ok, but one would hope things have changed in the 21st century. today's xenophobes don't just carry the germs of yesteryear, they seek to wipe out all of society's gains from then to now.
2
There is no final anything, there actually isn't any good or evil, they are subjective words. This article must be written to diminish the greatest country in history, so the Democrats can grab tyrannical powers to tell us how to live our lives (in the guise of making a "bad" country perfect).
Http://www.periocictablet.com
Http://www.periocictablet.com
1
Ahh, I guess there are other forms of guilt we are supposed to feel if we are politically correct enough?!
1
Compare the United States' immigration policy to that of Israel or Japan and Yanks seem downright welcoming. The former screens out gentiles, and the latter accepts only a negligible amount of people. Only the racist, colonialist, paternalist, self-flagellating Western democracies take in significant numbers of immigrants, then beat themselves up for not taking even more.
Yours is such a peculiar form of intellectual masochism.
Yours is such a peculiar form of intellectual masochism.
5
Ms. Schiff, thanks for reminding us that nothing is new, and the current immigrant histeria is news only to those ignorant of history--just like similar histeria about crooked business operations, money in politics, biased media, etc. Maybe every generation has its "coming of age moment" when they find out their idealistic myths are not found in the real world.
1
Throughout history enemies (Real and imagined.) have had to be demonized, to be turned into the "other".
What's the answer? Study, and know, history. It really does repeat itself, more's the pity.
What's the answer? Study, and know, history. It really does repeat itself, more's the pity.
2
The comparison to America of 300 years ago falls flat when the writer uses the words"Muddled fear". Our fear is not muddled. It's shaped by 52" hi def, screens that show us blood in the streets in real time.
1
And out of this madness came the modern Republican party opposed by inclusive Democrats who rally around the Statue of Liberty.
2
American history as is taught in most schools is as fictional as the story of Rome being founded by of Romulus and Remus, suckled by a she-wolf. The real story is amazing but largely unknown to most Americans.
White, male landowners were the only ones who could vote at the nation's dawn and the struggle by successions of Americans for their rightful place at the table is the true American Dream- most recently represented by the success of the GLBTQ communities in court and the minds of the American people. People have had to fight, go on strike, go to jail, get arrested, get beaten by police and organize to earn the right to vote, to organize for union representation, to escape the grip of Jim Crow and to marry who they love, be they of another race or the same sex.
If I were King for a day one thing I would do is mandate that every school teach Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.
http://zinnedproject.org/about/howard-zinn/
White, male landowners were the only ones who could vote at the nation's dawn and the struggle by successions of Americans for their rightful place at the table is the true American Dream- most recently represented by the success of the GLBTQ communities in court and the minds of the American people. People have had to fight, go on strike, go to jail, get arrested, get beaten by police and organize to earn the right to vote, to organize for union representation, to escape the grip of Jim Crow and to marry who they love, be they of another race or the same sex.
If I were King for a day one thing I would do is mandate that every school teach Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.
http://zinnedproject.org/about/howard-zinn/
3
All that was then: 200 and 300 years ago.
This is now.
The rest of the world 200 and 300 years ago was far from a pretty place.
Then, America compared well to the rest of the world.
And today America also compares well to the rest of the world.
How do we know?
People vote with their feet.
And their feet bring them to America,
from all over the world,
in overwhelming numbers,
legally and illegally,
more than to any other place in the world,
and more proportionately to our population than anywhere else except Canada,
a place with a far lower population density than America.
And today, the proportion of our immigrants from Europe is small,
smaller even than in the sainted Canada.
Legally, every year, America grants over one million "green cards",
permits for legal permanent residency,
more than any other country in the world,
and more proportionately to population than any country other than Canada.
This is now.
The rest of the world 200 and 300 years ago was far from a pretty place.
Then, America compared well to the rest of the world.
And today America also compares well to the rest of the world.
How do we know?
People vote with their feet.
And their feet bring them to America,
from all over the world,
in overwhelming numbers,
legally and illegally,
more than to any other place in the world,
and more proportionately to our population than anywhere else except Canada,
a place with a far lower population density than America.
And today, the proportion of our immigrants from Europe is small,
smaller even than in the sainted Canada.
Legally, every year, America grants over one million "green cards",
permits for legal permanent residency,
more than any other country in the world,
and more proportionately to population than any country other than Canada.
1
Applying a modern day leftist politically correct filter to events that happened 200 years ago can lead to no valid conclusions.
1
Immigration policies that worked one or two centuries ago are no longer relevant to our needs or aspirations as a nation. We surely don't need to bring more poor or tired to our shores - we have surpluses of our own citizens who fit those descriptions. And people yearning to be free now have multiple other nations to emigrate to, offering as much or more freedom within their borders as we have here. We need to yearn to free our own citizens from want, and unemployment, and inferior education.
Like almost everything else in life, too much of a 'good' thing becomes a bad thing. It's obvious this has become true of 'diversity' in the US. Diversity, like salt in small dollops, adds spice to a meal; but pouring a cup of it into a bowl of soup makes it unedable.
We need a lot less immigration, and a lot more say as citizens about the amount and kind of 'diversity' we want to incorporate into our American culture in the future.
Like almost everything else in life, too much of a 'good' thing becomes a bad thing. It's obvious this has become true of 'diversity' in the US. Diversity, like salt in small dollops, adds spice to a meal; but pouring a cup of it into a bowl of soup makes it unedable.
We need a lot less immigration, and a lot more say as citizens about the amount and kind of 'diversity' we want to incorporate into our American culture in the future.
2
It's one thing to be xenophobic, bigoted, exclusionary, and self-righteous in the 17th century or even in the early 20th century. But it's quite another in today's postmodern, multicultural, globally-connected world where access to education and closeness to otherness has never been greater. The question is: will the fear, anger, ignorance, and greed now being whipped up by demagogues drag us back to those times?
2
I read many comments attributing religion as the cause for a lot that is wrong and I don't disagree. However, I think religion is a tool that is conveniently used in the interest of power. The desire to control resources and assert our cherished views seem to be the underlying reason.
1
The early Puritan settlers in New England were the ideological equivalent of ISIS. Their brutality, obscurantism and cult-like demand for obedience cannot be underestimated.
It was in the Southern colonies where a more liberal, gentlemanly Anglican establishment led the way and helped infuse American society with the intellectual and cultural advances of the mother country, and Enlightenment Europe.
Even still, anti-Catholic bigotry was rampant throughout colonial and, later, independent American society. The Quebec Act, 1774, was one of the principle drivers of the American War of Independence, recognizing as it did the religious and legal rights of Catholic French Canadians.
The horrifying treatment of blacks and Native Americans, of course, needs no further mention.
Indeed, it is a testament to the leading minds of the post-Revolutionary era that the U.S. has maintained a democratic structure, a liberal constitution and, nowadays, a recognition, more or less, of past wrongs.
While individualist (and necessarily tolerant to some degree) English Protestantism is the philosophical bedrock on which the American experience is based, the writer is correct to note that all eras of American history post-1607 have been pockmarked by political leaders, and sometimes entire communities, engaging in hate-fuelled discourses and acts.
The U.S.A. is a great country, but it is, unsurprisingly, far from unique when it comes to giving scope to man's baser instincts.
It was in the Southern colonies where a more liberal, gentlemanly Anglican establishment led the way and helped infuse American society with the intellectual and cultural advances of the mother country, and Enlightenment Europe.
Even still, anti-Catholic bigotry was rampant throughout colonial and, later, independent American society. The Quebec Act, 1774, was one of the principle drivers of the American War of Independence, recognizing as it did the religious and legal rights of Catholic French Canadians.
The horrifying treatment of blacks and Native Americans, of course, needs no further mention.
Indeed, it is a testament to the leading minds of the post-Revolutionary era that the U.S. has maintained a democratic structure, a liberal constitution and, nowadays, a recognition, more or less, of past wrongs.
While individualist (and necessarily tolerant to some degree) English Protestantism is the philosophical bedrock on which the American experience is based, the writer is correct to note that all eras of American history post-1607 have been pockmarked by political leaders, and sometimes entire communities, engaging in hate-fuelled discourses and acts.
The U.S.A. is a great country, but it is, unsurprisingly, far from unique when it comes to giving scope to man's baser instincts.
1
"anxiety produces specters...reckless aim..."
untreated, worse yet, denied, anxiety will only grow, consuming its host(s)...absent therapeutic attention, we will continue to aim recklessly at specters...so what to do?
perhaps if we begin at the beginning, put the country on the couch, and admit the genocidal violence at the root of our infancy and adolescence we might begin to explore, without, the usual defenses, any and all of our flaws, racism, bigotry, etc., all easy to see as products of fear of "the other," all of them stand-ins for the original "other"...part of the process might include a national effort to restore the dignity of those original others still confined to reservations, economic and educational disadvantage and perhaps most important, invisibility.
untreated, worse yet, denied, anxiety will only grow, consuming its host(s)...absent therapeutic attention, we will continue to aim recklessly at specters...so what to do?
perhaps if we begin at the beginning, put the country on the couch, and admit the genocidal violence at the root of our infancy and adolescence we might begin to explore, without, the usual defenses, any and all of our flaws, racism, bigotry, etc., all easy to see as products of fear of "the other," all of them stand-ins for the original "other"...part of the process might include a national effort to restore the dignity of those original others still confined to reservations, economic and educational disadvantage and perhaps most important, invisibility.
It's time to revisit concepts of neighborliness and cooperation. Americans are among the most generous people in the world. Some of us really enjoy and seek out the company of the "different" or what seems exotic. That others do not do so doesn't make them bad people. That such people have difficulty expressing their reactions doesn't make them bad people--but it can leave them open to demagoguery.
Traditionally, neighbor understood neighbor, and they shared aspirations and prejudices. Now, the political process passes many of us by, which makes many feel neglected and put-upon. It’s easy to see why Americans in states of lower population feel threatened by the larger, coastal states. Upstate versus Downstate NY. That’s not just American. My daughter lives with her family outside the Dublin (Ireland) “conurbation,” and they feel themselves very much to be the neglected country cousins in government services.
It can be argued that from the earliest days of tribal organization, the strong prevailed and dominated. It can be argued that peoples never really governed themselves. But Americans have been fed the notion that they once did. (Even though blacks and women didn’t have the vote for a long time.) Now, we debate security versus liberty as if we ever had a full measure of either.
I guess we’ll not hear too much about these things in this election cycle.
Traditionally, neighbor understood neighbor, and they shared aspirations and prejudices. Now, the political process passes many of us by, which makes many feel neglected and put-upon. It’s easy to see why Americans in states of lower population feel threatened by the larger, coastal states. Upstate versus Downstate NY. That’s not just American. My daughter lives with her family outside the Dublin (Ireland) “conurbation,” and they feel themselves very much to be the neglected country cousins in government services.
It can be argued that from the earliest days of tribal organization, the strong prevailed and dominated. It can be argued that peoples never really governed themselves. But Americans have been fed the notion that they once did. (Even though blacks and women didn’t have the vote for a long time.) Now, we debate security versus liberty as if we ever had a full measure of either.
I guess we’ll not hear too much about these things in this election cycle.
2
The term 'exceptional' in the context of 'American exceptionalism' continues to be bastardized. Wasn't it Toqueville who coined it, or no? I believe it was originally meant to describe our 1st-time-ever attempt at being a country run by the people--not, as many commentators imply--a look-at-us-aren't-we-the-greatest label.
In other words, America is exceptional only in its means, not its ends. We claim no a priori We're #1-ness, just a Hey Let Us Try This-ness.
In other words, America is exceptional only in its means, not its ends. We claim no a priori We're #1-ness, just a Hey Let Us Try This-ness.
1
Fear, suspicion and self aggrandizement are timeless human traits often are expressed as anger. The vast majority of Americans are angry , whether they realize it or not, that they are being , bluntly stated,screwed for the benefit of upper income groups. Where and how you express that anger depends on who you blame. Who you blame depends on the amount of money and media available by the various "sides" to sway opinion.
At some point the seemingly endless escalating cycle of thinly veiled class warfare, manufactured anger and blame must collapse.
It has, into the illogical and mindless rage of a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz supporter. They are frustrated that the GOP mantra of denial, delay and defunding of government programs that created the middle class( through "job creating" tax cuts) hasn't produced the jobs or economic prosperity promised by Reagan and his successors. Get those pitchforks sharpened.
At some point the seemingly endless escalating cycle of thinly veiled class warfare, manufactured anger and blame must collapse.
It has, into the illogical and mindless rage of a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz supporter. They are frustrated that the GOP mantra of denial, delay and defunding of government programs that created the middle class( through "job creating" tax cuts) hasn't produced the jobs or economic prosperity promised by Reagan and his successors. Get those pitchforks sharpened.
What a cradle of hate we are (and always were). True American ecceptionalism, complete with the evangelical rhetoric passed down through the generations to today's leading practitioner, Donald Trump. Can anyone wonder why he's the lead dog on the GOP's mangy sled?
3
The sad thing is that triggering tribal instincts by preaching fear of the Other isn't a uniquely American pastime. It's endemic in our species, and is a time-tested tool for demagogues.
6
But the point of being human is that we are not slaves to our biology.
American = US Citizen.
I tried a few times to point out that you can hardly call anyone living in North America an “American” until after 1776 and even then it took a while until we became anything like a nation with its own culture.
Sure all those things happened yet it was not “America” at fault it was the individuals who said and did those things who are responsible for them not the nation “America”.
At every instance in history it is not the “insert Nations name here” that committed the crime it was the people who actually laid their hands on the wheels of power that caused these crimes & misdemeanors to be committed and those who actually perpetrated them that are responsible.
A very central point to the American Experiment is personal responsibility. This is why we used to have the right to know the real identity of the person working in government serving us, as well as in any business dealing of any kind. The seller of a product or person who facilitates that sale must be identifiable so that “We” can hold them to account if problems arise. That is only common sense.
So yes some people, often large groups of people, sometimes so large as to appear to be the whole nation, have been bigoted. But the fact is the only fair way to speak of them is to point at the individuals and identify them as closely as possible to using their real identity when doing so.
Generalization is almost never proper in such a context.
The stakes are too important.
I tried a few times to point out that you can hardly call anyone living in North America an “American” until after 1776 and even then it took a while until we became anything like a nation with its own culture.
Sure all those things happened yet it was not “America” at fault it was the individuals who said and did those things who are responsible for them not the nation “America”.
At every instance in history it is not the “insert Nations name here” that committed the crime it was the people who actually laid their hands on the wheels of power that caused these crimes & misdemeanors to be committed and those who actually perpetrated them that are responsible.
A very central point to the American Experiment is personal responsibility. This is why we used to have the right to know the real identity of the person working in government serving us, as well as in any business dealing of any kind. The seller of a product or person who facilitates that sale must be identifiable so that “We” can hold them to account if problems arise. That is only common sense.
So yes some people, often large groups of people, sometimes so large as to appear to be the whole nation, have been bigoted. But the fact is the only fair way to speak of them is to point at the individuals and identify them as closely as possible to using their real identity when doing so.
Generalization is almost never proper in such a context.
The stakes are too important.
5
In anything pretending to be a democracy, you can't easily separate the individual from the "government of, by, and for" them that represents the nation they comprise.
"American = US Citizen"
"I tried a few times to point out that you can hardly call anyone living in North America an 'American' until after 1776 and even then it took a while until we became anything like a nation with its own culture."
Rather arbitrary, and incorrect. Europeans called the native inhabitants of this continent "Americans" even before the first settlers came. Europeans born in the American colonies were referred to, and referred to themselves, as Americans long before 1776. Cotton Mather did it in the 17th century, and many after him, first metaphorically (comparing themselves to Americans of the first sort), and later without reservation. What do you think Nathaniel Ward meant in 1647 when he wrote "We make it an Article of our American Creed"?
Nation or not, transplanted British "Americans" began to see themselves as a people (if not a nation) apart and distinct long before 1776. If they hadn't, there might not have been a 1776.
The point of this column is that many Americans have been apocalyptically xenophobic since they first began to think of themselves as a distinct people. That they shared this trait with other societies is beside the point, as is the point that there has been a counter-current of openness as well.
The same America placed Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty as adopted the Chinese Exclusion Act.
"I tried a few times to point out that you can hardly call anyone living in North America an 'American' until after 1776 and even then it took a while until we became anything like a nation with its own culture."
Rather arbitrary, and incorrect. Europeans called the native inhabitants of this continent "Americans" even before the first settlers came. Europeans born in the American colonies were referred to, and referred to themselves, as Americans long before 1776. Cotton Mather did it in the 17th century, and many after him, first metaphorically (comparing themselves to Americans of the first sort), and later without reservation. What do you think Nathaniel Ward meant in 1647 when he wrote "We make it an Article of our American Creed"?
Nation or not, transplanted British "Americans" began to see themselves as a people (if not a nation) apart and distinct long before 1776. If they hadn't, there might not have been a 1776.
The point of this column is that many Americans have been apocalyptically xenophobic since they first began to think of themselves as a distinct people. That they shared this trait with other societies is beside the point, as is the point that there has been a counter-current of openness as well.
The same America placed Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty as adopted the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I am so glad that you point out that all bad deeds occuring in Amerca today are strictly the personal responsibility of each individual, and not as the group they belong to, or even the whole nation.
I wonder why you do not apply the same logic to the terrorists, whether or not it is an individual, or a group, or a religión that has 1.2 billion followers. Instead, you would happily brand 1/6th of the world's population as terrorists.
I wonder why you do not apply the same logic to the terrorists, whether or not it is an individual, or a group, or a religión that has 1.2 billion followers. Instead, you would happily brand 1/6th of the world's population as terrorists.
1
Keep calm people. Regardless of our serious past sins we did manage to scribble a declaration and constitution that installed a fundamental morality and rights as law of the land. As imperfect as it may be it imposes and preserves, in witten language, the hard won principles of enlightenment. A candle glowing brightly in the darkness of superstition, divinity and human frailty.
14
Cotton Mather was not very much different than many of his generation, except that he was better educated.
One or two observations about Louis XIV, Papists, and Satan. The first two were far closer to Massachusetts than Ms. Schiff's article implies. Abenakis, Mic'Maq and other Native American groups, assisted by French Canadians had been raiding along the Connecticut River Valley and in the Maine District (then a part of Massachusetts). Governor Phip's nvasion of Québec had failed in 1690. One of Canada's best military men, D'Iberville was having a field day in New England's waters. A Catholic, James II had just been deposed from the English throne and had countered by invading Ireland with a mixed bag of mercenaries Stuart monarchists, and French troops, aided by the the "wild Irish." More than half of New England's population were not Puritans. Danger was indeed at Mather's doorstep. It must have seen obvious to any right-minded New Englander that a fifth column, a witchy kind, was at work. Moreover, it was obvious that the End Times were nigh...Louis XIV fit the description of the anti-Christ (as did Charles V, Napoleon, and a host of others through out history).
Of course he was a small minded, racist (the term hadn't been coined yet), religious bigot when judged by twenty-first-century sensibilities. For his time, he was a "cutting edge" intellectual. He was no bargain in my eyes, but I wonder what they'll think of us in 2315?
One or two observations about Louis XIV, Papists, and Satan. The first two were far closer to Massachusetts than Ms. Schiff's article implies. Abenakis, Mic'Maq and other Native American groups, assisted by French Canadians had been raiding along the Connecticut River Valley and in the Maine District (then a part of Massachusetts). Governor Phip's nvasion of Québec had failed in 1690. One of Canada's best military men, D'Iberville was having a field day in New England's waters. A Catholic, James II had just been deposed from the English throne and had countered by invading Ireland with a mixed bag of mercenaries Stuart monarchists, and French troops, aided by the the "wild Irish." More than half of New England's population were not Puritans. Danger was indeed at Mather's doorstep. It must have seen obvious to any right-minded New Englander that a fifth column, a witchy kind, was at work. Moreover, it was obvious that the End Times were nigh...Louis XIV fit the description of the anti-Christ (as did Charles V, Napoleon, and a host of others through out history).
Of course he was a small minded, racist (the term hadn't been coined yet), religious bigot when judged by twenty-first-century sensibilities. For his time, he was a "cutting edge" intellectual. He was no bargain in my eyes, but I wonder what they'll think of us in 2315?
3
Rabid and mindless xenophobia is a bad idea. But so is assuming that every ideology is equivalent. Both are lacking much of a moral compass or good sense. So let's be free to criticize the irrationality of Mormonism or the lack of freedom inherent in Islam without being labeled as mindless xenophobes.
6
For the to the right the US is uniquely good, to the left the US, as evidenced by top rated comments in the NY times, is uniquely evil. Neither are true, the Us is a nation created by humans who are inh Renton imperfect. What is depressing is all the negativity. The commenters ignore the, unfortunate, historical and ongoing horrors in the rest of the world and denies the significant progress that has been made in this country.
I wonder why Immigration to the US dwarfs all other countries?
I wonder why Immigration to the US dwarfs all other countries?
4
The writer seems to imply that current dangers are figments of our imagination and threats only the consequence of our vices: But the threats of that time were real, as they are today's.
Is it an unwilling omission the not mention of the Night of Saint Bartolome in France when Catholics slauthered Huguenots? Or is it biased data editing?
Islam has been, since it was invented, an aggressive and expansionists religion; the most aggressive of them all.
Vienna was besieged by the Turks twice. Only the League's victory at Lepanto prevented the Turkish invasion of Italy.
Yes, this country was founded on an invasion of Indian country and then the gradual conquest of lands leaving a trail of blood and tears behind. Mexico was torn apart. My grand father was with the Cuban insurgents when, allied with US forces which included future president Theo Roosvelt, they took Santiago. Next, the US army did not allow the Cubans to enter the city.
But that does not mean that out of guilt, today, we Americans should put our necks on the block to be chopped without fighting back.
Is it an unwilling omission the not mention of the Night of Saint Bartolome in France when Catholics slauthered Huguenots? Or is it biased data editing?
Islam has been, since it was invented, an aggressive and expansionists religion; the most aggressive of them all.
Vienna was besieged by the Turks twice. Only the League's victory at Lepanto prevented the Turkish invasion of Italy.
Yes, this country was founded on an invasion of Indian country and then the gradual conquest of lands leaving a trail of blood and tears behind. Mexico was torn apart. My grand father was with the Cuban insurgents when, allied with US forces which included future president Theo Roosvelt, they took Santiago. Next, the US army did not allow the Cubans to enter the city.
But that does not mean that out of guilt, today, we Americans should put our necks on the block to be chopped without fighting back.
10
Thank you for so deftly restating the exact arguments laid out by the author regarding overstated isolated events propelling skewed versions of reality!
"But that does not mean that out of guilt, today, we Americans should put our necks on the block to be chopped without fighting back."
The questions are: what's the best way to fight back? What kind of outcome do we want and what will benefit the country as a whole?
And who's holding your figurative axe?
The questions are: what's the best way to fight back? What kind of outcome do we want and what will benefit the country as a whole?
And who's holding your figurative axe?
Its all about blaming others for our problems. It certainly can't be our own fault. Indeed each and everyone of us is the very image of God.
2
America's xenophobia is not unique. It is a global problem and has existed since the dawn of time.
However, the evil done by today's terrorists is not imaginary. It is a real threat to the public good. Simply, "this time, the witches are real......"
This reality does not justify blindly blocking all Muslims from our shores, but it does support the need to accept only those who are tolerant of Western values.
There is an irony in this topic, because most Muslim nations are shedding their tolerance for outsiders, while decrying our immigration debate.
Political correctness and the embrace of multi-culturalism has a dark side. Immgrant communities are subtly encouraged to isolate themselves and resist the assimilation that made this country great.
However, the evil done by today's terrorists is not imaginary. It is a real threat to the public good. Simply, "this time, the witches are real......"
This reality does not justify blindly blocking all Muslims from our shores, but it does support the need to accept only those who are tolerant of Western values.
