis see the conversion of white people to Judaism - if they still identify as white first or white internally, are they not really getting the essence of Judaism on the one hand and of Jewish ethnic and cultural identity on the other?


How do religious Jews who sincerely believe in the chosenness of the Jewish people by God navigate the Jewish supremacy allegation that is sometimes made against them for their deep faith?


Can a Gentile disciple of Yeshua and other Jewish sages become a Noahide according to halakha?


What about those prospective Noahides who believe that Yeshua was a pivotal Jewish sage in the course of world and Jewish history, but not God and not the Jewish Messiah in an orthodox sense - can they take the formal Noahide pledge?


From the Orthodox halakhic perspective, one cannot be a righteous Gentile if he believes that Yeshua is a pivotal Jewish sage - do Modern Orthodox see it the same way, or are they more lenient?


Not exactly the golden rule, perhaps - do Reform Jews and Conservative Jews also view Gentiles who accept Jesus as a pivotal Jewish sage, but not God or the orthodox Messiah, as inherently unrighteous?


Reform Jews might recognize a righteous Gentile in interfaith dialogue or even a convert to Reform Judaism despite a nuanced view of Jesus?


So even a Reform Jewish rabbi would not likely recognize any person with any religious belief in the Jewishness and sagacity of Jesus as a truly righteous (Tzadik) Gentile?


Is this because Judaism in all its forms sees the record of Jesus that we have in the Gospels as inherently blasphemous and idolatrous?


Is this rejection of Jesus much deeper in Jewish identity than a resistance to what later became the Roman imperialization of Christianity, i.e., to an outside imperial pagan power?


In this context, how do Jewish scholars understand the intermingling of anti-Semitic white supremacy and religious faith in Jesus?


How do Jewish scholars understand the history of white supremacy - did it originate in England or in America or is it more broadly European?


Do Jewish scholars distinguish between a Protestant white supremacy and a Catholic white supremacy?


In some ways, would Jewish scholars say that it might be easier for a secular humanist to understand Judaism than for a Christian to understand Judaism?


How have Jewish scholars interacted with the human rights literature - the idea that all human beings have universal rights, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity?


How do Jewish scholars think about their human identity as opposed to their Jewish identity?


How do Jewish critical whiteness scholars think about the relationship between identification as "white" and identification as a "human being" - is white identification necessarily somewhat supremacist and dehumanizing of others, in contrast to identification as a human being, which could be experienced as more egalitarian and universal?


I was in the "abolition of whiteness" school until I read Janet Helms and then I reasoned that "antiracist white" was the consensus view in the field - was I mistaken?


Have any Jewish scholars contributed to the abolition of whiteness school?


But as was previously discussed, abolishing whiteness also implies abolishing Christian supersessionism, is this correct?


Are there any Christian scholars in the abolition of whiteness school, and if so, how do they handle the difficulty here?


Are any of these Christian scholars Irish, and do they believe in or promote the idea of a non-white Irish identity that is compatible with the Gospel?


In the case of post-white Irish Christian scholars, is particularism (like that of the Jew) achieved through their Irish identity, and universalism through their Christian identity, or can their Christian identity become an idol that prevents the full universalization of human consciousness?


On the basis of all this, it seems like there are five steps for me to consider moving forward.

First, I need to watch Magda Teter's PowerPoint talk on her book Christian Supremacy at the Boston College Center for Christian-Jewish Learning. 

Second, I may also benefit from watching Magda Teter in a panel discussion on the same subject for the Center in Jewish Studies at Fordham.

Third, I definitely need to settle in for complete and careful listening to the thoughtful exchange between Dr. Mark Kinzer and Dr. Zev Garber: "Does a Divine Messiah Fit Within Judaism? Messianic Jewish and Traditional Jewish Scholars Discuss."

Fourth, I need to watch a panel discussion from Columbia University on historian Noel Ignatiev’s How the Irish became White. 

Fifth, depending on how this viewing turns out, I may want to embark on follow-up study of the books Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity and Christian Supremacy.

I am not yet convinced that A) Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, B) the Incarnation is absolutely incompatible with Judaism, or C) the "abolition of whiteness" school is better than the "antiracist white" school. But this deeper exposure should give me good grist for the mill.

Beyond this, I do think it is fair for me to say that I am an Anti-Nativist, Rule of Law, Critical White Indigenous Ally and 10th Generation Old-Stock American of English and Northwest European Descent Somewhere in the Middle on the Jewish-Christian Theological Continuum.

End 11:34 AM.

Comments

Post a Comment