There is an irony in this topic, because most Muslim nations are shedding their tolerance for outsiders, while decrying our immigration debate.
Political correctness and the embrace of multi-culturalism has a dark side. Immgrant communities are subtly encouraged to isolate themselves and resist the assimilation that made this country great.
12
I must say I think you have describe our problem exactly. Real problems and real threats about which we dare not speak. It's an appalling way to be.
1
When the Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, the Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect and about 95 percent of immigrants came for Europe. Today, only about 10 percent of U.S. immigrants are European. The United States accepts about one million legal permanent immigrants per year, about twice the number it accepted in 1886 and more than all the other nations of the world combined. Today about 42 million immigrants live in the United States. The United States absorbs about 20 percent of the world's international migrants, even though it has less than five percent of the global population. Immigrants account for 13 percent of the U.S. population, an all-time high. And the United States currently provides safe haven for about 450,000 refugees, more than any other country except Germany that doesn’t directly border a conflict zone. But these are refugees officially designated as refugees by the United Nations. In addition, the United States has about 12 million refugees we call undocumented immigrants who have fled poverty and violence in Latin America.
7
Sigh. Nice fun wth figures, starting with the glossover of the diff between 500, 000 immgrants in a country of 1885, and one million in a pop of 316 million.
Point is, why do some of us need to tell these whoppers about our history?
Point is, why do some of us need to tell these whoppers about our history?
International Standard Version (Bible)
Whatever has happened, will happen again; whatever has been done, will be done again. There is nothing new on earth.
*******
Differing words, perhaps, and differing "others" and differing ways of being divisive and abusive, but as the modern saying goes "what is, is."
Whatever has happened, will happen again; whatever has been done, will be done again. There is nothing new on earth.
*******
Differing words, perhaps, and differing "others" and differing ways of being divisive and abusive, but as the modern saying goes "what is, is."
1
How is reducing a universal human attribute, one which can alternately be both a destructive force and a creative tool, reducing said universal to a provincial cultural sin, be anything more than a perversely narcissistic manifestation of American exceptionalism?
A manifestation that has been with us since the American Communist Party was supported as the vanguard of a new American society by the late, unlamented Soviet Union.
A manifestation that has been with us since the American Communist Party was supported as the vanguard of a new American society by the late, unlamented Soviet Union.
2
Ms. Schiff has identified behavior that is 'human,' not 'American.' In every nation, ignorance, rumors and self-interest (economic, political, social) create a fertile breeding ground for fear and hatred of 'foreign enemies.'
Dictators exploit this situation by evoking nationalistic emotions to distract attention from day-to-day realities. The citizens of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela (and etc.) receive a steady dose of anti-American propaganda-- in the same way The Donald talks about Latinos and Arabs to appeal to Americans in dire straits, and to distract attention from his own shortcomings.
The issue, then, is not whether Americans are influenced by such talk -- for everyone is. The issue is what makes the people of some nations more vulnerable to this corrosive influence, and what makes others less vulnerable. The politically volatile world we live in today is not radically different from the experience of the 1930s, following the previous global financial panic. Economic hardships undermine the legitimacy of democratic leaders, and lend credibility to conspiracy stories involving foreign enemies. Eighty years ago, such historical figures as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo exploited economic strife to justify their reckless ambitions. In America demagogues such as Huey Long were riding high.
Dictators exploit this situation by evoking nationalistic emotions to distract attention from day-to-day realities. The citizens of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela (and etc.) receive a steady dose of anti-American propaganda-- in the same way The Donald talks about Latinos and Arabs to appeal to Americans in dire straits, and to distract attention from his own shortcomings.
The issue, then, is not whether Americans are influenced by such talk -- for everyone is. The issue is what makes the people of some nations more vulnerable to this corrosive influence, and what makes others less vulnerable. The politically volatile world we live in today is not radically different from the experience of the 1930s, following the previous global financial panic. Economic hardships undermine the legitimacy of democratic leaders, and lend credibility to conspiracy stories involving foreign enemies. Eighty years ago, such historical figures as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo exploited economic strife to justify their reckless ambitions. In America demagogues such as Huey Long were riding high.
8
It's not that the history of the U.S. is one that is unique in demonstrating the very worst aspects of human nature. It's that the mythology of the country pretends we are exceptionally different. We are not, but when we are at our best, we can exhibit the most admirable qualities of human nature. The more we embrace tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity, the closer we get to the latter.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
America was born and bred in misogyny, white Northern Western European Protestant supremacy, African enslavement, Native colonization and genocide. Expanding the definition of who is a person divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the hypocritical distance between America's soaring dreaming rhetoric and governing practical historical reality.
10
But of course other countries were born and bed in peace, love, harmony and fair plan for all. Intolerance is not something that occurs in the ME..it's just a figment of our imagination What a load of horse feathers.
The U.S. is a xenophobic country yet 13% of the population are immigrants. What is a xenophobic country doing letting all those immigrants in? We can't even do xenophobia right.
16
Whaddaya mean "we?" Big Corporations want cheap labor or skilled labor trained at the expense of other countries. Their Congress, bought and paid for, facilitates the Big Corps with the visa policies most applicable year by year.
The types of attitudes & actions described in this article were typical of the civilized *world* at that time, and not at all particular to the North American colonies. In fact, many of the settlers were themselves fleeing from this exact same kind of irrational treatment in Europe.
Certainly the unique circumstances of being in a new, forbidding, wilderness continent probably exacerbated some hysteria. And the climate change of the Little Ice Age probably also had something to do with increasing fears of unknown forces at work.
However, it should be noted that this was pre-Enlightment, and most of what we understand to be "American" only came about approximately 100 years after most of these described incidents. These new colonists might better be defined as recent European immigrants, rather than proto-Americans.
And. in fact, instead of saying that these past events define, even now, who we are, we need to acknowledge how far we have come from those ancient, destructive tribal/clan animosities and superstitious tragedies. Though we may still slip periodically, we still provide the broadest tolerance & freedom for ever more new "Americans".
Certainly the unique circumstances of being in a new, forbidding, wilderness continent probably exacerbated some hysteria. And the climate change of the Little Ice Age probably also had something to do with increasing fears of unknown forces at work.
However, it should be noted that this was pre-Enlightment, and most of what we understand to be "American" only came about approximately 100 years after most of these described incidents. These new colonists might better be defined as recent European immigrants, rather than proto-Americans.
And. in fact, instead of saying that these past events define, even now, who we are, we need to acknowledge how far we have come from those ancient, destructive tribal/clan animosities and superstitious tragedies. Though we may still slip periodically, we still provide the broadest tolerance & freedom for ever more new "Americans".
8
I grew up in Connecticut and lived in Hartford for a time, in a neighborhood adjacent to Frogtown. Why Frogtown? Because the first ghettos in America -- there are dozens throughout New England -- were reserved for the (allegedly lowlife) French Canadians. They are still Frogtowns, though the frogs have long since hopped away. There is nothing new to any of this.
3
The NYT is terribly confused when it comes to the issue of immigration.
The NYT continues to label as racists or rabid xenophobes anyone that that does not favor completely open borders.
The NYT is out of step with the public on this one and their position has been to the detriment of true immigrants and refugees.
The public perception, and unfortunate reality, is that we see a government that has absolutely no interest in enforcing existing immigration laws. Their attitude is that if you are able to sneak in, you should be allowed to stay. Upon catching people, even convicted felons, here illegally, the police are not permitted to bring that to the attention of immigration authorities in too many sanctuary cities. We have no idea how many people have overstayed their visa. We have revoked the visas of tens of thousands of people, yet have no idea if those people are still in the US. Recent news that our government hasn't yet discovered what social media is, does not invoke confidence in any vetting processes.
Most Americans probably wouldn't disagree with Trump that we should take a pause on admitting immigrants from certain Moslem countries (particularly Syrian immigrants) until we look carefully at our processes.
The blatantly obvious fact that our existing immigration laws are broken, that they are, for political purposes, intentionally not being enforced, surely causes the public to question any immigration at all in over reaction.
The NYT continues to label as racists or rabid xenophobes anyone that that does not favor completely open borders.
The NYT is out of step with the public on this one and their position has been to the detriment of true immigrants and refugees.
The public perception, and unfortunate reality, is that we see a government that has absolutely no interest in enforcing existing immigration laws. Their attitude is that if you are able to sneak in, you should be allowed to stay. Upon catching people, even convicted felons, here illegally, the police are not permitted to bring that to the attention of immigration authorities in too many sanctuary cities. We have no idea how many people have overstayed their visa. We have revoked the visas of tens of thousands of people, yet have no idea if those people are still in the US. Recent news that our government hasn't yet discovered what social media is, does not invoke confidence in any vetting processes.
Most Americans probably wouldn't disagree with Trump that we should take a pause on admitting immigrants from certain Moslem countries (particularly Syrian immigrants) until we look carefully at our processes.
The blatantly obvious fact that our existing immigration laws are broken, that they are, for political purposes, intentionally not being enforced, surely causes the public to question any immigration at all in over reaction.
10
Definitely it's fun to pull colorful quotes from history and share them in an Op-Ed, but is it a helpful exercise? I don't think you can point to any society, any time in history that didn't display an ingrown fear of outsiders. There is nothing distinctively American about it. This country was not 'built' on it, unless you concede that every human country and society is 'built' on it, which is perhaps a valid observation, but is also a pretty useless one.
8
Spot on Ms. Schiff! But with internet and social media we are supposed to feel closer to each other and realize that we are all alike, all differences are only superficial.
In fact, internet and social media make hating easier. They also make spreading hate speech and racism faster and easier.
Some people also claim that educated people are beyond hate, racism and bigotry. They are wrong; the media everywhere is full of examples.
In fact, internet and social media make hating easier. They also make spreading hate speech and racism faster and easier.
Some people also claim that educated people are beyond hate, racism and bigotry. They are wrong; the media everywhere is full of examples.
3
Even as an agnostic, I appreciate "there but for the grace of god, go I". Hateful people might learn by reflecting on that.
1
Several commenters, sensing that this is an indictment of all things American, criticize the messenger or the message as bad history. That would be bad enough if the same view weren't enshrined in public policy, as it is in Texas, where the state textbook committee scrubs materials to produce patriotic screeds. And because Texas is so large, these materials find their way to other states, perpetuating the view.
5
Why is it that tribalism always finds its support in God? That conceit, arrogance and prejudice are always blessed by God? That war, mayhem, mob violence and slaughter all claim to be the work of God? God did not create man, but man created God, to justify man's ungodly work. What is more likely, that we can find a new God that rejects our evil, or a new man that accepts evil as his own work? To all the holier than thou that profess to do God's work while placing a yoke an another human's back, ask yourself honestly whether it's God's work, or your own Satanic perversion of all that is good.
6
I am a Mayflower descendant, so I guess you could say I come from the first "illegal aliens" ;-)
1
no question about it. I have met other mayflower descendants, all of whom hold a little pride when they say it. i have never understood this pride, given that I know the history of what those on the mayflower did. i wonder if you don't puff out a bit when you drop the mayflower bomb at cocktail parties. if so, why? will you give it up and acknowledge the shame of it? of course, you are probably a good person, but, still, will you?
5
My wife's ancestors helped FINANCE the Mayflower expedition, expecting to make money off of the work of your ancestors. Capitalist and colonial exploitation! That's how America started - a bunch of financiers in London sponsored colonies in North America from which they got the profits. So long as the money flowed, they didn't what odd or gruesome mischief the colonists got up to.
4
It has been said that those who came over on the Mayflower were similar to Castro's boat people who arrived here years ago. England wanted them out and they were forced to leave. I question whether one should be proud to say they came over on the Mayflower now.
1
Discrimination....the best way to try to promote your own group is to create hatred against other groups. Which ethnic or religious group has not been discriminated against upon arrival in America? Maybe your grandparents told you about the hardships their parents and earlier relatives faced? Irish? Chinese? Polish? Jewish? The list is endless....and continues to grow.
5
The Wampanoags didn' t expect the Puritans to come over to wonder (very seriously) who else would deserve to come afterwards.
Decency need not be maddeningly quiet. The things keeping it quiet are being demonized and persecuted and marginalized by the indecent, self-proclaimed, powers that be. There are quiet things that may be done, however. Voting is a small, quiet way to be decent in 2016. That, and cutting the cable TV cord.
2
This is America's "mystical paranoia," and it exists on both ends of the bell curve, misshaping it.
The bell curve, showing the "normal distribution" of qualities in both nature and humanity, has at the extremes 10%, which leaves 80% relatively "normal."
America's mystical paranoia warps the extremes, doubling their size to 20%. Thus, in politics, 20% on the right and on the left are extremists.
That leaves 60% of Americans "normal," which is why elections are typically decided by these moderate folks.
The bell curve, showing the "normal distribution" of qualities in both nature and humanity, has at the extremes 10%, which leaves 80% relatively "normal."
America's mystical paranoia warps the extremes, doubling their size to 20%. Thus, in politics, 20% on the right and on the left are extremists.
That leaves 60% of Americans "normal," which is why elections are typically decided by these moderate folks.
2
No society is immune from anger and revenge, yet this part of history is better forgotten to move ahead as a civilised social collective.
1
"...this part of history is better forgotten to move ahead as a civilised social collective."
No. Absolutely the wrong thing to do. The very reason that these "brush fires flare up with regularity" is because we forget our history over and over again. We repeat the mistakes of the past because we forget that we ever made them. IMO, a truly civilized social collective would not only remember its past, but also study it in an effort to move forward into the future as an improved humanity, not making the same mistakes over and over.
No. Absolutely the wrong thing to do. The very reason that these "brush fires flare up with regularity" is because we forget our history over and over again. We repeat the mistakes of the past because we forget that we ever made them. IMO, a truly civilized social collective would not only remember its past, but also study it in an effort to move forward into the future as an improved humanity, not making the same mistakes over and over.
7
"this part of history is better forgotten" = quintessential lunacy!
I respectfully suggest that Ms. Schiff read history, the history of the world. I also suggest that she read tomes on human nature. She might learn that suspicion and fear of The Other is a part of human nature. She might learn that humans are tribal, and that tribes have been barring others from their territory since time began. And if she read American history she might know that millions of people choose to come to the USA every year - and those are the legal, counted immigrants.
If she read recent history about an unknown but substantial number of Muslims being radicalized by parents as they grow up, and as they learned in their madrassas and mosques, she might understand the fear of allowing millions to enter the USA.
Because that's the issue: barring Muslims until: A) We have in place a means to insure radicals do not enter the USA; B) Muslim leaders get radical Islam under control, meaning it is not taught by parents or in Islam schools and mosques; C) Muslims become tolerant of others.
Schiff et al tell us we need tolerance, and I agree. Tolerance is exactly what is needed - tolerance by those who practice Islam towards those who practice Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and others, including atheists.
Until then, barring people from Muslim countries makes sense.
If she read recent history about an unknown but substantial number of Muslims being radicalized by parents as they grow up, and as they learned in their madrassas and mosques, she might understand the fear of allowing millions to enter the USA.
Because that's the issue: barring Muslims until: A) We have in place a means to insure radicals do not enter the USA; B) Muslim leaders get radical Islam under control, meaning it is not taught by parents or in Islam schools and mosques; C) Muslims become tolerant of others.
Schiff et al tell us we need tolerance, and I agree. Tolerance is exactly what is needed - tolerance by those who practice Islam towards those who practice Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and others, including atheists.
Until then, barring people from Muslim countries makes sense.
7
We're a nation of tribes and theology has pulled the tribes apart more than bound them together. It's the fabric of history from the Mayflower, sowing early seeds of discord. Roger Williams found Rhode Island to escape Massachusetts. The Flushing Remonstrance defends Quakers against New Netherland intolerance.
While Jefferson, Madison and others fought for religious freedoms, the feelings of opposition to that part of the First Amendment existed then and still do today.
While Jefferson, Madison and others fought for religious freedoms, the feelings of opposition to that part of the First Amendment existed then and still do today.
3
American history is for some the perpetuation of gun culture.
Worrying even the possible takeover by the American Government------------------the American Government IS the United States.
The real government should be very wary of gun-toting militias, and if necessary, keep them from doing harm to the country's citizens and laws.
Worrying even the possible takeover by the American Government------------------the American Government IS the United States.
The real government should be very wary of gun-toting militias, and if necessary, keep them from doing harm to the country's citizens and laws.
1
I find it sort of funny of all people to quote Donald Trump-- and even more so to quote Donald Trump speaking against xenophobia. But back to reading the article.
Agree -- instead it's time to start quoting Freud again (e.g. Civilization and Its Discontents).
1
Sorry hipster liberal progressive perfect people. Aggression and territoriality have been hard-wired into us by evolution and all the up-turned noses in the world aren't going to change that. Sometimes both sides want to kill each other and they get the job done. Pretending it's all "social construct" will surely make you feel better but it won't change the world. You don't "believe" in evolution either if you don't recognize that we are not unlike our relatives, we just have more complex neural networks to think up more horrifying ways of doing unto others before they have a chance to do unto us. You have a problem, I have a problem, we all have a problem. And until we admit this and stop hawking pie in the sky we're on a one-way path towards Doom, and no better than the religious fanatics you hate because they are here or love because they are there.
4
Actually, a review of history shows that "civilization" is possible. It's always a work in progress, because the Old Adam always finds a way to get out of the cage. But as we improve the model, civilization finds ways to check and balance the primitives among us and in ourselves
5
I think the definition of civilization is the ability to rise up above hard-wired evolution. To simply explain away bad actors and bad actions as an unalterable evolutionary trait provides a convenient excuse for those who think they can speak, act and make decisions without accountability. We become the enablers of those characteristics.
3
It's not a good idea to use “offensive” speech. It can have serious consequences, could be illegal in some cases and could cost you your job. On the other hand, this is a free country and people should be able to express their values, opinions and beliefs. Many of us, unfortunately, live lives of hypocrisy, dishonesty and evasion about racial and religious issues.
Ask yourself this: What do you really think inside your heart of hearts? No one is going to beat you up, get you fired and you won't be prosecuted. Just be honest. A lot of people stop and think, give a nervous laugh and say "Well, that's another story." This is the situation we've created. Workplace environments becomes uncomfortable, you avoid certain others and carefully monitor what you say.
The concept of hate speech has morphed from speech that clearly advocates violence and physical harm or unambiguous and unqualified hatred toward races and religions, to now include honest criticism, valid generalizations, justified anger, "micro-agressions," citing criminal statistics, dropout rates or virtually anything else – even admitting reasonable fear of crime -- even if it is clearly valid -- that discomfits sacralized victim groups in any manner.
The current concept of hate speech has become a racket to silence critics, skeptics and obvious truth-tellers. Expressions need to be evaluated upon their relationship to observable reality and not upon offending special and privileged classes of persons.
Ask yourself this: What do you really think inside your heart of hearts? No one is going to beat you up, get you fired and you won't be prosecuted. Just be honest. A lot of people stop and think, give a nervous laugh and say "Well, that's another story." This is the situation we've created. Workplace environments becomes uncomfortable, you avoid certain others and carefully monitor what you say.
The concept of hate speech has morphed from speech that clearly advocates violence and physical harm or unambiguous and unqualified hatred toward races and religions, to now include honest criticism, valid generalizations, justified anger, "micro-agressions," citing criminal statistics, dropout rates or virtually anything else – even admitting reasonable fear of crime -- even if it is clearly valid -- that discomfits sacralized victim groups in any manner.
The current concept of hate speech has become a racket to silence critics, skeptics and obvious truth-tellers. Expressions need to be evaluated upon their relationship to observable reality and not upon offending special and privileged classes of persons.
4
What is not looked at here is the role the media plays in all this hatred.
5
Thank you. Jefferson, Madison,Washington and other founding fathers were well aware of this tendency, and the current crop of Repubs and Scalia notwithstanding created a "wall of separation" between church and state under which "Congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof."
5
Theistic religions, in the name of an all loving God, have committed atrocities worth remembering, so to avoid them henceforth. Trouble is, intolerance remains the name of the game, as we seem to pay tribute to a make-believe fantasy rather than to the facts conforming reality. All this, in the name of a 'holy book' invented by primitive, ignorant and prejudiced men. It is ironic that this country was founded by folks escaping from Europe's religious fanaticism and persecution...but soon forgotten when they chose to call themselves the new 'exceptionals', and barring newcomers if belonging to another tribe. Whoever is able to explain why our brain, if 'properly indoctrinated', continues to behave in a mostly irrational manner insofar religion is concerned, may deserve our highest praise.
1
And what exactly does all this "equivalencing" have to do with being wary of a religion that advertises itself as the "last word" and that urges its followers to kill in "defense of the faith" and the "prophet"? Not a thing!
3
I have been doing some family research. Aren't we all? Found out that many of my ancestors came from the Netherlands, with stops in Missouri, eventually to Oregon, because they were Bretheren, which was later explained to me we German Baptists and did not toe the official line of being Lutherans. They came/went to Oregon in the mid-late 1800s.
America is far less xenophobic that most countries:
America grants one million legal permanent residence permits ("green cards")
every year, more than any other country in the world, and, as a proportion of our current population, more than any other country except Canada, which has a far smaller population density than ours.
Most countries have far more restrictive immigration laws than America.
Most countries have far less accommodation-- both in government services and also in government-mandated private business services -- to immigrants who do not speak the national language -- whether it be official or de facto -- and English is clearly the de facto national language of the USA.
Canada?? a relevant example? No. Canada is officially dual language for clear historical reasons -- dating from a bargain made by the British Crown with the people of Quebec. That situation has no application to the USA. And if you do not speak either English or French, just see how far you get in Canada. Belgium?? Switzerland?? Likewise not relevant examples. They are multi-language for clear historical reasons, not applicable to the USA. Spanish or Arabic does little for you in either Canada or Belgium or Switzerland.
Respect for the law?? Yes, that is an American hallmark.
America has the world's most complex tax laws -- by far.
And yet, they function -- so far -- reasonably well -- by voluntary compliance --
much better than nearly any other country.
Immigrants ought to follow our laws.
America grants one million legal permanent residence permits ("green cards")
every year, more than any other country in the world, and, as a proportion of our current population, more than any other country except Canada, which has a far smaller population density than ours.
Most countries have far more restrictive immigration laws than America.
Most countries have far less accommodation-- both in government services and also in government-mandated private business services -- to immigrants who do not speak the national language -- whether it be official or de facto -- and English is clearly the de facto national language of the USA.
Canada?? a relevant example? No. Canada is officially dual language for clear historical reasons -- dating from a bargain made by the British Crown with the people of Quebec. That situation has no application to the USA. And if you do not speak either English or French, just see how far you get in Canada. Belgium?? Switzerland?? Likewise not relevant examples. They are multi-language for clear historical reasons, not applicable to the USA. Spanish or Arabic does little for you in either Canada or Belgium or Switzerland.
Respect for the law?? Yes, that is an American hallmark.
America has the world's most complex tax laws -- by far.
And yet, they function -- so far -- reasonably well -- by voluntary compliance --
much better than nearly any other country.
Immigrants ought to follow our laws.
3
It is my understanding that the Pilgrims did not come here for religious freedom, but because they objected to religious freedom in England, i.e. the Elizabethan Settlement, which tolerated Catholicism.
3
"Rabid xenophobia" Can that describe a country that accepts over one million foreigners each and every year as legal permanent residents? Accepting more foreigners than any other country on the face of this planet. A country that has among its population anywhere from 11 to 20 million foreigners who entered and or remained in this country illegally and are marching in our streets demanding their rights. A country that does not take its borders seriously and allows thousands to enter weekly without inspection. Xenophobic, no I think not. But think what you will if it makes you feel better.
2
Every religion or movement seems to adopt a boogey man to point to and give purpose to. All it takes is someone to pop up and start spewing the hatred and fine tune the message. There is an abundance of people all too willing to sign up and be led rather than make a commitment to think for themselves.
3
Never mind the vitriol between the Adams and Jefferson camps during the election of 1800. Makes today's name calling, at least among the present crop of Republican candidates, look almost sedate and quaint.
Yes, because mistrusting the out group, the "other," is simply human nature. It is virtually impossible for an entire society to completely rise above it, let alone because there is some logic to mistrusting the unfamiliar. Overall, this nation has come about as far as you can expect a big group of humans to progress toward a more rational state of tolerance.
Unfortunately, Americans are never going to evolve past a group of insular, afraid, over confident, hubristically arrogant dim wits, as a group. So, life goes on.
Among the dire predictions of Puritan clergymen was that "boatloads of nefarious Irishmen were set to disembark in Boston harbor, to establish Roman Catholicism in New England".
But this claim turned out to be more foresighted than outrageous. The Puritans eventually lost their control of Massachusetts to Irish immigrants.
Of course, the term "nefarious" is quite unjust as a general characterization of this population. But a look at some of the more influential Kennedy forebearers, for example, suggests that it was not unknown in the community.
But this claim turned out to be more foresighted than outrageous. The Puritans eventually lost their control of Massachusetts to Irish immigrants.
Of course, the term "nefarious" is quite unjust as a general characterization of this population. But a look at some of the more influential Kennedy forebearers, for example, suggests that it was not unknown in the community.
2
It seems like when I was a kid playing games I was always killing non whites. Cowboys and Indians (always the cowboy), G.I. Joe fighting in foreign lands, and the military fighting illegal aliens (the outer space kind). Guns of many differing varieties with a host of peoples to hate and kill. It no wonder we are the most militaristic country on earth, we've always been soldiers in training.
2
The writer seems to think the early New Englanders chose the French at random for discrimination. In actuality there was a raging war between French Canadian (Catholic) and English (Protestant) settlers and among the various Indian tribes allied to them. French Canadian claims to the American Midwest were real and the barbarism of frontier warfare made the animosities worse. There was really no opportunity for Mr. Roger's happy neighborhood in this situation.
2
Taking comfort in the observation that many of our forefathers were just a bigoted as many of our contemporaries, diverts our attention from the more enduring truth. Even though many of our forefathers were bigots. Others stood for truth, tolerance and equality. Their beliefs have shaped our heritage -- our American dream.
1
The "Pilgrims" left from the Netherlands where they certainly were not persecuted. The Europe they left was riven with religious wars that devastated the Germanic states. It would have been super-human had the newcomers not been cut from the same dark cloth as their warring brethren.
As for the rest of America, many newcomers brought from Scotland and Ireland a virulent strain of Protestantism, which, allied with poor education, persists to this day and poisons the body politic.
As for the rest of America, many newcomers brought from Scotland and Ireland a virulent strain of Protestantism, which, allied with poor education, persists to this day and poisons the body politic.
6
Ms. Schiff seems to be quite selective when it comes to making her case that America was founded by a bunch of xenophobes. A little context please. By ignoring the events that drove the early New England colonists you can paint them as a bunch of crazies, but history may suggest otherwise. They fled England because of a struggle between King/Church of England that led to a Civil war, regicide, Oliver Cromwell, The Restoration, and a near Catholic monarchy under James II. There was the 30 Years War that started out over Protestant/Catholic struggles that devastated Germany, and don't forget the 70 year struggle of the Dutch against the Spanish over religion. Finally in 1685 Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes ending a brief period of religious tolerance in France.
Taking what they lived through why shouldn't they have been wary of "outsiders"? After all, they crossed 3000 miles of dangerous ocean to establish their refuge, and they weren't about to see religious strife undo their safe haven.
In fact, one could argue they would be nuts not to protect themselves given the events if the 17th Century.
Taking what they lived through why shouldn't they have been wary of "outsiders"? After all, they crossed 3000 miles of dangerous ocean to establish their refuge, and they weren't about to see religious strife undo their safe haven.
In fact, one could argue they would be nuts not to protect themselves given the events if the 17th Century.
11
If there is a hopeful message in this column, it is that our melting pot of a country has managed avoided a total meltdown for the two-hundred plus years of our history as a country. For all the bigotry and narrow-mindedness, it remains true that on a day-to-day basis at the community level, we are often a compassionate and caring people who manage to keep our intolerance in check.
Our faults are not in poor long dead busy Mathers, père and fils.
Our faults are entirely in ourselves.
Our faults are entirely in ourselves.
3
Yes, we have always been tribal. That is based on our reptilian brain. We need more realism, more truth, more honesty, and more humility. These are the antidotes to tribalism.
This was a great op-ed.
This was a great op-ed.
2
WHITHER ANGER? Why is it that religion and sanctimonious outrage are so strongly linked together? Why do we never hear about ferocious atheists or agnostics? I suspect that it has to do with how decisions are made about principles of morals and ethics are viewed. In many, if not most, religious groups, transgressions of divine law are met with rage both in the ancient sources religious doctrine and in our day. By contrast, atheists and agnostics have no moral or ethical codes in the same sense as religions. They are both products of rationalism. So mistakes are not viewed as an outrage against that which is holy, but rather as problems that need to be solved. Social problems are more efficiently solved by means of calm, rational reflection than by being dictated by laws that are reflective of rage and violence.
I believe firmly that, as the Constitution directs, church and state must remain clearly separated. Since 1980 when the mixing of official thought with religion, increased significantly, the results have been disastrous. Mainly because they do not elevate humans, but rather treat them like animals to satisfy violence and rage masquerading as sacred practices.
I believe firmly that, as the Constitution directs, church and state must remain clearly separated. Since 1980 when the mixing of official thought with religion, increased significantly, the results have been disastrous. Mainly because they do not elevate humans, but rather treat them like animals to satisfy violence and rage masquerading as sacred practices.
54
But racial bias comes from everywhere; don't forget the vitriol expressed toward American Indians by Jamestown settlers, whose project was secular. And also don't forget that religious institutions founded so many of the early American colleges and universities, keeping inquiry and learning alive in the new world. And in New England and elsewhere religious thought is what inspired many of the revolutionary sentiments that shaped America into the independent nation it is. In fact, you could say that anger and revolutionary sentiments are on some level linked -- through a recognition that the current state of affairs is lacking and that a better one can be achieved.
Not since 1980, but since 1956 when "In God We Trust" was adopted as the nation's motto.
And that does not include the special tax exempt status of religious institutions, which forces taxpayers to subsidize religions whose doctrines they find abhorrent.
And that does not include the special tax exempt status of religious institutions, which forces taxpayers to subsidize religions whose doctrines they find abhorrent.
Interesting commentary, but so what? Yes, there has been persecution of minorities in America, but those old bigotries are long gone, as will be any current ones. What is missing here is the elephant in the room only Trump has addressed - how the drive for diversity and acceptance has been blatantly used by business to undermine the middle class. NAFTA pushed Mexicans off farms and illegal or not they came North to survive, depressing wages in industries like construction that once were middle class (usually union) jobs. And businesses can use H1Bs to lower wages for knowledge workers, comfortable knowing that they can hire fewer blacks and still meet diversity targets.
The people themselves, Mexicans, Indians, Ukranians, etc. are fine, but the policies play on political instincts both on the left and right. On the left any move to stop the flood is seen as bigotry. On the right any move to stop it is anti-business. So it goes on, pushing up the white suicide rate and minority crime in the inner cities, with Trump as the only one willing to call it out - not Clinton certainly, since Bill ushered in NAFTA. And this article does nothing but reinforce the status quo, as though changing bad policy is bigotry - standing up for your right to work is not bigotry.
The people themselves, Mexicans, Indians, Ukranians, etc. are fine, but the policies play on political instincts both on the left and right. On the left any move to stop the flood is seen as bigotry. On the right any move to stop it is anti-business. So it goes on, pushing up the white suicide rate and minority crime in the inner cities, with Trump as the only one willing to call it out - not Clinton certainly, since Bill ushered in NAFTA. And this article does nothing but reinforce the status quo, as though changing bad policy is bigotry - standing up for your right to work is not bigotry.
17
Bravo! Your excellent message is the best of the best, the best of all. You recognize that "On the left any move to stop the flood is seen as bigotry. On the right any move to stop it is anti-business."
The tensions we see in our country today are largely economic, as manufacturing began leaving the USA decades ago, and the rate of job loss accelerated with Bill Clinton's NAFTA, and will accelerate even more with Barack Obama's TPP.
I don't discount the fear of radical Islamic terrorists such as the Boston Bombers and the San Bernardino shooters: those fears are grounded in reality, as these murderers were American citizens who had received much of the best that our country has to offer.
The tensions we see in our country today are largely economic, as manufacturing began leaving the USA decades ago, and the rate of job loss accelerated with Bill Clinton's NAFTA, and will accelerate even more with Barack Obama's TPP.
I don't discount the fear of radical Islamic terrorists such as the Boston Bombers and the San Bernardino shooters: those fears are grounded in reality, as these murderers were American citizens who had received much of the best that our country has to offer.
1
"Yes, there has been persecution of minorities in America, but those old bigotries are long gone, as will be any current ones. " Really, no bigotry, like targeting all Muslims for the crimes of a few radicals -- but we don't target all evangelicals for the crimes committed by their radicals?
You're clearly stuck in the mystical paranoid syndrome described in the article, and you're in so deep, you can't see that.
You're clearly stuck in the mystical paranoid syndrome described in the article, and you're in so deep, you can't see that.
1
"Yes, there has been persecution of minorities in America, but those old bigotries are long gone, as will be any current ones."
Really?
I think the point of the article directly contradicts your statement.
People from Mexico have been coming up to work on the farms ever since the Western states were ratified. Immigrants have been pouring into the United States since.... I dunno, maybe 1620. And every arrival is greeted by suspicious predecessors, squatting over their possessions and raising pre-emptive hell.
And the right to work is a handmaiden for the right to gouge one's employees.
Really?
I think the point of the article directly contradicts your statement.
People from Mexico have been coming up to work on the farms ever since the Western states were ratified. Immigrants have been pouring into the United States since.... I dunno, maybe 1620. And every arrival is greeted by suspicious predecessors, squatting over their possessions and raising pre-emptive hell.
And the right to work is a handmaiden for the right to gouge one's employees.
1
Even though Islam is currently the target of widespread opprobium in the contemporary United States, Catholics are still charged with divided loyalties due to the peculiar spiritual-political component of papal rule. There is a great fear of foreign interference in American politics by a potential 'fifth column' incarnated by a Catholic clergy vow-bound to obey their leader in faraway Rome.
"Great fear"?? I didn't hear that phrase in 1960 during John Kennedy's campaign for the office of President of the United States. JFK won, of course, and was the first Roman Catholic to do so. It's possible, and likely, that his brother Robert would have been the next Roman Catholic President had he not been murdered. From Wikipedia: "Shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, after Kennedy defeated Senator Eugene McCarthy in the California presidential primary, he was shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian, and died the following day."
But even those few Americans who might feel a Pope might influence a President on topics such as birth control or abortion, there's never been any "great fear" of Catholics. Indeed, Irish, Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese et al Catholics have been leaders in the US in local, state, and federal offices, both elected and appointed, throughout the country. Did each group experience questions as they arrived in the USA? Yes.......but they became Americans, assimilated rapidly, and are part of the strong fabric of the USA.
But even those few Americans who might feel a Pope might influence a President on topics such as birth control or abortion, there's never been any "great fear" of Catholics. Indeed, Irish, Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese et al Catholics have been leaders in the US in local, state, and federal offices, both elected and appointed, throughout the country. Did each group experience questions as they arrived in the USA? Yes.......but they became Americans, assimilated rapidly, and are part of the strong fabric of the USA.
1
History tells us that the Puritans were pushed out of England for their zealotry. They were ushered into the New World where they wrecked havoc. In the Age of Enlightenment their extreme behavior made it easier for our founding fathers to convince everyone that it was vital to separate church from state. Extremists and extremism made that an easy decision. If you believe in the common good, the same holds true today.
4
Samuel Janovici
Mill Valley, Ca
Actually history tells us no such thing. The Puritans left England because of persecution as they were dissenters. As in dissenters from the established religion. Quakers left for much the same reason. Dissenters in Britain didn't receive many civil rights until the 19th century.
Mill Valley, Ca
Actually history tells us no such thing. The Puritans left England because of persecution as they were dissenters. As in dissenters from the established religion. Quakers left for much the same reason. Dissenters in Britain didn't receive many civil rights until the 19th century.
2
Make that wreaked havoc.
It is becoming obvious that there are fewer and fewer Americans who are aware of what Ms. Schiff is expounding here! As a licensed Social Studies educator, ( which though covers a wide range of the social sciences, is essentially concerned with the study of history) I see how my discipline is becoming more and more marginalized! For example, here in New York, a number of the powers that be are considering eliminating one of the rigorous History Regents! We do it at our own peril and should not be surprised that we will then be getting a more clueless and misinformed electorate, who then would have no problem embracing demagogues! Henry Ford said History is bunk! He seems to have become right! I'm sad, but I don't think many of my other, fellow Americans are...
5
I will not vote for the Republican nominee for president due to the outrageous demagoguery and foul, "incendiary language" of the prospective Republican candidates. Also there is a hate-mongering and fear-mongering going on against refugees and people of color, especially by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz that the other candidates seek to emulate. I read in the Times that someone in Florida published in a newspaper that Trump is a "bullyionaire" and was promptly sued by Trump. A "bullyionaire" certainly, but only after cheating thousands of individuals and filing 4 times for bankruptcy!
1
History is written by the winners. As the white settlers swept across the continent they crushed every one in their path for the sake of domination of the land and it's treasures. They stole the land of the Cherokees who tried to fit in with this new culture and declared a death march to Oklahoma. Thank you President Jackson. The wealthy new industrialists set up sweat shops that resulted in large numbers of dead immigrants in deadly fire traps. And earlier there were the Chinese who built our cross country rail road system risking their lives only to be kicked out and persecuted during the 1880's.
Yes many Americans justified their anger with religion, but the anger really stemmed from their feeling that they didn't own everything and they had to possess it at all costs. So they made the immigrant, the black person, the Hispanic and the poor into the other to justify stealing their land, possessions and labor.
In some ways our history is not one of anger, but of who owns what The Other becomes invisible and if noticed at all a nuisance and when they get in the way of capitalist theft they need to be exterminated, moved out or denied their humanity and in some ways this still continues today.
Yes many Americans justified their anger with religion, but the anger really stemmed from their feeling that they didn't own everything and they had to possess it at all costs. So they made the immigrant, the black person, the Hispanic and the poor into the other to justify stealing their land, possessions and labor.
In some ways our history is not one of anger, but of who owns what The Other becomes invisible and if noticed at all a nuisance and when they get in the way of capitalist theft they need to be exterminated, moved out or denied their humanity and in some ways this still continues today.
4
Here is part of a letter, written by George Washington in 1790. It is addressed to the Jewish community of Newport, RI:
" It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
" It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
1
Luckily, science and reason won the war of "my truth is better than your truth," and did so without firing a shot or raising a voice of rage. Luckily, scientific truths need no enforcement, and are utterly amenable to an upgrade in perspective when needed, or complete rearrangement.
Notice we have no mad scientist terrorists gunning down the ignorant. Quietly, as thousands kneel and pray for magic, their lives are actually saved in hospitals and prolonged by better diet and shelter, and their happiness made greater by innovative wonders.
Funny, the one reliable source of truth, universal in that any person on the planet can verify its claims without permission or fear, unlike provincial religion, has no army marching in its name. The reason is simple; it is an open and growing system of knowledge, with no final truths. It is the final truths of ideology and religion that, like final solutions, are toxic and deadly.
Notice we have no mad scientist terrorists gunning down the ignorant. Quietly, as thousands kneel and pray for magic, their lives are actually saved in hospitals and prolonged by better diet and shelter, and their happiness made greater by innovative wonders.
Funny, the one reliable source of truth, universal in that any person on the planet can verify its claims without permission or fear, unlike provincial religion, has no army marching in its name. The reason is simple; it is an open and growing system of knowledge, with no final truths. It is the final truths of ideology and religion that, like final solutions, are toxic and deadly.
7
Thank you for this. While it is a specific, narrow telling of the roots of our values, it is an important one.
When I hear President Obama, in response to calls to build a wall or stop Muslim immigration, say "that's not who we are," I always think to myself "No, that's exactly who we are." I appreciate what he's saying, and I recognize the need for him to say it. But it simply isn't true. Or, the truth is far more complex and ugly (I won't go into the details, though I should given the poverty of our history and civics curriculum around the county).
While the values of justice, equality, and inclusion are important in our society (or have been since the 1960s), we've spent a lot more time practicing and perfecting the values of fear, avarice, and exclusion. We have a lot of work to do around self-examination and self-awareness.
When I hear President Obama, in response to calls to build a wall or stop Muslim immigration, say "that's not who we are," I always think to myself "No, that's exactly who we are." I appreciate what he's saying, and I recognize the need for him to say it. But it simply isn't true. Or, the truth is far more complex and ugly (I won't go into the details, though I should given the poverty of our history and civics curriculum around the county).
While the values of justice, equality, and inclusion are important in our society (or have been since the 1960s), we've spent a lot more time practicing and perfecting the values of fear, avarice, and exclusion. We have a lot of work to do around self-examination and self-awareness.
2
The bottom line of Ms. Schiff's essay, and of so much of the news, and of at least a couple of the comments glanced here, is that ignorance joined with tribalistic, non-evidence based ideologies makes an extremely dangerous mixture.
This is true now and has been true in all times and in all places.
The difference in modern times is that those of us in nations where free speech is a basic value and where at least minimal education is considered a basic right now have the opportunity to escape both ignorance and poisonous ideologies.
Some of us make more of this opportunity than do others.
It's also true that the cornerstone of a safer world is to work to shine the light of day on those dangerous ideologies and to help instill the ability to think critically in as many people as possible. All-too-often these elements seem to be prerequisites to basic decency and compassion, but that's a long discussion...
This is true now and has been true in all times and in all places.
The difference in modern times is that those of us in nations where free speech is a basic value and where at least minimal education is considered a basic right now have the opportunity to escape both ignorance and poisonous ideologies.
Some of us make more of this opportunity than do others.
It's also true that the cornerstone of a safer world is to work to shine the light of day on those dangerous ideologies and to help instill the ability to think critically in as many people as possible. All-too-often these elements seem to be prerequisites to basic decency and compassion, but that's a long discussion...
"...ignorance joined with tribalistic, non-evidence based ideologies makes an extremely dangerous mixture."
Yes, but these days our advanced technologies in communication and information processing have become significant force multipliers for ignorance, tribalism, and ideology.
Yes, but these days our advanced technologies in communication and information processing have become significant force multipliers for ignorance, tribalism, and ideology.
In reply, Jack McDonald, says, "Yes, but these days our advanced technologies in communication and information processing have become significant force multipliers for ignorance, tribalism, and ideology."
I agree entirely. Unfortunately the consequences of technology cut both ways, both to increase the breadth and depth of knowledge and to spread and legitimize dangerous nonsense.
This is precisely why it's vital to help people learn to think critically and to reject the sort of fear and hate producing ideologies and superstitions that cause so many tragedies in our nation and our world.
In my opinion, Ms. Schiff's essay here is an excellent effort toward those ends.
I agree entirely. Unfortunately the consequences of technology cut both ways, both to increase the breadth and depth of knowledge and to spread and legitimize dangerous nonsense.
This is precisely why it's vital to help people learn to think critically and to reject the sort of fear and hate producing ideologies and superstitions that cause so many tragedies in our nation and our world.
In my opinion, Ms. Schiff's essay here is an excellent effort toward those ends.
I'm surprised the author did not mention Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranod Style in American Politics." It retains its currency on this issue 51 years later. In many ways this article is a rewrite.
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant."
http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant."
2
Certitude is built into religion. God only knows why. A hodge-podge of myths written originally in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, then collected and compiled over centuries and translated into Latin, primarily thanks to the Roman Catholic version of religion, then re-translated from all four of the above languages into English as it was spoken in 1600 to speak to Protestants of the day, is certainly an unimpeachable source for unquestioned authority.
And yet, how many religions have emanated from these pages, all different to degrees varying from inconsequential to insurmountable. On the insurmountable end of the spectrum, human emotions take over. The result ranges from shunning others to killing them en masse. Both reactions are approved by this most holy of texts.
Obstruction of scientific progress and the accumulation of knowledge has been the near universal constant of all forms of worship. The reason being that science fails, time and time again, to support the tenets of faith. So not only do the religions war with one another, they all war against their one common enemy: the unbeliever.
Since the Republican Party insists that the United States is a Christian nation, despite the absolute lack of that word's appearance in the founding documents, it only stands to reason that anger is its primary tool of response to any perceived threats.
And yet, how many religions have emanated from these pages, all different to degrees varying from inconsequential to insurmountable. On the insurmountable end of the spectrum, human emotions take over. The result ranges from shunning others to killing them en masse. Both reactions are approved by this most holy of texts.
Obstruction of scientific progress and the accumulation of knowledge has been the near universal constant of all forms of worship. The reason being that science fails, time and time again, to support the tenets of faith. So not only do the religions war with one another, they all war against their one common enemy: the unbeliever.
Since the Republican Party insists that the United States is a Christian nation, despite the absolute lack of that word's appearance in the founding documents, it only stands to reason that anger is its primary tool of response to any perceived threats.
5
And, of course, the attitudes and religious tribalism of the colonies was deeply rooted in the religious wars of Europe beginning with the Reformation. In England, Henry the VIII's children followed the religion of their mothers, so Mary was Catholic (Edward?), Elizabeth Protestant . Each in her turn persecuted the other side.
It need not be religious, of course, as preference for/trust of one's "own kind" over outside groups is hardwired as necessary for survival. The Irish at the height of the immigrant waves were very much rejected "No Irish" signs were not uncommon along with employment notices. It is an American tradition rooted in the human condition, but that does not make it right or good.
It need not be religious, of course, as preference for/trust of one's "own kind" over outside groups is hardwired as necessary for survival. The Irish at the height of the immigrant waves were very much rejected "No Irish" signs were not uncommon along with employment notices. It is an American tradition rooted in the human condition, but that does not make it right or good.
1
So angry white people your days of dominance may be coming to an end. The GOP is your war machine to hold on to as much as you can. Sort of makes the process comforting in that the nonsense I hear from the GOP is a logical extension of the beginnings of this country with the European invasion, which was ironically immigration.
1
I had to read from "Cotton Mather" while getting an MA in Education. I discovered that virtually everything I had hated about school as a child had been invented by HIM!
That was a truly EVIL man!
That was a truly EVIL man!
1
Read "A People's HIstory of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It puts everything Schiff writes about in perspective.
3
Yes, the basic struggle to own territorial rights continues. And the oliarchy of each time period Schiff writes of, is represented well. Because oligarchy is at the heart of it. It is the natural outcome of unregulated capitalism even in colonial times, with a people's wealth quite naturally gravitating to fewer and fewer at the top of the food chain. We have reached another zenith of this phenoma again, and so we see the fears and resentments of people who do not understand the true cause of their discomfort or where it is coming from. So they blame one another for their lack. But one candidate understand things clearly, and the oligarchy seems to fear him. His name is Bernie Sanders. He and his campaign, seeks to enlighten the public about real solutions to their discomfort and to point out what and who are actually the causes of their diminishing returns. He has his work cut out for him, with the oligarchy fighting him back mightily. Stand with him people. Let us not traverse these old human ruts that Schiff writes of. Peace on earth…good will toward men (all)!
4
Ignorance will always have a face and a seat at the table. What troubles me, and I suspect troubles others, is just how much ignorant bigotry is out there. Are we hearing all of it, or is this just the tip of the iceberg?
7
And yet people still wonder why we have separation of church and state.
11
I think there are too many out there who do not want separation of church and state. That is sad and scary
3
There is no surprise as we defend what this country has come to be since 1776 and how it defined itself in and during WW II... It is the maintaining of our own defining Democracy that is what some others in the world disagree with... As our Democracy ensures freedoms that are very uniquely American... And if a TEMPORARY ban is required as we figure out what and how to deal with this world situation than it is a cost that is little compared to any American life lost… As we have already lost enough American lives since 911, Afghanistan, Iraqi to the present…
3
Your guys want to put " boots on the ground". It won't be their sons or grandsons (or daughters). It won't be the 1%ers children or grandchildren. It will be the "others". Seems those lives don't matter. Oh, and the great Ben Carson thinks children who die of carpet bombing will be thankful for the greater good....
1
You left out the House Un-American Activities Committee, Senator Joe McCarthy, not to mention Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
A witch hunt much closer to our time. We do live in fearful times, but our fears should be directed towards Donald Trump and the other Republican candidates, not Muslims. Jeb Bush may be the worst of them all. Let in only Christian refugees from Syria, he says. Is he a descendant of Cotton Mather?
A witch hunt much closer to our time. We do live in fearful times, but our fears should be directed towards Donald Trump and the other Republican candidates, not Muslims. Jeb Bush may be the worst of them all. Let in only Christian refugees from Syria, he says. Is he a descendant of Cotton Mather?
8
"The more things change, the more they remain the same". Terrifying and reassuring (in some strange way) at the same time. Thank you.
3
Stacy Schiff: I think of you as just another .....misguided reporter...not reporting
what the truth is...to get yourself some attention.
You are the problem...Media mishandling the truth..
Our nation was NOT built on anger...Baloney...!!!
what the truth is...to get yourself some attention.
You are the problem...Media mishandling the truth..
Our nation was NOT built on anger...Baloney...!!!
1
Finally I'm beginning to understand American Exceptionalism. While scoundrels the world over must do with the single last refuge of patriotism, the American scoundrel is so far gone in his scoundrelly ways that he needs two absurdities to take refuge under. The reverberations of the genocide and slavery that founded this nation are still around us. "Black lives matter," some among us find it necessary to remind the descendants of the slave owners and their cohorts, who feel put upon. Meanwhile, our streets are turning into hunting grounds a la "Mississippi Burning."
3
This particular cherry picking of American history or the history of any other nation does not negate or eliminated the sovereignty rights of the democratic majority in any society to control or exclude any person or goods from crossing an established border. Ask the people of Tibet or the Eastern Ukraine how important this fundamental human right is. Ask Native Americans whether they think this right exists and about whether they wish it had been respected by Britain and the American colonists. Ask the nations near China that are fearfully waiting for China to dream up an excuse to attack them. Without the recognition and enforcement of sovereignty rights any society can be denied the right of self determination by any invading human force ranging from uniformed soldiers, to millions of "settlers", to millions of legal and illegal immigrants allowed to enter and remain by a elite in order to use these foreigners as pawns and mercenaries to subdue the native citizenry for the benefit of groups like the business owner few % and Wall Street oligarchy that now controls this nation like a Medieval kingdom. Again one notes that the many self admitted and proud Zionist journalists who write for the manic mass immigration propagandizing NY Times do not advocate that Israel allow 10's of millions of Arabs to cross their borders! They don't demand that Africa and Asia accept 10's of millions of Europeans or be declared, branded, slandered as Fascist racist, xenophobes. Why not?
7
"Ask Native Americans whether they think this right exists and about whether they wish it had been respected by Britain and the American colonists."
You know that the Native Americans were regarded ad Godless savages with no human or civil rights whatsoever and that these natives had no idea of the European concept of "private property" and the consequent concept of "sovereignty rights." Whether today's remnants of the original native population, living on "their" - by the grace of the white man - reservations are now fully cognizant of that European concept is of no consequence. Needless to say, only a state with a sufficiently-capable military has any so-called "sovereignty rights." In the case of the Eastern Ukraine, it was once part of both the Great Russian Empire and the USSR. If contemporary Russia chooses to re-incorporate into itself some random piece of land the once was its property, then it is Russia which historically has the "sovereignty rights" and has now exercised them. Ukraine, without a sufficiently-capable military, is unable to deny Russia its "sovereignty rights."
You can't simply make up your own phony version of the past, Mr. Staples.
You know that the Native Americans were regarded ad Godless savages with no human or civil rights whatsoever and that these natives had no idea of the European concept of "private property" and the consequent concept of "sovereignty rights." Whether today's remnants of the original native population, living on "their" - by the grace of the white man - reservations are now fully cognizant of that European concept is of no consequence. Needless to say, only a state with a sufficiently-capable military has any so-called "sovereignty rights." In the case of the Eastern Ukraine, it was once part of both the Great Russian Empire and the USSR. If contemporary Russia chooses to re-incorporate into itself some random piece of land the once was its property, then it is Russia which historically has the "sovereignty rights" and has now exercised them. Ukraine, without a sufficiently-capable military, is unable to deny Russia its "sovereignty rights."
You can't simply make up your own phony version of the past, Mr. Staples.
1
Specious: (adjective)
Apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible
Apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false
Deceptively attractive in appearance
Useage: specious arguments...
Apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible
Apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false
Deceptively attractive in appearance
Useage: specious arguments...
Very comfortably ensconced within the confines of Newbury Park; the witches these days dance at the Tilted Kilt.
xenophobia is what EVERY nation is built on. if not, if everyone would live according to the kantian categorical imperative (still, one of the wisest things ever to be put in words), if eyeryone would live in harmony with each other, we wouldn´t have frontiers. and without frontiers, either in mind or in geography, we would have no nations. really: that´s this simple.
13
You have described heaven, if heaven in fact does exist, and if after death we become transformed into perfect beings.
1
Muslim immigration raises interesting issues. I have encountered many among what I consider to be the progressive/liberal posture, and they tell me that the benefits of other races and cultures should outweigh our adherence to Western ideas. Thus, to them, the application of strict Sharia law is acceptable because tolerance dictates that we, as westerners, make room for "the other."
I disagree, but I usually don't make much progress changing their mind.
I disagree, but I usually don't make much progress changing their mind.
11
All these things we so loudly abhor in commentary are actually part of our nature as human beings ... as is an unwillingness to admit it. Our primordial selves are alive and well, masked by a false face of "goodness" We are a violent, uncaring species. We refer to the worst among us as animals, when in actual practice, there is no animal known to man who behaves so horribly.
23
I find it appalling that nowhere in this discussion of American anger does it mention American Indians, the first people to be discriminated against, cruelly treated, placed in concentration camps, and driven to the brink of extinction.
No attempt was made by the majority to understand their culture, respect their values, nor learn how to share this great country with them. That makes me angry!
No attempt was made by the majority to understand their culture, respect their values, nor learn how to share this great country with them. That makes me angry!
36
I agree completely. I was looking for this story to start at the beginning with "settlement" of the United States built on genocide of the indigenous people. A critical omission.
15
Those anxieties multiplied at a time of real violence, of political and economic dislocation, of an emboldened Native American population". Many scholars write glibly about the native population; what happened to them?
2
Interesting that the author should include the Rosenberg case in his summary. That judge being quoted was Irving Kaufman, a religious Jew who referenced praying in his sentencing of Ethel & Julius to the electric chair. The prosecutors were Irving Saypol & Roy Cohn, both Jews. The chief prosecution witness was David Greenglass, Ethel's brother, also a Jew. So you see, as the author is fair enough to concede, religious idiocy, intolerance, stupidity, greed, paranoia and ability to terrorize the world knows no specific doctrine. "Religion is the opiate of the people", as Marx said and John Lennon invited us to "Imagine no country to kill or die for and no religion too". Bad English but great wisdom none the less.
21
For a really good read on this subject, check out "The Terror Dream" by Susan Falludi. Ms. Falludi compares the post-9/11 climate in America with the the paranoid climate of late 17-th Century New England. She examines the way people of each time alter narratives of true events to fit their agendas. Worth reading.
8
"...the pulpit, the sole means of mass communication in a province still without newspapers."
Charles Dickens found that newspapers were not a large improvement in the distribution of accurate descriptions of events by 1842.
Or is the author suggesting that Donald Trump's ascension hasn't been slowed by distribution of the printed word, and "invisible demons" have weight in the imaginings of the Great Misled in the age of space flight ?
Charles Dickens found that newspapers were not a large improvement in the distribution of accurate descriptions of events by 1842.
Or is the author suggesting that Donald Trump's ascension hasn't been slowed by distribution of the printed word, and "invisible demons" have weight in the imaginings of the Great Misled in the age of space flight ?
1
Rabid religious intolerance is not solely and American phenomena. Rather, it is required thinking and behavior of the "chosen" particularly for Abrahamic religious brands. As stated, "If you are the pure, someone else needs to be impure". Tolerance is a sign of loss of fidelity. God's demand devotion. There are no genuinely acceptable alternatives to the "Truth" of the "Word". Utter but dangerous nonsense.
6
Religion is merely superstition masquerading as morality. The sooner the masses recognize this, the sooner Fox News "journalists" and talk radio hosts will be out of a job.
15
My ancestors arrived on American soil in 1654. Our branch of the family learned to accept and work with change or ran off to the wilds. We all have a choice to make. Getting to know the new folks in the neighborhood has proved to be the best way to lead a productive life me.
7
A very interesting article. As far as xenophobia is concerned I think of our roots. oF TRIBAL FEARS AND PHOBIAS. We build our societies as a uniform and trusting group - outsiders are treated with suspicion. That's why America - with its unique and rich history of producing great characters can be an oxymoron where xenophobia becomes an issue. So many diverse and varied cultures making-up one of the most fascinating countries on Earth. If not THE most.
Nice writing. Thanks.
I'm not sure what to make out of this article, though. The reality is that every nation and ethnic group throughout the history of humanity has had some element of fear and/or distrust of outsiders. Why should we assume that America is different? Of course we've made plenty of mistakes. In the grand scheme of things, our track record is better than everyone else's... period.
Perhaps what makes us different is that we stay up nights worrying about whether or not we do the right thing. We actually have a conscience on the issue of tolerance. Most other nations don't. The friendly nations to whom we look as more tolerant peoples in modern times have particularly bad histories on the subject.
So. What's your point? Are you really suggesting that America must shun the urge to protect itself from those who openly state that they wish to destroy it and willfully remain vulnerable? We can't or shouldn't safeguard the homeland with unapologetic national security measures... in the name of social conscience? Outrageous!
Our modern military (frequently touted as the most efficient and professional in history) frequently discusses within its ranks that "we are here to protect democracy, not to practice it." Abraham Lincoln (considered by many including this president to be the best, ever) demonstrated in real time the necessity to save the nation by whatever means before worrying about civil liberties. FDR practiced that same philosophy.
We do what we have to.
I'm not sure what to make out of this article, though. The reality is that every nation and ethnic group throughout the history of humanity has had some element of fear and/or distrust of outsiders. Why should we assume that America is different? Of course we've made plenty of mistakes. In the grand scheme of things, our track record is better than everyone else's... period.
Perhaps what makes us different is that we stay up nights worrying about whether or not we do the right thing. We actually have a conscience on the issue of tolerance. Most other nations don't. The friendly nations to whom we look as more tolerant peoples in modern times have particularly bad histories on the subject.
So. What's your point? Are you really suggesting that America must shun the urge to protect itself from those who openly state that they wish to destroy it and willfully remain vulnerable? We can't or shouldn't safeguard the homeland with unapologetic national security measures... in the name of social conscience? Outrageous!
Our modern military (frequently touted as the most efficient and professional in history) frequently discusses within its ranks that "we are here to protect democracy, not to practice it." Abraham Lincoln (considered by many including this president to be the best, ever) demonstrated in real time the necessity to save the nation by whatever means before worrying about civil liberties. FDR practiced that same philosophy.
We do what we have to.
6
I think you make some salient points, however, what is most important in a democracy is that we have the conversation. If we decide collectively that we are willing to trade certain civil liberties in exchange for increased security, (the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, in the context of Homeland Security, NSA data collection and "stop and frisk" come to mind), so be it. Reasonable people can disagree with such a position, but what is important is the conversation and the conscious decision that this is where we wish to go as a people, a government and a nation. I think it is important to look at data objectively and ensure that these trades are equal, that they result in a net positive for us as a society, but it is a fair conversation to have.
I think where some tend to go off the rails is in questioning the idea of questioning. When we accuse people of somehow having less allegiance to our nation, or the ideas of freedom and democracy because they question the methods by which we purport to protect it, we undermine the very nature of what we are trying to preserve.
I think where some tend to go off the rails is in questioning the idea of questioning. When we accuse people of somehow having less allegiance to our nation, or the ideas of freedom and democracy because they question the methods by which we purport to protect it, we undermine the very nature of what we are trying to preserve.
10
Agreed. So frequently, however, we have the honest discourse, decide what to do, and move forward... but the "loser" (those who support the solution not chosen) cries "Foul!" because they did not get their way.
The supporters of stronger defense, who are willing to surrender some rights (temporarily or semi-permanently) are instantly labeled as xenophobes and un-American sycophants. ...Or, the defender of civil liberties who is willing to risk further incidents without going to war is labeled as an enemy-loving, head in the clouds, coward. This is where we have to be careful, in my mind.
I think the discussion, disagreement, and relatively peaceful method of reaching the decision makes this nation stable and great. We don't always get it right, but we are more aware of the consequences of making bad decisions than most others, and for the most part, we regret our mistakes.
It is the critical self-evaluation that makes the person - or in this case the nation - a better person or nation.
The supporters of stronger defense, who are willing to surrender some rights (temporarily or semi-permanently) are instantly labeled as xenophobes and un-American sycophants. ...Or, the defender of civil liberties who is willing to risk further incidents without going to war is labeled as an enemy-loving, head in the clouds, coward. This is where we have to be careful, in my mind.
I think the discussion, disagreement, and relatively peaceful method of reaching the decision makes this nation stable and great. We don't always get it right, but we are more aware of the consequences of making bad decisions than most others, and for the most part, we regret our mistakes.
It is the critical self-evaluation that makes the person - or in this case the nation - a better person or nation.
3
Public anger would be an immensely useful force if it was directed at what actually mattered to America & Americans..
Anger should have been raging across the nation at genuine national self-destructive & criminal transgressions, crimes against the environment, forests, wildlife & crimes against the pristine landscape that these self-obsessed settlers found here before they & their robber-barons raped this magnificent, virgin continent.
Where is the outrage that the immense old-growth forests were virtually all destroyed? Where was the public outcry when present-day corporate raiders 'liquidated' the very last giant, ancient trees left on 'private' lands?
Where is the national public angst about the auctioning of irreplaceable ancient national forests to corporate timber-barons?
Where is popular moral fortitude when public minerals are freely lavished on corporate mining firms who leave the public to clean up their toxic mess?
Where was the outrage at endless horrific wars of choice abroad for corporate profit at public expense with permanent violent blowback for the populace?
Where is the demanding public voice when it comes to the scourge of NRA manipulated firearms & ammo regulation?
Where is the public indictment of ethnic injustices that still plague official police actions?
It's not American anger that's the problematic idea, it's the ugly Americans themselves who by venting their venom at the wrong outrages ruin this otherwise promising national experiment.
Anger should have been raging across the nation at genuine national self-destructive & criminal transgressions, crimes against the environment, forests, wildlife & crimes against the pristine landscape that these self-obsessed settlers found here before they & their robber-barons raped this magnificent, virgin continent.
Where is the outrage that the immense old-growth forests were virtually all destroyed? Where was the public outcry when present-day corporate raiders 'liquidated' the very last giant, ancient trees left on 'private' lands?
Where is the national public angst about the auctioning of irreplaceable ancient national forests to corporate timber-barons?
Where is popular moral fortitude when public minerals are freely lavished on corporate mining firms who leave the public to clean up their toxic mess?
Where was the outrage at endless horrific wars of choice abroad for corporate profit at public expense with permanent violent blowback for the populace?
Where is the demanding public voice when it comes to the scourge of NRA manipulated firearms & ammo regulation?
Where is the public indictment of ethnic injustices that still plague official police actions?
It's not American anger that's the problematic idea, it's the ugly Americans themselves who by venting their venom at the wrong outrages ruin this otherwise promising national experiment.
19
When we are born, our biggest need is safety and security. Some people, such as the people in Syria, are trapped in that place. Ordinary people, through the loss of a job, a divorce, or a sickness, return to that place. And nations often wander into that place because of a war or an economic crash. Successful politicians are those who convince us that they can solve our terrors. Over the years, I have noticed that those who convince us that they have the solution become president.
In the absence of real terrors, it serves the powerful well to stir up the vision of villains lurking behind the screen door, as this article deftly shows. The idea is, return the public to this infantile state of fear and insecurity. The NRA rules because of this. And the Repubs are trying to rule by using the same tactics. Compared to real danger, such as WWII, ISIS is a mosquito. But powerful America is in a state of dread.
In the absence of real terrors, it serves the powerful well to stir up the vision of villains lurking behind the screen door, as this article deftly shows. The idea is, return the public to this infantile state of fear and insecurity. The NRA rules because of this. And the Repubs are trying to rule by using the same tactics. Compared to real danger, such as WWII, ISIS is a mosquito. But powerful America is in a state of dread.
5
A valuable, clear lesson here of how fragile just civilization is.
7
BRILLIANT. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
4
Yeah, sorry, I'm not savoring any irony. I'm too busy being afraid of the rabid xenophobia human beings seem to embrace at any opportunity.
3
What's uniquely American about this behavior is that we believe it to be uniquely American. From the beginning of time most of humanity's worst moments have come from demonizing out-groups. Roman preemptive conquests, medieval castle walls and moats, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, the worldwide carnage that was the 20th century, crips vs. bloods, Man City vs. Man U., democrats vs. republicans, etc. Americans don't have a corner on collective human pathology.
4
Nothing new here at all and yes this nation was built on fear, anger and the horrble killings of innocents. But I beg to differ on one statement "we". We blacks don't for the most part harbor fear. That was only during the dasys of Jim Crow when the other "we", the United States goverment all but sanctioned and financed the terrorizing, the lynchings and murders of innocent blacks. Collectively we don't own or worship guns and weapons of mass destruction as whites. I'm not surprised at all with Donald Trumps' popularity, they are the same crew who loved Jesse Helms. Strom Thurmond and other avowed rabid racists. So the hate crimes and murders, we leave it all to the white man
11
If you have to tell more and more and more—and more—Americans who we are, that is, who they are, because they do not know, then you have to consider that you’re wrong.
2
Quite a display of ignorance of the history of religion in America, and a unremarkable lumping of a thousand of more years of various peoples under the term American Indian. Unfortunately Ms Schiff is a journalist taking hold of a few obvious themes and not probing deep enough to discover the complexities beneath the surfaces. Obviously it would take many pages to prove the point, but one minor idea to consider: the Anglicans came to be seen as opposing the Revolutionary war because the British monarch was the head of the church. I wonder if Ms Schiff has a deeper acquaintance with the various sides of Muslim culture to see why people have every right to be wary of people of an alien group that promises jihadists 72 virgins and never flaccidity.
5
"Anglicans came to be seen as opposing the Revolutionary war ..."
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Anglicans, as were very very many of the soldiers who fought on the American side in the revolution. They did not all abandon it in 1776. When the American branch of the Anglican communion became the American episcopal church, it continued to have a considerable following, among "patriots" as well as their foes. James Madison's cousin, who was also named James Madison, and was a fervent revolutionary, was ordained in England in 1775 and returned to Virginia to organize a military unit to fight in the American cause; in 1790 he went to Canterbury for his consecration as the first Anglican/Episcopal bishop of Virginia.
"Quite a display of ignorance of the history of religion in America." "Not probing deep enough to discover the complexities beneath the surfaces." Couldn't have said it better myself. "I wonder if 'Terrence' has a deeper acquaintance with the various sides of Muslim culture."
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Anglicans, as were very very many of the soldiers who fought on the American side in the revolution. They did not all abandon it in 1776. When the American branch of the Anglican communion became the American episcopal church, it continued to have a considerable following, among "patriots" as well as their foes. James Madison's cousin, who was also named James Madison, and was a fervent revolutionary, was ordained in England in 1775 and returned to Virginia to organize a military unit to fight in the American cause; in 1790 he went to Canterbury for his consecration as the first Anglican/Episcopal bishop of Virginia.
"Quite a display of ignorance of the history of religion in America." "Not probing deep enough to discover the complexities beneath the surfaces." Couldn't have said it better myself. "I wonder if 'Terrence' has a deeper acquaintance with the various sides of Muslim culture."
The Author failed to mention the xenophobia exercised by the Irish upon the arrival of the 1st generations of Italians who arrived on our shores. The famous Sacco/Vanzetti trial in Boston in the early 20s says it all.
As a 2nd generation Italian/American I heard horror story after horror story of the prejudice that my father and his family of 9 suffered in the 20s, 30s, 40s and even into the 50s from not only the Irish, but also the Welsh who resided in the same area of North East Ohio where many Italian immigrants came to obtain work in the Steel Mills and Fire Brick Plants in the late 1800s and into the early 20th Century!
Just waiting for Cruz and perhaps even Cruz to mention Deporting Italian/Americans, - most likely due to their depictions in Hollywood movies as the most effective Gangster organizations known to man! One should only look at the percentage of Italian/Americans who lined up to serve in our Armed Services at the dawn of WWII.
As a 2nd generation Italian/American I heard horror story after horror story of the prejudice that my father and his family of 9 suffered in the 20s, 30s, 40s and even into the 50s from not only the Irish, but also the Welsh who resided in the same area of North East Ohio where many Italian immigrants came to obtain work in the Steel Mills and Fire Brick Plants in the late 1800s and into the early 20th Century!
Just waiting for Cruz and perhaps even Cruz to mention Deporting Italian/Americans, - most likely due to their depictions in Hollywood movies as the most effective Gangster organizations known to man! One should only look at the percentage of Italian/Americans who lined up to serve in our Armed Services at the dawn of WWII.
3
Borrowing from the parlance of psychology: anger, fear and mistrust may describe American behavior at times, but it does not define who we are as a nation.
With such a provocative title, I hoped to read more about pre-1700 American history, particularly the players and events that led to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1675. The complex relationships between white indentured servants, black servants (eventually slaves), their overlords, native Americans and British rulers was the first angry outburst that 100 years later saw full-scale rebellion against Britain. This anger was apparently managed and harnessed for a useful purpose – now that deserves further exploration!
With such a provocative title, I hoped to read more about pre-1700 American history, particularly the players and events that led to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1675. The complex relationships between white indentured servants, black servants (eventually slaves), their overlords, native Americans and British rulers was the first angry outburst that 100 years later saw full-scale rebellion against Britain. This anger was apparently managed and harnessed for a useful purpose – now that deserves further exploration!
4
Education education education. I know: education is the key to countering religious-based bigotry, hatred, phobia, fear, and so much more. But … look at the educational backgrounds of the GOP’s candidates for the American presidency: how did so much apparent illiteracy creep up from so much education? There are several American universities that should look into recalling some of the diplomas they granted.
7
We might not be looking for people to blame if our politicians did the jobs they were elected to do: help to govern America rather than taking sides and refusing to do anything that make Obama look good. The GOP has had a take no hostages attitude since November of 2008 when we elected Obama to be our president. They have accused him of being a Muslim, of not being born here, of being a socialist, of being uppity (although they are not as direct as that). They have refused to pass budgets on time. They have threatened to and did shut down the government. They keep on trying to repeal the ACA. They don't want to fund anything that helps the poor, the handicapped, the sick, or the middle and working classes.
They do want to speak lies. They do want to exploit the class chasms they've helped to develop. They do want to keep us all poor, desperate, barefoot and pregnant, and as stressed as possible. They want to make absolutely certain that no one but White Anglo Saxon Protestants or those they deem worthy of being American, benefit from anything, period. Welcome to 21st century America, home of the fanatical and selfish Right.
They do want to speak lies. They do want to exploit the class chasms they've helped to develop. They do want to keep us all poor, desperate, barefoot and pregnant, and as stressed as possible. They want to make absolutely certain that no one but White Anglo Saxon Protestants or those they deem worthy of being American, benefit from anything, period. Welcome to 21st century America, home of the fanatical and selfish Right.
26
Right. America is a horrible, bigoted country. We should all abandon our homes and return to our countries of origin. When you get there, please let us know so we can also migrate to your land of milk, honey, racial and religious equality. We're not perfect, but at least we try...Trump excepted.
3
In my recall, the Puritans fled England to the Netherlands and then to the new world because England was proving to be too tolerant. The "city on the hill" was to be a theocratic enterprise.
10
The Puritan experiment was not a theocracy. There existed civil magistrates who were not clergy. Much of what the author describes is correct yet it does not tell the full story of America. She omits the linkage between Calvinism and the development of republican liberty. She forgets to.note that broad segmentsAmerican Protestantism was involved in Abolitionism and anti slavery. The words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic have the powerful tone of righteous support for the federal union. Whatever flaws we find in American history, and they are many, we can also find antedotes to them that honor the American republican tradition. It is an ongoing struggle, but one that is more pronounced in the US than in any other nation. Lincoln's words still have resonance: the US as the world's last best hope made for the rescue of Europe and parts of Asia in the twentieth century. To whitewash the underside of American history is to shove history into a memory hole. That said, we need to maintain those verities which made America decent.
2
Chuck,
No mention of
"the liberal; Puritan" John Milton whose role in the formation goes unappreciated. John Milton whose religion had a different God completely uninvolved in the affairs of men. American was not to be a nation "under God" it was to be a nation under men and not knowing or understanding that reality is more dangerous in 2015 than it was in 1776.
The religion of America's founding was Unitarianism and its core belief was we decided our destiny and that Jesus Satan and the rest of the heavenly host did not exist but of course that was all part of the enlightenment and for too many Americans the enlightenment was a commie plot.
No mention of
"the liberal; Puritan" John Milton whose role in the formation goes unappreciated. John Milton whose religion had a different God completely uninvolved in the affairs of men. American was not to be a nation "under God" it was to be a nation under men and not knowing or understanding that reality is more dangerous in 2015 than it was in 1776.
The religion of America's founding was Unitarianism and its core belief was we decided our destiny and that Jesus Satan and the rest of the heavenly host did not exist but of course that was all part of the enlightenment and for too many Americans the enlightenment was a commie plot.
2
The article alludes to a logical fallacy you often here in the debate about immigration policy: that we are a nation of immigrants and that our door has always been open to the refuse of the world, so we ought to continue that policy going forward.
A. This view is just historically inaccurate. You could just as well attribute American preeminence in the 20th century to the exclusionary/Eurocentric immigration quotas in place from 1924 to 1965.
B. Just because something was a past practice, doesn't mean it was correct then or would make for good policy going forward. (you don't hear a lot of people clamoring to re-implement Jim Crow segregation just because it was in place during most of the 20th century).
A. This view is just historically inaccurate. You could just as well attribute American preeminence in the 20th century to the exclusionary/Eurocentric immigration quotas in place from 1924 to 1965.
B. Just because something was a past practice, doesn't mean it was correct then or would make for good policy going forward. (you don't hear a lot of people clamoring to re-implement Jim Crow segregation just because it was in place during most of the 20th century).
4
Does your point B regarding past practice have a global application under all circumstances? I'm thinking specifically of those who still apply the archaic language of the Second Amendment to justify the outrageous gun situation in this country. BTW, I am personally acquainted with individuals who would be more than happy to see the return of segregation.
Great and timely essay. At least by the 21st century C.E., the commonwealth took the lead on marriage equality!:)
2
I disagree with the premise of the author and most of the commenters, who myopically equate our "earliest set of founding fathers" with the Puritans who settled New England, and ignore the English colonists who settled Virginia and Maryland and the Dutch colonists who settled New Netherland. In truth, the people from whom our true founding fathers descended came of several different religions, including those not inspired by Calvinism, e.g. Anglicans, Catholics and Quakers.
Our true founding fathers were the people from various religions who joined together to declare independence from England, to win that independence by war, to enact the Articles of Confederation and to eventually draft and eventually the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The ban on the establishment of a religion and the right to the free exercise thereof were the first rights listed (before even freedom of speech) in the Bill of Rights.
Our true founding fathers were the people from various religions who joined together to declare independence from England, to win that independence by war, to enact the Articles of Confederation and to eventually draft and eventually the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The ban on the establishment of a religion and the right to the free exercise thereof were the first rights listed (before even freedom of speech) in the Bill of Rights.
19
Unfortunately those founding fathers were not representative of many of the people that now occupy these United States. Therefore, the constitution and bill of rights were not written for the vast diverse set of cultures that now occupy this space. Part of the backlash that is occurring today is as a result of the expanding melting pot and the fear that goes along with that expansion.
1
While I agree with you that the true founding "fathers" were not the Puritans but rather people like William Penn, Schiff's point is that there are plenty of xenophobes in America's collective past to match todays Trumps, Limbaughs, Cruzs, etc. As Faulkner said,"The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past."
What she leaves unsaid ... or perhaps tries to get across indirectly ... is that we should know better than to repeat the mistakes of the past by NOW!
What she leaves unsaid ... or perhaps tries to get across indirectly ... is that we should know better than to repeat the mistakes of the past by NOW!
1
Part of the buildup of anger is from the vast watering down of the
intentions of the Founding Fathers for citizens to elect their representatives,
specifically including the following:
* the gerrymandering of districts by the major party in control of the state
which artificially keeps incumbents in office, which, in turn, creates a torrent of political donations to go to that incumbent due to his increased power in that legislative body, regardless of his competence.
* the fact that Presidential elections are determined by the few Midwest states that are famous for both being swing states and being the major corn producing states, thus creating the ethanol fiasco, perhaps the biggest boondoggle in American history as artificial demand for an inferior commodity.
* the rush towards incompetence of both of the major American political parties which have become dominated by extremists of the far right and the far left, resulting in perhaps the most inept slate of candidates for the Presidency in recent history. This is at a time in which the next incumbent might well select three members of the US Supreme Court, who might serve for decades, thus producing such miscarriages of justice as the Citizens United decision, which effectively removes the ceiling on political donations.
* The Citizens United decision of the US Supreme Court.
* The inability of the media to censor political attack ads.
intentions of the Founding Fathers for citizens to elect their representatives,
specifically including the following:
* the gerrymandering of districts by the major party in control of the state
which artificially keeps incumbents in office, which, in turn, creates a torrent of political donations to go to that incumbent due to his increased power in that legislative body, regardless of his competence.
* the fact that Presidential elections are determined by the few Midwest states that are famous for both being swing states and being the major corn producing states, thus creating the ethanol fiasco, perhaps the biggest boondoggle in American history as artificial demand for an inferior commodity.
* the rush towards incompetence of both of the major American political parties which have become dominated by extremists of the far right and the far left, resulting in perhaps the most inept slate of candidates for the Presidency in recent history. This is at a time in which the next incumbent might well select three members of the US Supreme Court, who might serve for decades, thus producing such miscarriages of justice as the Citizens United decision, which effectively removes the ceiling on political donations.
* The Citizens United decision of the US Supreme Court.
* The inability of the media to censor political attack ads.
5
Your list is missing its most important point: the willingness of lazy thinkers to accept a false equivalence between "extreme right" and "extreme left", which inhibits them from examining policies on their merits and leads to a kind of quietism. Voting rights don't have to be suppressed if the voters have already suppressed themselves intellectually.
There are two ways of looking at this. The pessimistic way is that these dark episodes in our history show that the fear-hate cycle is so fully encoded in our DNA that trying to break it is a hopeless cause. The optimistic way is to consider that the fact that we are no longer hanging Quakers in Boston Common (being one, I'm glad for that) means that peace and reconciliation are always possible. If you asked any seventeenth or eighteenth century Englishman or Frenchman whether they could envision a world in which England and France were staunch allies rather than implacable enemies, they would have you locked up as a raving lunatic. Yet it has happened.
10
Probably not a good idea to include the Rosenbergs in this essay, who post-USSR files proved were indeed Soviet agents.
6
And what do all of these historical figures have in common? They are all members of the genus homo.
"But while the demonizing may sound un-American, it happens also to be ur-American." Wrong. The author spends 3/4 of her article reciting events which happened a century or more before the Declaration of Independence, and subsequent writing of the Constitution. Noticeably absent from this sweeping revisionist history (American bad now; America bad always) is anything about the founding fathers or the Enlightenment which animated their politics and actions. A reader might miss the fact that the First Amendment explicitly protected all religions, not just popular ones at the time. A reader might miss the fact that the Constitution established no religious test of any kind for holding public office. Quite a sea-change from the internecine religious warfare the early settlers brought with them.
It is therefore the grossest of oversimplifications to say "Cotton Mather" and "Salem witch trials" and conclude that they are in any way representative of the state of mind of the nation formed in 1776, and as it was institutionalized in 1787. This is, predictably, what happens when someone cherry-picks history to make a "point."
It is therefore the grossest of oversimplifications to say "Cotton Mather" and "Salem witch trials" and conclude that they are in any way representative of the state of mind of the nation formed in 1776, and as it was institutionalized in 1787. This is, predictably, what happens when someone cherry-picks history to make a "point."
14
Love of country is at it's best after taking the blinders off.
Principles institutionalized in 1787?
1) Native Americans were subhuman, therefore "God" looks down favorably upon stealing their land and destroying their way of life.
2) Africans too, were subhuman. Their divine purpose was to be enslaved, and subsequently worked to death.
And yet, "all men are created equal"?
Principles institutionalized in 1787?
1) Native Americans were subhuman, therefore "God" looks down favorably upon stealing their land and destroying their way of life.
2) Africans too, were subhuman. Their divine purpose was to be enslaved, and subsequently worked to death.
And yet, "all men are created equal"?
3
a reminder by Ms. Schiff-an excellent piece most apropos at this season of the year. Thank you ms. Schiff...
Jim
Jim
These days I hear much from my fellow liberals and progressives about how the values that we hold dear in this country are built on myths. They shake their heads at the hypocrisy of our fundamental beliefs: The right to free speech and free press (the freedom of thought), the right to assembly, equality before the law, the concept of free enterprise, the concept of one person—one vote, majority rule, the respect for the individual, etc., etc.
While I agree that most, if not all, of these rights and concepts have been eroded lately, my questions are these: If all this is a sham, what SHOULD we be teaching in school? What SHOULD our national narrative be?
While I agree that most, if not all, of these rights and concepts have been eroded lately, my questions are these: If all this is a sham, what SHOULD we be teaching in school? What SHOULD our national narrative be?
1
"The Puritans came to America to have the freedom to live a life of greater restriction." - - Garrison Keillor
16
Thank you. A timely and welcomed perspective from which to view the current anti-Muslim intolerence.
3
Just one side of the coin. How about Roger Williams? The voices of reason eventually won, even though the urTrumps seemed powerful at the time.
4
This article's historical research offers a clear signpost for today- the GOP's rhetoric stands for yesterday while liberals stand for the future. I'll take my chances with progress, as uncertain as it may be, rather than repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
5
What an interesting and well-written article. Enjoyed it very much.
2
No, Xenophobia is not part of American DNA. Although granted, Ms. Schiff makes a fascinating case for it. The word wasn't even coined until the early 1900s. A certain Mr. E.L. James was quoted by the NYT of August 29, 1926, to explain the term to their readers as "hatred for strangers or in other words, anti-American sentiment".
What is part of the American DNA however, is self-righteousness, hand-wringing, and festering guilt over history long gone. You won't find much of that in Europe or Japan or the ME or Africa. It's a charming trait and one that all Americans can be truly proud of. After all, it does define our national character in so many ways. Yes, it can also be a bit tiresome. Most Germans don't let WW history get in the way of their daily lives. VW won't be a conversation next month. That's an enviable trait too.
Now coming to Mr. Trump and his unique brand of Trump-speak, that's the DNA most uniquely American, most-loved around-the-world, which is shoot-from-the-hip straight-talk. Happy to see it make a comeback. Many seem unable to to even recognize it as such these days. But many do and rightly want more of it.
Ain't seen nuthin' yet? Sure hope so.
What is part of the American DNA however, is self-righteousness, hand-wringing, and festering guilt over history long gone. You won't find much of that in Europe or Japan or the ME or Africa. It's a charming trait and one that all Americans can be truly proud of. After all, it does define our national character in so many ways. Yes, it can also be a bit tiresome. Most Germans don't let WW history get in the way of their daily lives. VW won't be a conversation next month. That's an enviable trait too.
Now coming to Mr. Trump and his unique brand of Trump-speak, that's the DNA most uniquely American, most-loved around-the-world, which is shoot-from-the-hip straight-talk. Happy to see it make a comeback. Many seem unable to to even recognize it as such these days. But many do and rightly want more of it.
Ain't seen nuthin' yet? Sure hope so.
7
Errant nonsense ... the notion that neither Europe nor Japan feel the weight of their past is absurd. Their nation's role in the Holocaust continues to have an impact on how Germans relate to the rest of the world (go review some of the commentary on the current refugee crisis to see just one of the countless reverberations). So too does Japan's early 20th century militarism on today's Japanese.
Trump's xenophobic verbal diarrhea is NOT the kind of thing that people love about America nor is it uniquely American. "Shooting from the hip" works better when one actually knows what one is talking about!
Trump's xenophobic verbal diarrhea is NOT the kind of thing that people love about America nor is it uniquely American. "Shooting from the hip" works better when one actually knows what one is talking about!
1
Trump's poll numbers have never been better
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
If he clams up, or like Obama, appears dignified all the time, he'll lose.
As for the everyday guilt-ridden German/Japanese on the street, another time.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
If he clams up, or like Obama, appears dignified all the time, he'll lose.
As for the everyday guilt-ridden German/Japanese on the street, another time.
1
America: Home of the cowardly and land of the prejudiced.
"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
H. L. Mencken
"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
H. L. Mencken
4
The Roman Empire grew and prospered until the Roman Emperor Constantine established Christianity (altruism) as the state (preferred) religion in about 312AD.
The Empire then ceased to exist a few decades after it accepted the altruistic principles of the Christian religion and was overrun and conquered by people from the Northern European territories.
I believe that adopting Christianity by Rome as the preferred state supported religion was also one of the main causes for the decline, fall and collapse of the Roman Empire.
The Empire then ceased to exist a few decades after it accepted the altruistic principles of the Christian religion and was overrun and conquered by people from the Northern European territories.
I believe that adopting Christianity by Rome as the preferred state supported religion was also one of the main causes for the decline, fall and collapse of the Roman Empire.
2
@Gerald from texas:
So you're saying that having an empire built on slavery, brutality, conquest, intolerance & tyranny is better than altruism?
If only the compelling power of Christianity was in fact altruism & not terror of a vengeful, violent deity who banishes everyone to burn forever lest they obey whatever interpretation of scriptures prevails.
Contrary to the idea that Christianity destroyed the empire of the civilized, it would seem that Constantine's Christian mandate used Rome's empire to ultimately subjugate the entire world under the thumb of New Testament tyranny in one form or another.
So you're saying that having an empire built on slavery, brutality, conquest, intolerance & tyranny is better than altruism?
If only the compelling power of Christianity was in fact altruism & not terror of a vengeful, violent deity who banishes everyone to burn forever lest they obey whatever interpretation of scriptures prevails.
Contrary to the idea that Christianity destroyed the empire of the civilized, it would seem that Constantine's Christian mandate used Rome's empire to ultimately subjugate the entire world under the thumb of New Testament tyranny in one form or another.
2
Sorry, Rome was in decline long before Constantine. In the second half of the 3rd century the empire almost descended to anarchy. Christianity as adopted by Constantine had nothing of altruism about it. It did have something to do with centralizing religious as well as governmental authority for the better control of the empire. And the empire did made something of a comeback under his authority: the first half of the 4th century was an improvement over what preceded it in many ways.
I've read Gibbon, too. Christianity did help undermine the Roman empire. But Constantine's adoption of it as a state religion did not per se harm the empire as much as it harmed Christianity.
I've read Gibbon, too. Christianity did help undermine the Roman empire. But Constantine's adoption of it as a state religion did not per se harm the empire as much as it harmed Christianity.
Excellent piece -- except for the one mistake that, unlike all your other correct examples of wrongheaded persecution, the Rosenbergs were indeed guilty of treason (of, amazingly, passing along nuclear-bomb secrets to Stalin) and, at least possibly, deserved their sentences.
3
They were not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of.
Sure they were.
1
They were convicted of giving the Soviets the bomb by a perverted form of jury nullification induced by the FBI and prosecutions propaganda before the trial. The particular facts of the case notwithstanding.
They may have "spied" but they were mostly ineffectual and stupid about it. They died because Ethel's brother David Greenglass who did actually steal documents, gave her up to save his own wife who was the typist.
The technicality of not being guilty of what the jurors were lead to believe they were guilty of should matter to you if you are American. Ask anyone even today and most will say they gave the Soviets the bomb and that is what they were convicted of and executed for. They did not do that and Ethel was entirely innocent.
The Soviets did finally admit Julius spied for them but had no evidence that Ethel was involved and he did not give them the bomb. The stupid notes he sent were looked at and forgotten.
They may have "spied" but they were mostly ineffectual and stupid about it. They died because Ethel's brother David Greenglass who did actually steal documents, gave her up to save his own wife who was the typist.
The technicality of not being guilty of what the jurors were lead to believe they were guilty of should matter to you if you are American. Ask anyone even today and most will say they gave the Soviets the bomb and that is what they were convicted of and executed for. They did not do that and Ethel was entirely innocent.
The Soviets did finally admit Julius spied for them but had no evidence that Ethel was involved and he did not give them the bomb. The stupid notes he sent were looked at and forgotten.
3
How can Muslims such as the Fort Hood Shooter Major Nidal Hasan join the Military and take an oath to defend the USA if they believe in the Quran which commands Muslims to convert or murder Christian, Jewish, and other non-believers (including those in the USA) by cutting off their heads if they refuse to convert to Islam?
Murdering US citizens that do not convert to Islam as commanded by the Quran is in conflict with Muslims in the Military that swear to defend the USA against all enemies foreign and domestic as a part of the Oath of Office!
Murdering US citizens that do not convert to Islam as commanded by the Quran is in conflict with Muslims in the Military that swear to defend the USA against all enemies foreign and domestic as a part of the Oath of Office!
4
The same can be said of the bible:
"And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman."
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
See how easy it is to take things out of context?
"And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman."
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
See how easy it is to take things out of context?
5
Xenophobia is a natural instinct that evolved through the centuries as a protective mechanism. How wise would it have been for a caveman to assume that every stranger he met was his friend? If that stranger had the appearance of someone who had done him harm in the past, it would call for even more caution.
5
If tribalism is a recent adaptation, certainly it's categorically obsolete and something which our vastly more powerful and ancient adaptation, intelligence, should by now be able to overcome.
1
It's not a question of being smarter. It's about the human ego that always wants to be different and separate and superior. One at a time, we need to learn that compassion and tolerance and loving kindness feel a lot better than separation and judgment. Those of us who try it, like it.
8
Oh dear, we are indeed an exceptional people! But today it's 2015. Just because ISIS behaves as though it lives in centuries past, do we need to follow its example? Or is ISIS following ours?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
"If you are the pure, someone else needs to be impure."
This was a beautifully written and well-researched article. Thank you for showing us that xenophobia and religious intolerance--even as we pride ourselves as a nation founded on tolerance--have been a big part of our history.
So it seems every era has had its battles, whipped up by zealots capitalizing on citizen fears. I've heard it said there are two kinds of fear: not getting enough of what we want, or losing what we already have. "Effective" zealots play both sides of this in order to advance themselves.
Thus the new "know nothings" of the 21s century--Trump, Cruz, and Carson--keep telling us that immigrants, and now terrorists are either going to take our jobs and our lives or prevent us from getting our due, our share of the finite economic pie.
The question is, what are we going to do about it? Paul Ryan, echoing President Obama, can remind us that anger over outsiders is "not who we are," but the problem is this: in many cases, it is who we are unless some more charismatic leader steps up to the plate to help us aspire to the values we love to guide us.
This was a beautifully written and well-researched article. Thank you for showing us that xenophobia and religious intolerance--even as we pride ourselves as a nation founded on tolerance--have been a big part of our history.
So it seems every era has had its battles, whipped up by zealots capitalizing on citizen fears. I've heard it said there are two kinds of fear: not getting enough of what we want, or losing what we already have. "Effective" zealots play both sides of this in order to advance themselves.
Thus the new "know nothings" of the 21s century--Trump, Cruz, and Carson--keep telling us that immigrants, and now terrorists are either going to take our jobs and our lives or prevent us from getting our due, our share of the finite economic pie.
The question is, what are we going to do about it? Paul Ryan, echoing President Obama, can remind us that anger over outsiders is "not who we are," but the problem is this: in many cases, it is who we are unless some more charismatic leader steps up to the plate to help us aspire to the values we love to guide us.
3
Great article. It is wise for us to remember that we come from a long line of paranoid people.
1
Another attempt to denigrate the history of the United States of America!
2
How is the retelling of history actually a denigration of our country? Or has Ms. Schiff's article merely made you cringe because of its accuracy?
14
Nothing like swatting a few 300-year-old WASPs to ring in the Christmas season. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say Christmas season. How offensive of me.
9
Nothing like the descendants of 300 year old Wasps brining in the Christmas season by demonizing Muslims and other immigrants, and then being offended by having it pointed out to them.
13
god forbid we learn from the past!
3
How can you possibly blame Americans, in light of recent history, from not feeling compelled to embrace anything having to do with Islam ? The solution is not sensitivity training or political correctness. The war is not with Islam but the solution is with Islam.
1
We look like such hypocrites to the rest of the world. Trumpeting our moral superiority while all the while strong-arming anyone who gets in the way of our unfettered accumulation of wealth and privilege. American arrogance and greed gets in the way of any meaningful self-reflection.
19
Laura,
There is a big difference being missed here. Yes we look like hypocrites, but only because our system allows for the truth to come out. Even in Europe that is not as easily done as the PR would have us believe. They have a more "do as I say not as I do" ethos than us we don;t see it because it is mostly hidden.
The biggest problem in the US is that we currently have an intellectual problem of how to apply reason and rational thinking to public discourse again.
There is a big difference being missed here. Yes we look like hypocrites, but only because our system allows for the truth to come out. Even in Europe that is not as easily done as the PR would have us believe. They have a more "do as I say not as I do" ethos than us we don;t see it because it is mostly hidden.
The biggest problem in the US is that we currently have an intellectual problem of how to apply reason and rational thinking to public discourse again.
2
I'm not sure I agree. I lived in Europe for years and the press there is very open and also very self-critical.
I would refer you to the VW scandal and a recent piece in the Guardian about light bulb quality.
The individual reporters or pres orgs may be diligent and honorable but the "system" doesn't catch things like the VW intentional subversion of regulation which started in 2005! now that they are "being open" about it.
I don't think its the kind of intentional subversion of the whole system as we see in Congress but there are individuals in positions of authority that matter who are corrupt and do things which are subversive of the very model Western systems are based on just to make money.
The individual reporters or pres orgs may be diligent and honorable but the "system" doesn't catch things like the VW intentional subversion of regulation which started in 2005! now that they are "being open" about it.
I don't think its the kind of intentional subversion of the whole system as we see in Congress but there are individuals in positions of authority that matter who are corrupt and do things which are subversive of the very model Western systems are based on just to make money.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were mostly atheists and agnostics.
There were only a very few practicing Christians and no known clerics of any other religious denomination that signed the Declaration of Independence.
Most of these signers were Free Masons.
The Christians that participated in the founding of this country were only a tiny minority of the participants.
I am a Christian, but I do not believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation.
The constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion, and that implies that public taxes cannot be used to support any religion.
The treaty of Tripoli states that the USA is not a theocracy or religious nation.
I do not know much about the Masons except that I have heard (on the History Channel) that they were founded to protest the murder and physical torture and murder of innocent people (including the Knights Templar) by the official state Roman Catholic religion of various European Nations.
The History Channel hints that maybe the Masons are somehow associated with or descended from the Knights Templar. I would like to learn more about this topic someday.
There were only a very few practicing Christians and no known clerics of any other religious denomination that signed the Declaration of Independence.
Most of these signers were Free Masons.
The Christians that participated in the founding of this country were only a tiny minority of the participants.
I am a Christian, but I do not believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation.
The constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion, and that implies that public taxes cannot be used to support any religion.
The treaty of Tripoli states that the USA is not a theocracy or religious nation.
I do not know much about the Masons except that I have heard (on the History Channel) that they were founded to protest the murder and physical torture and murder of innocent people (including the Knights Templar) by the official state Roman Catholic religion of various European Nations.
The History Channel hints that maybe the Masons are somehow associated with or descended from the Knights Templar. I would like to learn more about this topic someday.
4
Edwin Starr wrote and sang years ago:
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives
I think he used the word "war" because "religion" had too many syllables. War. Religion. Same thing.
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives
I think he used the word "war" because "religion" had too many syllables. War. Religion. Same thing.
5
I have said this many times--nearly all wars around the world have been fought over intolerance of others' religious beliefs. The narrow-minded will wreak havoc at the tiniest hint of threat from a neighbor different from him/herself.
I could go on to include land-grabbing/expansion of territory, but religious belief is, in fact, the primary culprit in the destruction of humans by humans (or are we merely rabid animals?)
I could go on to include land-grabbing/expansion of territory, but religious belief is, in fact, the primary culprit in the destruction of humans by humans (or are we merely rabid animals?)
2
Has everyone forgotten the Bill of Rights authored by the Founding Fathers and in effect since its inception?
1
The "founding fathers" (which ones are you referring to?) opposed the Bill of Rights and only amended the Constitution to include it under pressure and threats to block ratification from those opposed to the Constitution.
1
Jon,
Yes Jon that is how a democratic republic works. One can now judge that this use of threats etc was a good thing and those who opposed it were morally lacking as opposed to the contemporary use of the same tactics to undermine the People's rights and protections formerly enacted to deal with problems that harmed them.
Yes Jon that is how a democratic republic works. One can now judge that this use of threats etc was a good thing and those who opposed it were morally lacking as opposed to the contemporary use of the same tactics to undermine the People's rights and protections formerly enacted to deal with problems that harmed them.
1
Emma Lazarus' poem also states the flame from the Colossus' torch "is the imprisoned lightning", a nature tamed, that can finally welcome the wretched fleeing from the world of the Old Colossus. To emphasize the anger seeping through our American heritage as ur-American without balancing the continuing efforts underscored by the Constitution to embrace diversity and individuality seems to jail Americans and ISIL fanatics into the same crowded cell in the name of an inescapable cultural DNA. But the American experiment has enlightened the world, has succeeded, and glows proudly its world-wide welcome. Why shackle that brilliance in a literary myth?
The Donald's angry and thoughtless remarks cannot snuff-out our historical progress and certainly do not resonate with the voice of an ur-American but an un-American. But alas, some Americans need to take the time to sift through the quacks from facts.
The Donald's angry and thoughtless remarks cannot snuff-out our historical progress and certainly do not resonate with the voice of an ur-American but an un-American. But alas, some Americans need to take the time to sift through the quacks from facts.
And here we have, on full view, as the (currently) top-rated comment, a perfect example of religious bigotry, this time in its 21st century American guide of radical, hateful opposition to the free exercise of religious beliefs by others. Special taxes on those who believe in a Higher Power than people. The naked exercise of government power to seize property and subject believers to house arrest (or worse). The demand that educational and charitable activities by believers be prohibited unless they follow the ideology du jour.
Njglea is the direct descendant in practice of the Puritans who led the Salem Witch Trials, and also the direct descendant of the ideological atheists who killed, imprisoned and enslaved millions of believers in the Soviet Union and China in the course of the 20th Century.
Njglea is the direct descendant in practice of the Puritans who led the Salem Witch Trials, and also the direct descendant of the ideological atheists who killed, imprisoned and enslaved millions of believers in the Soviet Union and China in the course of the 20th Century.
2
Stacy Schiff,
I really enjoy your article. We are all advised not to discuss religion or politics in order to not incite controversial comments which will create advisaries for yourself.
I do, however, believe that all churches and all other non-profit organizations should pay property taxes on all of their property plus sales taxes on all of their purchases to pay their share of the public services that they use, instead of everybody else's taxes paying for the cost of the services that the churches and non-profit organizations use.
I believe that preachers, choir leaders and other paid church employees should also pay income taxes and social security taxes on their salaries and other compensations, the same as any other person in order to pay for the benefits that they and everybody else living in the USA receives.
This tax exemption for churches (and other non-profit organizations) means that the government takes money from me and in essence gives that money to churches to support that church with the increase in my taxes to pay for various taxpayer services that the churches utilize.
This would probably not be allowed by the US Constitution if a proper brief was filed to the US Supreme Court.
I really enjoy your article. We are all advised not to discuss religion or politics in order to not incite controversial comments which will create advisaries for yourself.
I do, however, believe that all churches and all other non-profit organizations should pay property taxes on all of their property plus sales taxes on all of their purchases to pay their share of the public services that they use, instead of everybody else's taxes paying for the cost of the services that the churches and non-profit organizations use.
I believe that preachers, choir leaders and other paid church employees should also pay income taxes and social security taxes on their salaries and other compensations, the same as any other person in order to pay for the benefits that they and everybody else living in the USA receives.
This tax exemption for churches (and other non-profit organizations) means that the government takes money from me and in essence gives that money to churches to support that church with the increase in my taxes to pay for various taxpayer services that the churches utilize.
This would probably not be allowed by the US Constitution if a proper brief was filed to the US Supreme Court.
10
I believe that we should fight to eliminate the income tax deductions and the property tax exemptions that are granted to religious groups by the federal government and by the various state, county, local and municipal governments.
These free rides increase the tax burdens onto all of the other (non-exempt) taxpayers.
Church property should not be exempt from paying local property taxes.
The Churches call police when they are the victims of a crime, call the fire department when they have a fire, demand city water and sewer services, use city taxpayer provided street lighting, paved streets, etc.
Most local authorities provide exemptions from local taxes for religious owned property and charge the remaining property owners an increased amount in taxes to pay for serving the church properties.
This is taxpayer tax supported religion.
The US Clergy enjoys the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by our government with our armed forces.
Maybe they should pay their fair share for the support of the military forces, and the judicial system.
Maybe they should also pay for the government welfare programs that all other taxpayers are forced to support.
Maybe the Clergy should pay taxes upon the value of all of the things that they get as perks from the churches such as free housing and free automobiles.
The remainder of the taxpayers must pay more taxes in order to make up the amount of taxes not paid by the clergy and the organized religions.
These free rides increase the tax burdens onto all of the other (non-exempt) taxpayers.
Church property should not be exempt from paying local property taxes.
The Churches call police when they are the victims of a crime, call the fire department when they have a fire, demand city water and sewer services, use city taxpayer provided street lighting, paved streets, etc.
Most local authorities provide exemptions from local taxes for religious owned property and charge the remaining property owners an increased amount in taxes to pay for serving the church properties.
This is taxpayer tax supported religion.
The US Clergy enjoys the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by our government with our armed forces.
Maybe they should pay their fair share for the support of the military forces, and the judicial system.
Maybe they should also pay for the government welfare programs that all other taxpayers are forced to support.
Maybe the Clergy should pay taxes upon the value of all of the things that they get as perks from the churches such as free housing and free automobiles.
The remainder of the taxpayers must pay more taxes in order to make up the amount of taxes not paid by the clergy and the organized religions.
5
Many comment here seem to think Schiff's article is an attack on America, when it is simply explaining how suspicion of, fear of, and hatred of others has been very much a part of our history (other comments add that she left out historical attitudes about indigenous Americans and Africans). She is not comparing us to others. If she is comparing us to anything it is comparing our real history to imaginary idealization of our past and present -- arguing with those who think that we are exceptionally better than others and that we are in an exceptionally different situation than ever before. Some comments seem to think that although we may have not been justified in the past for our fears and anger, we are justified now because of the different nature of the threat. Those comments derive from an exaggeration of the current threats, along with a lack of appreciation for how safe and secure we are now compared to all times in the past -- certainly in terms of life-expectancy, general safety, and health as well as the threat of random violence (unless we see nuclear war as inevitable -- but that is another story).
190
Xeno"phobia" connotes an irrational fear. After the 2012 election, Charles Blow announced that demographic changes would doom conservatives, and traditional America. I totally agree with Mr. Blow.
Demography is Destiny.
For those of us who do not want the United States to be "fundamentally transformed," it behooves us to stop all immigration from third-world countries as soon as possible.
Build the wall and build it now. Clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenry.
And increase the immigration of those who will vote for conservative candidates. Perhaps industrial, hard working people who wish to escape collectivism, socialism, and the dulling insipidity of today's Europe.
Demography is Destiny.
For those of us who do not want the United States to be "fundamentally transformed," it behooves us to stop all immigration from third-world countries as soon as possible.
Build the wall and build it now. Clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenry.
And increase the immigration of those who will vote for conservative candidates. Perhaps industrial, hard working people who wish to escape collectivism, socialism, and the dulling insipidity of today's Europe.
3
Solomon recommended increased immigration into our country of conservative people: "Perhaps industrial [sic], hard working people who wish to escape collectivism, socialism, and the dulling insipidity of today's Europe."
There are (perhaps surprisingly to some) very few these days who wish to leave that "collective, socialist" Europe for a supposedly "freer" America. Europe recognizes, respects and provides for basic human needs neither recognized, respected or provided for here in the United States. People do really need to understand and accept that while for people in Central America or other relatively deprived areas the United States may still represent a better future the Europeans have now created even more welcoming societies. They have their problems, but average people there are still better off than average people here.
There are (perhaps surprisingly to some) very few these days who wish to leave that "collective, socialist" Europe for a supposedly "freer" America. Europe recognizes, respects and provides for basic human needs neither recognized, respected or provided for here in the United States. People do really need to understand and accept that while for people in Central America or other relatively deprived areas the United States may still represent a better future the Europeans have now created even more welcoming societies. They have their problems, but average people there are still better off than average people here.
4
I think you'll likely only attract the obsessive, workaholic people who wish to escape the fraternity, egalitarianism, and vibrant cosmopolitanism of today's Europe.
3
Lets be honest - except in the Middle East, Muslims are not welcomed in many areas of Europe and the US. The fact that many Muslims who carry out Jihad were actually born in the US or Europe, raises the suspicion of them.
With the threat of ISIS to infiltrate the refugee stream and exploiting porous borders both in the US and Europe, we can expect criticism and attacks on Mosques and Muslims to increase.
Who would have through the San Bernadino couple were terrorists? That is the problem and it was true of the Paris attacks. Many people knew the attacker and they seemed like nice, quiet people UNTIL they went on their jihadist rampage.
The fact that Jihadist could be living among us or be part of our naive Syrian refugee influx, deepens the suspicion of all Muslims. This suspicion is not just in the US but in Europe also. It raises serious questions everywhere about accepting refugees from the Middle East.
It would be far better if the money spent on resettlement were instead used to improve exists refugee camps and establish more of these camps were these people can live a decent normal life until they can return to rebuild Syria.
We should provide schools, playgrounds, business opportunities in these camps so people will be willing to stay in them. Money should be spent on that NOT on resettling refugees - in fact every effort should be made to stop resettlement by improving refugee camps.
With the threat of ISIS to infiltrate the refugee stream and exploiting porous borders both in the US and Europe, we can expect criticism and attacks on Mosques and Muslims to increase.
Who would have through the San Bernadino couple were terrorists? That is the problem and it was true of the Paris attacks. Many people knew the attacker and they seemed like nice, quiet people UNTIL they went on their jihadist rampage.
The fact that Jihadist could be living among us or be part of our naive Syrian refugee influx, deepens the suspicion of all Muslims. This suspicion is not just in the US but in Europe also. It raises serious questions everywhere about accepting refugees from the Middle East.
It would be far better if the money spent on resettlement were instead used to improve exists refugee camps and establish more of these camps were these people can live a decent normal life until they can return to rebuild Syria.
We should provide schools, playgrounds, business opportunities in these camps so people will be willing to stay in them. Money should be spent on that NOT on resettling refugees - in fact every effort should be made to stop resettlement by improving refugee camps.
1
@ Judyw
"Lets be honest..." writes Judy. Ok. By all means.
"Who would have through [sic] the San Bernadino couple were terrorists?"
Who among the Charleston churchgoers thought that the young man, Dylan Roof, sitting among them during bible study would suddenly open fire and kill so many of their group.
"The fact that Jihadist could be living among us or be part of our naive Syrian refugee influx, deepens the suspicion of all Muslims."
How is it that supporters of the Confederate flag living among us do not face such suspicions? If you were inclined to be honest, Judy, you would at least ask such a question, would you not? Let's say we DON'T resettle Muslim refugees. We would still have a problem with home-grown terrorists, of the Christian variety, in these United States.
"Lets be honest..." writes Judy. Ok. By all means.
"Who would have through [sic] the San Bernadino couple were terrorists?"
Who among the Charleston churchgoers thought that the young man, Dylan Roof, sitting among them during bible study would suddenly open fire and kill so many of their group.
"The fact that Jihadist could be living among us or be part of our naive Syrian refugee influx, deepens the suspicion of all Muslims."
How is it that supporters of the Confederate flag living among us do not face such suspicions? If you were inclined to be honest, Judy, you would at least ask such a question, would you not? Let's say we DON'T resettle Muslim refugees. We would still have a problem with home-grown terrorists, of the Christian variety, in these United States.
5
Don't forget that the 17th century was a time of disastrous climate change throughout the world. Changes in solar weather made the Little Ice Age. During that time, summer temperatures dropped slightly (akin to the rise we are already experiencing today) causing crops to rot in fields, long droughts were interspersed with massive floods. The ensuing famines yielded war, migration, xenophobia, revolt, and regicide. We're heading into our own period of devastatingly dramatic climate change, which has so far yielded droughts, floods, heat emergencies, wars and massive migration, but this time, we created it and we have the means to reverse it. Do we have the grace to do so or will we fall back on blaming the Other?
1
I applaud the effort to show that America as an place of freedom only works if some people are free and others not so. This has always been the people's conception of freedom for the majority. Although the sentiments expressed in our Declaration of Independence are important as showing a direction to strive for. The reality is much more ugly, the uglier because of the US's devotion to an Exceptionalism that precludes us from learning from others.
4
Taking territory from others, establishment of new states and institutions, changing regimes, revolutions and revolutionary wars are by their nature violent undertakings throughout all of human history - not just in the Americas. This doesn't preclude that some 300 years later, American citizens can and should do much, much better. We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that enshrines some very noble ideas. Let's look to those documents for guidance.
Schiff seems unaware that much of the New Englanders' xenophobia reflected the European politics they had not fully left behind. Britain and France were at war during much of the time between the 1680s and 1763. The pacifist Quakers were a product of the English Civil War of the 1640s and 50s and were widely reviled on both sides of the pond. That same Civil War was in part caused by the rift between Puritans and Anglicans. To say this is uniquely American seems to be missing the point. It's human.
6
While it is difficult to disagree with much of what Stacy Schiff writes in this article, it is both thin and one-sided. What's missing is an attempt to explain why xenophobia is a feature in our history, or to point out its dynamics. Are we just a nation of small-minded, bad people? Is it something in the American character? Has xenophobia been constant, or does it ebb and flow? What might cause this? And if it is so pervasive, how have so many nationalities over the centuries come to call America home?
3
Donald Trump is simply the worlds best lipstick on the GOP pig.
If he didn't exist, the media would have to invent him.
On second thought, maybe they did.
If he didn't exist, the media would have to invent him.
On second thought, maybe they did.
1
The US government should not create, support of prefer any particular religion, but America does grant tax exemptions and other financial benefits to various religions!
I never thought about it very much, but churches are really entertainment businesses that collect funds from senile little old widowed ladies like my 90+ year old mother and then use these dollars to buy expensive vacations, luxury cars, grand large houses, expensive mistresses, services of prostitutes, pedophile sexual activity lawsuit settlements, and/or other similar expenses.
They might spend a little bit for religious activities, but most of the donations are probably are spent enhancing the lifestyles of their clergymen, and that is a very great religious sin in my opinion, even if it is not a crime.
The US Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion, and this (probably) implies that taxes cannot be used to support any religion. The exemption of any religion or any other entertainment venue from paying their fair share of taxes to pay for the various services that they use means that my taxes are increased to pay for the public services that they are provided with my tax payments.
If money donated to religious and charitable organizations are tax deductible, then this is financial government support of religion when government taxes are indirectly diverted to religious organizations!
I never thought about it very much, but churches are really entertainment businesses that collect funds from senile little old widowed ladies like my 90+ year old mother and then use these dollars to buy expensive vacations, luxury cars, grand large houses, expensive mistresses, services of prostitutes, pedophile sexual activity lawsuit settlements, and/or other similar expenses.
They might spend a little bit for religious activities, but most of the donations are probably are spent enhancing the lifestyles of their clergymen, and that is a very great religious sin in my opinion, even if it is not a crime.
The US Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion, and this (probably) implies that taxes cannot be used to support any religion. The exemption of any religion or any other entertainment venue from paying their fair share of taxes to pay for the various services that they use means that my taxes are increased to pay for the public services that they are provided with my tax payments.
If money donated to religious and charitable organizations are tax deductible, then this is financial government support of religion when government taxes are indirectly diverted to religious organizations!
3
Unable to learn from our sins of the past and to adapt, the only thread had holds together the fabric of our nation is to have a common enemy we wage war against. Thus, in order to exit, we must engage in perpetual war to fight our nagging fear that America, indeed, is not exceptional.
Unless we understand, accept, and embrace that we are equal among equals among all nations on earth, we’re destined for obscurity.
Unless we understand, accept, and embrace that we are equal among equals among all nations on earth, we’re destined for obscurity.
72
Too bad we can't live in a world described by John Lennon's song "Imagine".
Think what a better world this would be---no country's to die for or religion too.
Think what a better world this would be---no country's to die for or religion too.
90
…nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"...
And no religion too"...
1
Knowledge of history, like science, is an amazingly effective path to more open minds and tolerance.
Sure, it's possible to become highly educated and still remain an ideologically-blinkered bigot -- like Cotton Mather, or Ted Cruz. All the more dangerous for the skill in demagoguery, public pontification and lies.
But for the most part, when children are taught to read widely, when students are given a broad liberal arts education, when adults read and travel and rub shoulders with diverse others, then think critically and reflectively about what they've learned and the realities they see around them ... spiritual courage often deepens even as religiosity disappears. Both compassion and rationality grow stronger. Love for the planet and fellow creatures abounds, and so does regard for objective facts, proven solutions, and empirical arguments instead of empty rhetoric.
But it all starts with education. As I know from my own redder-than-red State, that's high on the long, long list of things the reactionary extremists hate. You can lead the GOP to water, but you can't make them think!
Sure, it's possible to become highly educated and still remain an ideologically-blinkered bigot -- like Cotton Mather, or Ted Cruz. All the more dangerous for the skill in demagoguery, public pontification and lies.
But for the most part, when children are taught to read widely, when students are given a broad liberal arts education, when adults read and travel and rub shoulders with diverse others, then think critically and reflectively about what they've learned and the realities they see around them ... spiritual courage often deepens even as religiosity disappears. Both compassion and rationality grow stronger. Love for the planet and fellow creatures abounds, and so does regard for objective facts, proven solutions, and empirical arguments instead of empty rhetoric.
But it all starts with education. As I know from my own redder-than-red State, that's high on the long, long list of things the reactionary extremists hate. You can lead the GOP to water, but you can't make them think!
317
Yes indeed, more knowledge is better for everyone, and so for the community and nation as a whole. I am surprised that in the 20 hours since TL posted this no NYTimes reader has pointed out the GOP's antagonism toward science, education and political transparency: keep those 'hard-working Americans' uninformed!
2
'Please refrain from referring to people like Ted Cruz as "highly educated." They are highly trained. There is a difference.
1
The problem is, if you read the first post in this thread, you realize that the typical broad liberal arts education is as useless as the southern one. I've never seen such appalling ignorance. The people who recommended that post should have flunked seventh grade history. I mean, "American prosperity was built upon slavery, racism, theft, murder, extortion, and last but not least, war"? That makes Donald Trump sound like a genius.
Thank you Ms. Schiff for this brief but informative walk through our history. Unfortunately, the handful of people who know this material will say "Yup, that's what I've been saying but no one wants to listen." The great ignorant masses who do not know or even want to know our real history will continue to wallow in the nativist culture of fear and mistrust that they find so comforting.
2
The New England settlers, and their countrymen throughout North America, brought with them the religious intolerance of the homeland. These supposedly early American hatreds were, like the people who expressed them, merely an English import. Of course, religious intolerance seems to be a feature of religion itself, and not country-specific. To quote Tom Lehrer:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
and the Catholics hate the Protestants
and the Hindus hate the Muslims
and everybody hates the Jews.
Because it's National Brotherhood Week...
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
and the Catholics hate the Protestants
and the Hindus hate the Muslims
and everybody hates the Jews.
Because it's National Brotherhood Week...
1
I think humans are innately aggressive. We have not used our great intellect to overcome our instincts. I know that violence on tv and in movies is an overused example. But if I may for a moment ... Admittedly, I am a fan of the classic Cary Grant movie. So I may not be the most objective person. But last night, prior to the start of Star Wars, I sat through countless dark, apocalyptic, extremely violent trailers. They just kept coming. I appreciate how digital technology has truly given us tools to create incredible imagery. But we must ask ourselves what it means when we find these dystopian movies enjoyable.
1
Ms. Schiff, thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of Cotton Mather. He was certainly wrong. Even so, John Endecott might be a better example for your purposes of demonstrating religious intolerance especially vis a vis the Quakers.
There is a difference between Quakerism and Islam - no, there is a gulf of differences between Quakerism and Islam. But forget that.
Mary Dyer did not go to Boston to murder and maim.
There are valid reasons that Americans view their Moslem neighbors with suspicion. Think on that, Ms. Schiff. What might they be?
There is a difference between Quakerism and Islam - no, there is a gulf of differences between Quakerism and Islam. But forget that.
Mary Dyer did not go to Boston to murder and maim.
There are valid reasons that Americans view their Moslem neighbors with suspicion. Think on that, Ms. Schiff. What might they be?
Sazerac - New Orleans
Mary Barrett Dyer was a smart woman.
She may not have gone to Boston with malice aforethought, but she did know at the time, she was going to a place of gender inequality.
Did she have a death wish ?
Was she engaging in the more current "suicide by cop" ?
Or, verdict by judge ?
Hindsight is wonderful but might there have been another way ?
Mary Barrett Dyer was a smart woman.
She may not have gone to Boston with malice aforethought, but she did know at the time, she was going to a place of gender inequality.
Did she have a death wish ?
Was she engaging in the more current "suicide by cop" ?
Or, verdict by judge ?
Hindsight is wonderful but might there have been another way ?
The core of this article is not that the US or its people are uniquely xenophobic.
Instead it highlights two things:
First, what we today take as facts may be based on the same prejudices that led us to belive the earth was flat or the center of the universe, or that there are witches.
Second, that which defines us as civilized and purports to separate us from lower primates is that we adhere to principles and rules that we deem higher than our raw instincts.
Instead it highlights two things:
First, what we today take as facts may be based on the same prejudices that led us to belive the earth was flat or the center of the universe, or that there are witches.
Second, that which defines us as civilized and purports to separate us from lower primates is that we adhere to principles and rules that we deem higher than our raw instincts.
The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons...
We pass these things down through generations in families and neighborhoods. The context may change somewhat, but the tendency toward fear and hatred remains the same.
I'd be interested in another book, Ms. Schiff, about influences brought to our country by the influx of Scots in the mid 18th century. I've read suggestions that this immigration brought with it large helpings of bigotry, fear, and ignorance, that the uprising crushed by the English sent a wave of devastated and traumatized country people to the Colonies, and that this fed a culture of violence mistrust among some rural populations here. It's an interesting hypothesis that might bear investigating.
We pass these things down through generations in families and neighborhoods. The context may change somewhat, but the tendency toward fear and hatred remains the same.
I'd be interested in another book, Ms. Schiff, about influences brought to our country by the influx of Scots in the mid 18th century. I've read suggestions that this immigration brought with it large helpings of bigotry, fear, and ignorance, that the uprising crushed by the English sent a wave of devastated and traumatized country people to the Colonies, and that this fed a culture of violence mistrust among some rural populations here. It's an interesting hypothesis that might bear investigating.
1
This is an excellent commentary. I often compare the hideous attacks on Thomas Jefferson in the 18th century to the hideous attacks on Barack Obama in the 21st century. The sad fact is that these xenophobes and racists have always been with us, but thanks to multi-millionaires' largess and the Internet, their nastiness has been amplified way too much. If only we could dial down the volume control.
170
The people most immune from the frantic dystopian hype about an imagined omnipresent "Nefarious Malevolent Evil" -- are the artists. This band of folks excel at telling stories in words, music, painting, poetry, dance and the like. As they are experts -- more than any other class -- in creating imaginal reality -- excepting perhaps the mystics -- they know that fear is generated not by a single thing in the outer world, but by what goes on in the inner world. When a man tells you to be afraid of something, he's telling you mostly about his own inner world, and very little about the actual world in front of his own face.
Wow, wouldn't it be fun to see Donald Trump all decked out in a Puritan outfit, tall black hat, with his orange hair pouring out from under a wide brim, his ample jowls bursting from under the white collar.
But then, how would he explain his three marriages, and saying he would love to date his daughter, if she were...um...not his daughter?
But then, how would he explain his three marriages, and saying he would love to date his daughter, if she were...um...not his daughter?
Here is overwrought NYT silliness at its finest, with the recent obligatory theme of Donald Trump as the prime villain.
Just to start with, Trump & his followers aren't a small group of zealots suffering hallucinations (e.g., "gleaming balls of fire in their beds"). The San Bernardino attack was a real event with real terrorists. While most Americans rightly decry Trump's broad anti-Muslim rhetoric, the fact remains that:
1) A Muslim man who was seemingly well-integrated into American life evaded detection as a threat and slaughtered 14 Americans.
2) His wife who participated in the slaughter was admitted into the US despite govt processes we'd hoped would weed out terrorists.
Instead of attacking Trump daily, why doesn't the NYT lead a robust, fact-filled, thoughtful, & practical discussion of what a liberal democracy like ours should do to prevent attacks such as those in CA & Paris, and the truly thorny issues involved?
We're not in an era where we're illogically blaming the French for killing "the sheep grazing on Cambridge Common" when it was probably wolves. Islamist terrorists have announced their intention to kill people & have done so.
In CA, Syed Farook's neighbors had a gut feeling that something was amiss but didn't call authorities because they felt they were stereotyping. So where is the balance between vigilance & hysterics? I fear we'll never find it because Trump types are overreacting while the Left is underreacting.
Just to start with, Trump & his followers aren't a small group of zealots suffering hallucinations (e.g., "gleaming balls of fire in their beds"). The San Bernardino attack was a real event with real terrorists. While most Americans rightly decry Trump's broad anti-Muslim rhetoric, the fact remains that:
1) A Muslim man who was seemingly well-integrated into American life evaded detection as a threat and slaughtered 14 Americans.
2) His wife who participated in the slaughter was admitted into the US despite govt processes we'd hoped would weed out terrorists.
Instead of attacking Trump daily, why doesn't the NYT lead a robust, fact-filled, thoughtful, & practical discussion of what a liberal democracy like ours should do to prevent attacks such as those in CA & Paris, and the truly thorny issues involved?
We're not in an era where we're illogically blaming the French for killing "the sheep grazing on Cambridge Common" when it was probably wolves. Islamist terrorists have announced their intention to kill people & have done so.
In CA, Syed Farook's neighbors had a gut feeling that something was amiss but didn't call authorities because they felt they were stereotyping. So where is the balance between vigilance & hysterics? I fear we'll never find it because Trump types are overreacting while the Left is underreacting.
10
The majority of the perpetrators – those uttering “the dark words about dark powers” here - come from England. Such practices accompanied the English them everywhere as they embarked on colonization. South Africa had apartheid; Australia had the White Australia Policy. Things weren’t so good in the last century either when, in the UK, prejudices against West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians and Irish Catholics were more common that we’d like to believe.
But things improved. South Africa no longer has apartheid nor Australia the White Australia Policy. Irish Catholics now have a significant say in how they are governed and a quarter of the UK Parliament (House Of Commons) is made up of minority members, including the Conservative MP for Stratford On Avon, Nadhim Zahawi, a British Iraqi. (I think Shakespeare would have approved.)
America contributed to this change. Those who participated in the Civil Rights reforms in the 1960s probably had a wider influence than they thought.
Right now, Mr. Trump and others are offering solutions left right and center but they too will be swept along by the tide of history.
But things improved. South Africa no longer has apartheid nor Australia the White Australia Policy. Irish Catholics now have a significant say in how they are governed and a quarter of the UK Parliament (House Of Commons) is made up of minority members, including the Conservative MP for Stratford On Avon, Nadhim Zahawi, a British Iraqi. (I think Shakespeare would have approved.)
America contributed to this change. Those who participated in the Civil Rights reforms in the 1960s probably had a wider influence than they thought.
Right now, Mr. Trump and others are offering solutions left right and center but they too will be swept along by the tide of history.
1
South African apartheid was the work of the Afrikaner majority. The English were never fans of the mixing of races in their colonies but apartheid, and the worst excesses thereof, happened after 1948 and were imposed by the National Party.
2
Nice irony at the end especially- wasn't aware that puritans rejected Xmas.
1
Religious intolerance has fueled more hatred and loathing than anything else in our history. Odd, isn't it? All religions teach love and tolerance but few show that in action. Abdu'l-Baha of the Baha'i Faith once proclaimed that if religion be the source of discord, man is better off without it [paraphrased, not a quote]. Why is it that Christians, once divided into sects such as Catholic and Protestant, turn against each other? Why is it that Sunni's war against Shia's in a religion that forbids Holy War except against apostates? And, of course, we now have the Islamic version of radical Jihadists at war with everyone else, but especially other versions of Islam. The only thing much different today is the willingness to mass murder your own kind along with other religions and the weapons used to do it.
Still, there is hope. Catholics and Protestants have pretty much learned to live with each other without killing each other; most muslims are peaceful and not interested in participating in a Holy War; and Baha'is don't hate or kill anyone. Maybe, if religions could learn to get along with each other, we could even get politicians who would cooperate.
Still, there is hope. Catholics and Protestants have pretty much learned to live with each other without killing each other; most muslims are peaceful and not interested in participating in a Holy War; and Baha'is don't hate or kill anyone. Maybe, if religions could learn to get along with each other, we could even get politicians who would cooperate.
4
It would be interesting to see you, in a much longer article admittedly, develop this thread throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries as well. Many examples come to mind - McCarthy, of course - but also George H.W. Bush who, during the Gulf War, used (fairly puerile) language to describe Saddam Hussein that no other world leader (that I could understand) ever echoed, and which spoke to a real need to set up diabolical enemies and denounce them in order to fire up the nation. Rush Limbaugh is another example of (a) the need for an enemy (liberals) and the extreme language used to discredit and demonize them. When I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I am reminded of what the Völkischer Beobachter must have read like.
1
US "Exceptionalism " and Israel´s "Chosen people" makes them both among the most racist countries in this world. The treatment of Mexican peasants being
thrown out of their land for being " foreign "in spite of desiring to live precisely
in the same places i.e.. San Francisco, Santa Fe, Los Angeles etc ( Where do you think those names came from ?) comes from a culture born out of permanebnt conflict. And that is exceptional.
thrown out of their land for being " foreign "in spite of desiring to live precisely
in the same places i.e.. San Francisco, Santa Fe, Los Angeles etc ( Where do you think those names came from ?) comes from a culture born out of permanebnt conflict. And that is exceptional.
1
"History is bunk!" Henry Ford may have said this meaning you can't trust historians to tell the story truthfully. But then Henry was viciously antisemitic and thought Hitler was terrific, as did Charles Lindberg.
Lessons can be learned from history if you can get the story straight and get students to listen, not easy in a failing public education system. The writer quotes Donald Trump, an interesting choice for an article about anger.
My choice is to make decisions and plans based on current verifiable information with a heavy emphasis on risk management. If it ain't broke don't fix it and beware of the Cheney's and Rumsfelds in life who promise victory but who rely on exaggeration or falsehoods to risk your life in war.
The military solution is rarely the best choice. Finding out why people hate you and eliminating their reason for hate may eliminate the need for war.
Think about it !
Lessons can be learned from history if you can get the story straight and get students to listen, not easy in a failing public education system. The writer quotes Donald Trump, an interesting choice for an article about anger.
My choice is to make decisions and plans based on current verifiable information with a heavy emphasis on risk management. If it ain't broke don't fix it and beware of the Cheney's and Rumsfelds in life who promise victory but who rely on exaggeration or falsehoods to risk your life in war.
The military solution is rarely the best choice. Finding out why people hate you and eliminating their reason for hate may eliminate the need for war.
Think about it !
5
'Xenophobia: An intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.'
What has happened is that non-Muslims have a Pavlovian reaction to anyone dressed in Muslim religious attire, as it that is an indication of the their degree fundamentalism.
Considering the daily atrocities committed by Muslims throughout the world, the fear and anger may not be fair, but it is not irrational.
What has happened is that non-Muslims have a Pavlovian reaction to anyone dressed in Muslim religious attire, as it that is an indication of the their degree fundamentalism.
Considering the daily atrocities committed by Muslims throughout the world, the fear and anger may not be fair, but it is not irrational.
5
The column makes the same point (in less detail) as Richard Hofstadter's famous 1965 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
1
So I guess the moral to this story is, we as humans haven't come very far in the last 300 years. Even though we appear to be better educated the primal 'fear factor' still exists within us.
2
Don't forget too the rampant sexism and ever-present attempts to suppress women's voices, seen as a reaction to King Philip's War, and very much a component of our current terrorized response to terror, detailed so well by Susan Faludi in "The Terror Dream."
1
I believe we are all predisposed at times to some xenophobia. ( okay... I know that's a bit vague for such a blanket statement ) Root causes: our tribal instincts? genetics? cultural? Bring on the right amount and form of stress and/or hardship to our "group" and the xenophobic reaction rachets up to bring out the worse in all of us. We have to blame something/somebody. Sadly, I feel it's a hopeless condition of being "human". Sorry about such a downer comment.
The problem with discrimination of any sort, whether ethnic or religious, is that it happens in a timeline, where we are unable to see who is behind us or ahead of us. That is called exclusion.
It's only when we face each other in a circle and are able to see who we really are as humans that the spectre disappears. That is called inclusion.
It's only when we face each other in a circle and are able to see who we really are as humans that the spectre disappears. That is called inclusion.
5
Purity vs. plurality. I want pure air, water and food. I want eclectic education, diverse experience and uncommon friendship. I like salt, pepper and all manner of spices. I don't like one religion, one color or a single political view. I embrace more than just tolerate and I encounter pure joy, often.
8
Even agreeing that intolerance, mistrust, and abuse are part of our national history, even human nature, does not mean that we can leave things at that. We need leaders who move us from our base instincts and to thoughtful, equitable, forward-looking policies. The whole world needs such individuals.
2
Unfortunately: I can't be personally too shocked, because reading of historical harshness over years does tend to imprint this student.
Donald Trump has seemingly tapped into today's popular fear & loathing,
and is potentially his party's likely presidential nominee.
The people of the USA aren't impervious and essayist Stacy Schiff is
simply if not scarily/sensationally reminding us of some harsh reactionary behavior.
Donald Trump has seemingly tapped into today's popular fear & loathing,
and is potentially his party's likely presidential nominee.
The people of the USA aren't impervious and essayist Stacy Schiff is
simply if not scarily/sensationally reminding us of some harsh reactionary behavior.
1
"From that earlier set of founding fathers — the men who settled 17th century Massachusetts — came the first dark words about dark powers. No matter that they sailed to these shores in search of religious freedom."
Not so. Unlike the stories we were told in elementary history class, the men and women who settled Massachusetts were not fleeing persecution. They had been living comfortable (and peacefully) in the Netherlands for many years. Their Dutch hosts were tolerant of all religious practices, and presented no threat to them.
But the Dutch, apparently, were TOO tolerant. Puritans feared that their children were being exposed to un-Puritanical ideas and lifestyles. And so they left.
It's not accurate to depict the Puritans as peaceful people fleeing persecution. Indeed, they were intolerant of others before they ever even came to these shores. This country was indeed founded on religious intolerance.
Except for Jamestown, which was a purely commercial enterprise. It's accurate to say that American roots are founded in the pursuit of money, and ideological intolerance.
Not so. Unlike the stories we were told in elementary history class, the men and women who settled Massachusetts were not fleeing persecution. They had been living comfortable (and peacefully) in the Netherlands for many years. Their Dutch hosts were tolerant of all religious practices, and presented no threat to them.
But the Dutch, apparently, were TOO tolerant. Puritans feared that their children were being exposed to un-Puritanical ideas and lifestyles. And so they left.
It's not accurate to depict the Puritans as peaceful people fleeing persecution. Indeed, they were intolerant of others before they ever even came to these shores. This country was indeed founded on religious intolerance.
Except for Jamestown, which was a purely commercial enterprise. It's accurate to say that American roots are founded in the pursuit of money, and ideological intolerance.
21
You are confusing Pilgrims and Puritans and they were not the same. The Pilgrims were genuine Separatists who believed that the Church of England was beyond redemption and wanted complete religious and political separation. Those folks washed up on Cape Cod in 1620. The Puritans, despite their stern and unforgiving ideology, were reformers and were still looking to work within the system (albeit to transform it to their way of thinking, see, Cromwell, Oliver). Their Great Migration of 1630 that formed the Massachusetts Bay Colony was much more significant to our nation's history than those radical Pilgrims. Everyone knows about the "Mayflower," I'll wager not one in a thousand knows the "Arbella."
It is interesting to read the list of the Jamestown settlers along with their occupations.
I know that included two "Perfumers" who might have cornered the market selling perfumes to the natives!
I know that included two "Perfumers" who might have cornered the market selling perfumes to the natives!
1
Thank you very much for your comment! It often surprised me to encounter so many people honestly believing that the first settlers in America fled terrible religious persecution. I could not quite reconcile it with the fact that by the time of exodus to America religious persecution in Europe was on its down spiral. I am especially grateful to you pointing out about the first settlers living in The Netherlands before they came to New England which was quite a progressive place at the time compare to other places not in the least due to trade. There was a very good informative documentary on history channel about the first settlers around this Thanksgiving. Too bad it could never gather an audience as large as presidential campaign debates. But how nice it is to spin and believe in the myth of exceptional spirituality.
4
Very well-written article, in terms so simple one would think even the zealots could comprehend the similarities to their own xenophobia's, but that is surely a bridge too far...or multiple bridges and multiple distances, as time has proven that those most in need to learn from history are the same people who are most ignorant of it, and ignorant of so much else. Even the stories from our childhood - the Salem witchcraft horrors - don't seem to resonate in the proper manner, as if they are just titillating tales of strange people from long ago and a lead-in to Halloween merry-making, instead of the true lesson of bigotry, isolationism, and the demonizing of the "others".
3
My observation is that the vast majority of people are suspicious and xenophobic and it starts at a very young age with treating other kids as "not in the club" and migrates to middle school and HS cliques, moves on to fraternities/sororities in college and then full on paranoia in zealot political parties. Those guys in the other party are "devilish evil and want to eat your children" rhetoric. And globally there are the religious and race suspicions as well.
What's much more amazing is that most people don't believe they are suspicious and xenophobic. That's called denial. Until people own up to it they can never control it.
What's much more amazing is that most people don't believe they are suspicious and xenophobic. That's called denial. Until people own up to it they can never control it.
1
What nonsense. Everything Ms. Schiff writes may well be true, but there is nothing uniquely American about this - and by her tone Ms. Schiff implies there somehow is. What evidence is there that any other human culture or nation state did not act in the same manner? In fact, notwithstanding many examples of xenophobia, America has historically been more welcoming of foreigners, more willing to define citizenship by shared values than by ethnicity, than other nation states.
11
"What evidence is there that any other human culture or nation state did not act in the same manner? " Um ... Ms. Schiff is not required to prove a negative for your personal satisfaction. If you have genuine historical examples that support you view and that you would like to discuss, then by all means enlighten us.
1
My mother and her cousin told me that, during their childhood in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, the family sent the cousin to shop in certain areas of the neighborhood because, blonde and fair-skinned, she didn't look Italian. This was back in the 1920s, when prejudice against Italian immigrants was high. Italians were regarded as stupid, dirty and subversive. I heard these stories while sitting in my mother's kitchen which, like my grandmother's kitchen before it, was so clean that you could literally eat off the floor. My mother was a clean-freak to rival any minimalist wall-scrubber.
My uncle, who died recently at age 96, graduated from HS at age 16 & was accepted by Brooklyn College. He could not attend, however, because it was 1935, and the family had no money for either books or the facilities fee (about $25.00 per semester). He went to work on the docks, then fought bravely in WWII, landing at Normandy a week after D-Day, helping to liberate Paris and fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. So much for dumb and unpatriotic.
My husband, whose family was in politics, has told me that the Democratic Party wisdom in NYC from the 40s through the 60s was that a ticket for Mayor, Comptroller and City Council President had to include "an Italian, an Irishman and a Jew." Slowly, each ethnic or religious group - mine included - overcame xenophobia and became the establishment. We need to recall that the next time someone warns us to fear "the other."
My uncle, who died recently at age 96, graduated from HS at age 16 & was accepted by Brooklyn College. He could not attend, however, because it was 1935, and the family had no money for either books or the facilities fee (about $25.00 per semester). He went to work on the docks, then fought bravely in WWII, landing at Normandy a week after D-Day, helping to liberate Paris and fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. So much for dumb and unpatriotic.
My husband, whose family was in politics, has told me that the Democratic Party wisdom in NYC from the 40s through the 60s was that a ticket for Mayor, Comptroller and City Council President had to include "an Italian, an Irishman and a Jew." Slowly, each ethnic or religious group - mine included - overcame xenophobia and became the establishment. We need to recall that the next time someone warns us to fear "the other."
14
"Belief in the divine is the origin of all dictatorship." - Christopher Hitchens
It is dismaying to read about historic xenophobia that avoids the generic tribalism of fundamentalist religion. The Massachusetts Bay colonists for instance had left an England via (the present day) Netherlands in a time when religious factionism of the English Civil War was killing a higher percentage of British than were lost in WW1. The 16th & 17th Centuries in Europe were bathed in state sanctioned religious bloodshed from the battlefield to the gibbet, ranging from Oliver Cromwell's murderous rampages in Ireland where women and children were not spared to the execution of a King. To talk about xenophobia in a 17th century context without directly invoking the madness of religious faith itself is like talking about illness without mentioning disease.
I don't know where our current high state of hands-off phobia toward directly aligning and correlating faith in the supernatural with bad acts by humans comes from (and I believe the two-letter explanation that also describes a computer is getting tired innefective.) But it's moved intelligent discourse on history and culture back 50 years and buried the intelligent analyses of some brilliant thinkers in PC (whoops) muck.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
It is dismaying to read about historic xenophobia that avoids the generic tribalism of fundamentalist religion. The Massachusetts Bay colonists for instance had left an England via (the present day) Netherlands in a time when religious factionism of the English Civil War was killing a higher percentage of British than were lost in WW1. The 16th & 17th Centuries in Europe were bathed in state sanctioned religious bloodshed from the battlefield to the gibbet, ranging from Oliver Cromwell's murderous rampages in Ireland where women and children were not spared to the execution of a King. To talk about xenophobia in a 17th century context without directly invoking the madness of religious faith itself is like talking about illness without mentioning disease.
I don't know where our current high state of hands-off phobia toward directly aligning and correlating faith in the supernatural with bad acts by humans comes from (and I believe the two-letter explanation that also describes a computer is getting tired innefective.) But it's moved intelligent discourse on history and culture back 50 years and buried the intelligent analyses of some brilliant thinkers in PC (whoops) muck.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
24
Xenophobia is so widespread and common not only among our species but many others as well that it has to be considered a natural phenomenon or behavior pattern which has evolved and thrived due to advantages in natural selection. Instinctual, hardwired perhaps, it will not go away anytime soon. Fortunately we also have a natural wiggle room, perhaps only a small antechamber, called culture, which seems to enable some modifications. On what modifications, amendments, embellishments we need and want and how is where more of our attention should be focussed.
The West has roots in ancient Greek culture which gave us as a model of conscience Athena who unlike other models such as Moses and Mohammed did not demand adherence to specific and hard-set instruction manual with a particular list of do's and don'ts but instead advocated thought itself before the completion of or surrender to impulse or instinct or tradition and custom . . . education and artistic endeavors could do more in that direction.
The West has roots in ancient Greek culture which gave us as a model of conscience Athena who unlike other models such as Moses and Mohammed did not demand adherence to specific and hard-set instruction manual with a particular list of do's and don'ts but instead advocated thought itself before the completion of or surrender to impulse or instinct or tradition and custom . . . education and artistic endeavors could do more in that direction.
3
Reminds me of the jihad waged throughout academia by climate 'believers' against 'deniers.' The left are equally skilled in the art of self-righteous atrocity. Janet Reno took particular glee in incinerating masses of children against a disapproved 'cult'; Democrats led the Jim Crow Era; and FDR jailed American citizens in concentration camps. There's plenty of shyte to throw around.
3
@Publius: yes indeed let's look at the persecution of the climate deniers: the repeated subpoenas by powerful Senators and Congressmen and the leaks of misrepresented information to the press, the calls to subvert and defund the National Science foundation and NOAA, debunked lies and distorted history and data plots. Oh, I'm sorry, that was the fossil fuel-funded denialist lobbying machine. The parallel with the past is that it is the powerful that have a sense of persecution: the deniers are the downtrodden even as they seek to use the tools of government and the press to get scientists fired or suppressed. An example is Gov Scott's actions against disaster preparedness officers in Florida.
1
Or that against flat earthers or a geo-centric universe...
It's really important that you learn to distinguish between history and fable. In this case, everything you've written is either ignorant, untrue or deliberately misconstrued. You can do better!
Does that mean if Donald Trump gets in the White House, we should just shrug it off as a fine, old, American tradition? I'm having trouble with that.
4
What nation wasn't xenophobic and prejudiced in times past? American fears may have been expressed more than most for the simple reason that the nation had real diversity. Remember: In order to hate the other, you have to have the other.
The xenophobia is unsurprising for the eras the author cites. What is shocking is its re-emergence in this day and age. The second half of the 20th century largely saw this kind of talk and thought dissipate. Never did I think I'd see the day when a major presidential candidate suggested branding all people belonging to a religion.
The xenophobia is unsurprising for the eras the author cites. What is shocking is its re-emergence in this day and age. The second half of the 20th century largely saw this kind of talk and thought dissipate. Never did I think I'd see the day when a major presidential candidate suggested branding all people belonging to a religion.
55
It all comes down to this: what we can't explain we attribute to God's mysterious ways. Fairy tales are mysterious too.
10
The "God of the gaps" in our knowledge has less to work with each year than he had the year before. What's a theist to do?
2
Things have changed. One that has changed is that we have a very well populated country now. Do we need more people? Do we owe the world to compromise our own well being by taking in more people than we can handle? Where will this end? I have read that about 50% of Americans are taking government money. We provide housing for people who not citizens while citizens go without. We work extra to pay for people who will not or cannot work? How much more should be asked of us? Remember that when people came here in the pass, they did not feel entitled but grateful. The new crop does not appreciate this country or its people or the effort that has gone into making it great. Are we in decline?
6
We all take government money because our taxes are pooled together to create benefits for everyone. That includes you. That you are able to write your messages online is a testament to government investment in communications infrastructure. Do you drive on a public highway? Benefit from laws that protect public safety? Go to bed at night knowing that you have the world's finest military protecting the country from attack? Know that if you have an emergency, a call to 911 will bring an ambulance and a fire crew to your home under 5 minutes? Stop demonizing the poor. The majority of poor people do work, and usually more than one job. Immigrants are the least likely people to depend on public assistance because they usually come from places where people are accustomed to working very hard, and so when they arrive, they do the same here. Who are we housing free while our citizens go without? If we have people in poverty, it's because we have corporations that pay their executives millions of dollars while paying their workers poverty wages. Did you know that Walmart pays its employees such low wages that they qualify for Medicaid? Or that adjunct professors right there in your home town are being paid poverty wages while university administrators make six figure salaries? Instead of demonizing the poor and immigrants and refugees, why don't you get out of your comfy chair and do something about the raging inequality in this country?
8
What in the world are you talking about? I don't know because you do not cite any references for the outlandish statements you are making, such as "50% of Americans are taking government money". And anyway, I have news for you...government money is the people's money, and perhaps it should go to people in need. And yes, sometimes we work more so that people who cannot work have something. That is what communities do for each other. Please learn to actually follow whatever religion you follow.
4
Maybe you are in decline, maybe you've always been an ignoramous. And you live in a university town, too.
3
So, it's really religion that fueled our intolerance from the very beginning of the country. If only a group of atheists, searching for freedom from persecution, had founded America and built a country. It's interesting to speculate what kind of nation we would be today without the divisiveness that religion caused over the centuries. We'd probably still hate each other, but without religious texts and practices, what would our hatred be based on? Religion is so ingrained in our culture and history, and we're so used to using it as a reason for our intolerance of others that it's difficult to even imagine such a scenario.
89
Atheism does not inoculate one from xenophobia and bigotry. See Sam Harris and other New Atheists.
6
How many christians (or other religious people) have been burned at the stake in the name of Atheism?
1
Those fleeing religious persecution who came here for a different life turned around and did the same to others who came later. Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics, and Pennsylvania for Quakers. Both have been reviled in American history. Just look at the suspicion that people held against Catholics when JFK ran for president. Americans are an odd bunch. Mostly living in a fantasy world and allergic to facts.
3
And add to this the historical used of the language of racism and stereotype -- our calling each other names I will not repeat here, but that we all know, and the common use of adjectives about other groups among us, and you have an even grander historical base for prejudice and nastiness. Attempts to raise this dangerous and obviously wrongheaded use of language to self-awareness, and to substitute more accurate and civil vocabulary (or to simply eliminate crass and highly misleading words that provide an aura of truth and acceptability), is now hatefully referred to as imposing political correctness. So now anger and hatred about PC adds even more fuel to the fire. Is there no way out?
9
this is a great article! Malcolm is the great American who has most influenced me. He said he was not an American "I can't sit at the table and watch you eat and call myself a diner." But he was wrong. When we engage in the study of the founding of America, that is as American as it gets and we know Malcolm was a student of American history. The big thing that jumps out at you when you study America's founding is the rampant racism and bigotry and the cruelty that flowed from it. True students of America and our history automatically are repulsed at prejudice and bigotry because these evils are America's first sins. And this holds true even for conservative students. You can be for a weak federal government and still reject the idea that our national morals rest on sadistic superiors and a permanent underclass. This article brings to light that what is driving the current group of xenophobes is not hate as much as it is them simply not ever haven taken a decent civics course.
15
The country was founded on and fueled by slavery. Our existing infrastructure and the tremendous wealth of our economy would not exist without the blood, sweat and tears of slaves. Our history is one of greed, inhumanity, intolerance, and selfishness. We stole the land from its rightful inhabitants and proceeded to desecrate and destroy it, turning it into garbage and pollution.
1
What a specious argument! Viewed with the retrospectoscope in the twenty first century, of course it's easy to see how misguided these old views were. Try telling the victims of jihadist terrorism throughout the world, that with time we will see how ' wrong' our views are as they bury their dead. We are in a war unlike any in our history. The evidence is overwhelming. You can see it on television,our troops have experienced it. Ask the Syrians, the Israelis, the Kurds anon if this is a figment of our collective imaginations.
Columns like this one, mislead and attempt to put our present rage and fears in a context of" will historians see us as being alarmist and paranoid reactors?". No,we are in the war and its threats are real. Maybe if we accept this reality we will stop navel gazing and do something concrete about it. Political correctness will not be important at the funeral of neighbors and loved ones.
Columns like this one, mislead and attempt to put our present rage and fears in a context of" will historians see us as being alarmist and paranoid reactors?". No,we are in the war and its threats are real. Maybe if we accept this reality we will stop navel gazing and do something concrete about it. Political correctness will not be important at the funeral of neighbors and loved ones.
15
While you may have read the article (though I'm guessing the headline was as far as you got) you did not understand it.
1
We are in a war with terrorists. We are not in a war with Islam. You only need to read the article about the closing of the Virginia school district today over a calligraphy assignment to see how destructive conflating terrorism and Islam can be.
3
Why the outrage? The righteous indignation? Our history and traditions are not disconnected from the present. And we have a shameful history, full of bigotry, greed and inhumanity, which continues into the present day.
See this 1964 article by Richard Hofstadler, The Paranoid Style in American Politics" ( http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics ). The paranoid style has been consistent since the 18th C or as this articlw shows, since the 17th C. Zombies and zombie states of mind never die.
15
Brilliant column.
24
Not all fears are irrational. I wasn't in Jersey City on that 9/11 morning and so cannot say if Moslems there were, or were not not celebrating. But I was in downtown Manhattan right next to the twin towers, and I can confirm that the attacks of 9/11 actually did happen. From the fact that Salem's witches were a figment of conspiratorial imagination, it does not follow that there are no people today wishing to do us harm...
9
At no point does Schiff say that 9/11 didn't happen. What she's talking about is the demonization of people regarded as outsiders, and the distortion to rational thinking that results, a phenomenon that was prevalent in 1690's Salem and lives on in 21st century America, and elsewhere, of course. It was that kind of distorted thinking that led this country to attack Iraq in 2003, a country that had not attacked us and, indeed, had no intention or capacity of attacking us. And now we all must live with the consequences.
I suppose it shouldn't anymore, but it still amazes me how certain quarters write as though the human pathology of bigotry and xenophobia are uniquely American traits; or at least define our history and country in some broad way.
If Americans are intolerant bigots, its because they are human, for humans beings are by their very nature intolerant bigots.
And no one is spared this curse. Least of all those who like to point the finger of guilt at others but with no apparently self-reflection on their own guilt whatsoever.
If Americans are intolerant bigots, its because they are human, for humans beings are by their very nature intolerant bigots.
And no one is spared this curse. Least of all those who like to point the finger of guilt at others but with no apparently self-reflection on their own guilt whatsoever.
165
The article doesn't suggest that this is strictly an American phenomena. It simply discusses American history as it relates to xenophobia.
17
Thanks for this comment. Are we guilty far too often of xenophobia, as all human are? Yes. But America, "built on xenophobia?" I don't think so.
The point is that our nation's principles espouse pluralism (note our national motto, e pluribus unum) and always have. No one is surprised at xenophobia in European nations, which are essentially ethnic homelands with narrow, ethnically-based cultural identities. This kind of nonsense is sharply at odds with the entire foundation of our country. If we want to claim exceptionalism, we'd better start acting exceptional.
3
The idea that serious and violent xenophobia is un-American is, well, just that. More an idea or desire (by some anyway) than an ongoing reality.
2
Great article. We're taught in school that American prosperity is the result of hard work, ingenuity, and self reliance, all resulting from the pure foundation of equality of opportunity. It's a complete and utter myth. American prosperity was built upon slavery, racism, theft, murder, extortion, and last but not least, war. Throughout history when the ruling classes want something, whether the land belonging to the Mexicans or the Native Americans or the Iraqis, they just take it.
532
It's not either/or. It's both. We have the rule of law in this country. We have a desire for justice and to strive for what it right - that is no myth. High-minded ideals are what most of us aspire to as humans, American or not. But as humans, we also have undeniable traits that most of us would describe as dark. The most persistent war is the one eternally waged inside each of us, between these two natures.
3
And war is the biggest money-maker of all.
Michael - Tribeca
Bravo !
Bravo !
1
All nations and religious institutions have embedded within their history a certain amount of xenophobia and fear of the "other". The United States stands out for our efforts and success in providing and supporting freedom and equality in our country and the world.
3
Religion has been bad for people since it was invented by a bunch of people wandering in the desert thousands of years ago. Maybe someday it will go by the boards. Just IMAGINE.
49
"You man say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one."
But I'm not the only one."
1
Thanks for the reminder of who we really are and where we came from, rather the the PC fairy tale version those who lead us would like to have us believe so it makes whatever they do look virtuous, supposedly because it's on our behalf.
And thanks also, because without being willing to face the real ourselves in the mirror, can we actually ourselves to anything constructively honest to change anything, hopefully for the better. Myths and fables are okay to teach kids because they need to feel good about themselves and secure as they grow up. But once as adults, Shedding the make-believe and facing the realities of life is part of what makes us an adult.
Maybe perpetual childhood is great for all those out there who all they want to do is sell us stuff - and what sells hotter than toys to kids - but that unaltered state is limited and can only take us a small step of the way that we have the full potential to take.
And thanks also, because without being willing to face the real ourselves in the mirror, can we actually ourselves to anything constructively honest to change anything, hopefully for the better. Myths and fables are okay to teach kids because they need to feel good about themselves and secure as they grow up. But once as adults, Shedding the make-believe and facing the realities of life is part of what makes us an adult.
Maybe perpetual childhood is great for all those out there who all they want to do is sell us stuff - and what sells hotter than toys to kids - but that unaltered state is limited and can only take us a small step of the way that we have the full potential to take.
70
The puritans condemned the celebration of Christmas not because Christmas merriment suggested frivolities associated with the pagan.
There was a much more specific, doctrinal reason for their refusal to celebrate Christmas. They noted that neither the New Testament, nor the Old Testament, said when Jesus was born, let alone contend that he was born on December 25 or December 24. Since the testaments were silent on the time of Jesus' birth, there was no biblical basis to celebrate Christmas and, in line with the fundamentalism of the times, without a biblical basis X mas would have to be scrapped.
It is not entirely clear what prompted the Protestant West to change its tune. The desire to move merchandise off of store shelves was probably a factor as our nascent consumer society was just beginning to stir.
There was a much more specific, doctrinal reason for their refusal to celebrate Christmas. They noted that neither the New Testament, nor the Old Testament, said when Jesus was born, let alone contend that he was born on December 25 or December 24. Since the testaments were silent on the time of Jesus' birth, there was no biblical basis to celebrate Christmas and, in line with the fundamentalism of the times, without a biblical basis X mas would have to be scrapped.
It is not entirely clear what prompted the Protestant West to change its tune. The desire to move merchandise off of store shelves was probably a factor as our nascent consumer society was just beginning to stir.
10
This is standard in-group // out-group selection. The battle for status and resources. Luckily for all religions there is a always a written doctrine of exclusion!
2
"My fairy tale is better/truer/more godly than your fairy tale." What a pitiful people we can be when we invest ourselves in such beliefs.
43
It is not the idea of America that is poisonous. It is religion and the intolerant dogma that coats all faiths. The open to all philosophy of our country is both admirable and obtainable when faith based laws of any kind are avoided. Our founders knew that and even put it in writing. And yes, it really is that simple.
121
Intolerant dogma comes in many forms, not all of them religious. The communist purges of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were based in ANTI-religious ideology.
7
@ Steve W
Intolerant dogma comes in many forms, not all of them religious...but most of them are.
Intolerant dogma comes in many forms, not all of them religious...but most of them are.
1
Paula C. - Montana
But currently, we "Americans" don't enjoy a very savory reputation in the world.
So, in lieu of "Being Canadian", I choose to say, "I'm Canadian", when I travel.
It's fun to change personae once in a while.
But currently, we "Americans" don't enjoy a very savory reputation in the world.
So, in lieu of "Being Canadian", I choose to say, "I'm Canadian", when I travel.
It's fun to change personae once in a while.
Brilliant testimony as to why we are in the midst of mess that is painfully similar to many events in America's past, and further proof that education--including an ample introduction to the humanities--remains our best defense against repeating such atrocities.
204
What passes for education in this country is what the educated in other parts of the world call skills training. Be that as it may, college education has been largely priced out of the wallets of ordinary people and there is a growing sentiment among right wing politicians that colleges somehow turn students into progressive voters. The current House Speaker is on record ridiculing President Obama for voicing support for affordable college education.
Big business still finds fault with our schools for not functioning fully as boot camps for the IBMs and the GMs of the land.
You may see "ample introduction to the humanities" as "our best defense against repeating [the atrocities in America's past]" If the the majority of the college educated vote for Democrats and the majority of the less educated vote Republican, then we have practical problem on our hands in giving our children the kind of education they need.
Big business still finds fault with our schools for not functioning fully as boot camps for the IBMs and the GMs of the land.
You may see "ample introduction to the humanities" as "our best defense against repeating [the atrocities in America's past]" If the the majority of the college educated vote for Democrats and the majority of the less educated vote Republican, then we have practical problem on our hands in giving our children the kind of education they need.
2
I would love to think that education would mitigate hatred and fear of "the other." Sadly, it's pretty obvious that we have lots of educated voters who believe that they hold the Truth for everyone. That is the real problem: the conviction that only you or only your group knows what is best for everyone. (Remember that those Puritans were among the best educated of their time.) This conviction is propagandized and promoted by corporate money and elevated to high office through gerrymandering, and it's why our Congress is incapable of bipartisan law on most issues.
It is the emotional conviction and self-righteousness horse on which all these hate-filled windbags ride into town.
It is the emotional conviction and self-righteousness horse on which all these hate-filled windbags ride into town.
Naw, a good comparative religion course would be the work of the devil- making true believers have doubt that their way is the true way. You'd have a collapse of all the major monotheistic religions-not that such a thing wouldn't be a needed and wonderful thing but it just isn't going to happen. Too "disruptive" to the ruling elite.
Fear of groups none of whose members, or, for that matter, outwardly indistinguishable others claiming to be members, have committed many organized terrorist acts, is far different from fear of groups members of which rarely or never do so. One is irrational, and the other is entirely rational. We are talking about human nature, after all.
6
This is a well done Opinion and rightly so asks people to stop and think in context of the sweep of Our History.
I for one hate the raising tide of hate against all those from the middle east who come to the USA. I think we should do more to take in people fleeing the mess that has become the middle east.
All that said however, one must acknowledge that with more people coming in from the middle east there is a real possibility that people who want to do hard to us will slip through with the 99% who do not.
To that end, I want the right to defend myself as I go about my daily life. Not wait for some policeman to come and pick up my body after the fact.
I am a believer in the saying The land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"
I should be brave enough to take on the danger of living with my philosophy and let people in who want to come into USA. I should have the freedom to arm myself for my self defense as I walk down the street, or go to work, in case someone slips in and tries to kill me because I was brave enough to risk letting them in.
I for one hate the raising tide of hate against all those from the middle east who come to the USA. I think we should do more to take in people fleeing the mess that has become the middle east.
All that said however, one must acknowledge that with more people coming in from the middle east there is a real possibility that people who want to do hard to us will slip through with the 99% who do not.
To that end, I want the right to defend myself as I go about my daily life. Not wait for some policeman to come and pick up my body after the fact.
I am a believer in the saying The land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"
I should be brave enough to take on the danger of living with my philosophy and let people in who want to come into USA. I should have the freedom to arm myself for my self defense as I walk down the street, or go to work, in case someone slips in and tries to kill me because I was brave enough to risk letting them in.
1
My very good father never forgave FDR for not doing more to help the Jews during World War II.
But after he finally succeeded in gaining entry to this country in 1941, he never once, not for a minute, ever considered setting foot outside of it again.
I don't care who you are, or how badly the country may have treated you in the past or is still treating
you, the U.S. remains the best of the best of all possible places, and even recalling our gravest mistakes like slavery and the others recalled here does not diminish that.
But after he finally succeeded in gaining entry to this country in 1941, he never once, not for a minute, ever considered setting foot outside of it again.
I don't care who you are, or how badly the country may have treated you in the past or is still treating
you, the U.S. remains the best of the best of all possible places, and even recalling our gravest mistakes like slavery and the others recalled here does not diminish that.
9
"... does not diminish that in the slightest."
1
A. Stanton - Dallas,
I beg to differ.
How can one become cosmopolitan (in it's meaning of knowledge of the world), if one never leaves the United States ?
"Those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it".
"The best of all possible places ?"
I've seen "American Interests" trump altruism on many occasions.
I beg to differ.
How can one become cosmopolitan (in it's meaning of knowledge of the world), if one never leaves the United States ?
"Those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it".
"The best of all possible places ?"
I've seen "American Interests" trump altruism on many occasions.
1
Of course, one should travel. Among other
benefits, it informs you just how much we have here.
benefits, it informs you just how much we have here.
1
None of the early colonies allowed Jews, except NYC, then called New Netherland.
44
Curious, then, that the U.S.'s first synagogue was in Charleston, SC: cf. http://www.kkbe.org/index.php?page=history
2
Well, no. Pennsylvania let in just about any old riffraff. But then the Quakers were known to be a little nutty. But then there was that little matter of our genocide of the local Indians. But of course that wasn't constrained by religion, in spite of being led by a Protestant minister -- in fact, they killed the "praying" Indians as cheerfully as any others. So: was our intolerance rooted in our religious prejudices, or were our prejudices just clothed in religious language?
2
Wrong. The first synagogue in America was built in Newport, Rhode Island.
3
..."trumped up fears".... Exactly!
29
The valid security needs of our country to be able to protect the borders and know who enters the country are not "raging suspicion and rabid xenophobia" but are used in the article to make the bulk of what the author says relevant to the anti-Trump hysteria and current political discussion.
That was then, this is now.
That was then, this is now.
8
"That was then, this is now." The article forgot to mention that phrase is how you identify the next generation of those raging Puritans...
2
>
"The established group has always taken a paranoid stance toward the others; in this great empires, indeed, organized humanity as a whole, are no better than head hunters."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
"The established group has always taken a paranoid stance toward the others; in this great empires, indeed, organized humanity as a whole, are no better than head hunters."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
14
It is the way of man. Early indicators can be seen in the jungle trees and grassy savannah.
3
Why exactly is there no mention of the anger, terror and hatred towards the people who were here before all of these settlers, the Native Americans? Why is there no motion of the anger, terror and hatred towards the people who were brought in chains to serve these settlers, the African Americans? While it's comforting to know that there the settlers were equal-opportunity in their anger, terror and hatred towards other human beings, it seems like a broad white wash (pun intended) to give hardly a mention to those peoples who not only built this nation, but suffered, and continue to suffer, from anger, hatred and terror perpetrated for centuries by these so-called Christian settlers.
344
Diva, the principal focus of the piece on the earliest manifestations of American xenophobia, in Puritan New England. The region at the time has a tiny black population. The Puritans, however, did experience "anger, hatred, and terror" toward the Native Americans, particularly in western Massachusetts.
Ms. Schiff does not overlook these facts. Re-read paragraph six, with its references to "nascent sense of racial privilege," an "emboldened Native American population," and the predicted "imminent descent" of waves of "Indians and Gallic bloodhounds."
Ms. Schiff does not overlook these facts. Re-read paragraph six, with its references to "nascent sense of racial privilege," an "emboldened Native American population," and the predicted "imminent descent" of waves of "Indians and Gallic bloodhounds."
1
I have mixed feelings about some of those long-ago Native Americans, because members of the Iroquois tribe massacred some of my ancestors during the Revolutionary War. I don't believe that any group has all bad or all good members, however.
Although undoubtedly suffering the most, Africans who were brought here in chains weren't the only people mistreated by their masters. British people who had committed crimes for which capital punishment was not thought appropriate were permanently and conspicuously marked (on the hand) by branding and punished through transportation to the American Colonies, where they were to work as servants. Others were lured into what they thought was temporary indenture, in return for passage, only to find the terms of the contract changed to lifetime indenture upon arriving, and the only recourse they had was to escape their masters, as a slave would. That relationships between slaves and indentured servants were not uncommon seems to indicate their similar status.
One aspect of American history that has been lost in the common narrative about race is that some African-Americans were so-called Free People of Color, or FPOC, so not every black person whose family has been here for hundreds of years is a descendant of slaves, and some who were were actually "owned" for their own protection by close relatives.
I agree that the significant contributions of Africans at every stage of this country's development have not been sufficiently recognized.
Although undoubtedly suffering the most, Africans who were brought here in chains weren't the only people mistreated by their masters. British people who had committed crimes for which capital punishment was not thought appropriate were permanently and conspicuously marked (on the hand) by branding and punished through transportation to the American Colonies, where they were to work as servants. Others were lured into what they thought was temporary indenture, in return for passage, only to find the terms of the contract changed to lifetime indenture upon arriving, and the only recourse they had was to escape their masters, as a slave would. That relationships between slaves and indentured servants were not uncommon seems to indicate their similar status.
One aspect of American history that has been lost in the common narrative about race is that some African-Americans were so-called Free People of Color, or FPOC, so not every black person whose family has been here for hundreds of years is a descendant of slaves, and some who were were actually "owned" for their own protection by close relatives.
I agree that the significant contributions of Africans at every stage of this country's development have not been sufficiently recognized.
The author is highlighting the foundational nature of hate in Puritan New England. The Indigenous people are presented here as not being merely objects of hatred but shows them as a still powerful force to be reckoned with.
1
I would re-phrase Schiff's description of Puritan motives. They did not come seeking religious freedom; they sought religious purity, as their name indicates. In England, they had to rub shoulders with all sorts of people they considered violators of God's law. In America, they would create a new community, one that God would bless because it adhered to his laws. Those settlers who failed to qualify for church membership would still have to live a godly life.
The search for purity, naturally, crashed into the stone wall of human nature. Even in the first generation, Puritans encountered amongst themselves those, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, who defined purity differently than the majority. In the second and subsequent generations, the numbers who failed to merit church membership grew faster than the elect.
The tarnished reality of this Puritan paradise incited these literalists to see the Devil's handiwork in their failures. The horrors that Ms. Schiff discusses stemmed from the determination to expel the minions of Satan living amongst them. Only in that way could they regain the favor of the stern deity who had punished them with Indian wars, the loss of their charter, and the infestation of witches.
We yearn for a different kind of purity, one based in reverence for the political ideals that define our nation. Each wave of new arrivals faces prejudice due partly to fear that their alien background will preclude adherence to our political faith.
The search for purity, naturally, crashed into the stone wall of human nature. Even in the first generation, Puritans encountered amongst themselves those, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, who defined purity differently than the majority. In the second and subsequent generations, the numbers who failed to merit church membership grew faster than the elect.
The tarnished reality of this Puritan paradise incited these literalists to see the Devil's handiwork in their failures. The horrors that Ms. Schiff discusses stemmed from the determination to expel the minions of Satan living amongst them. Only in that way could they regain the favor of the stern deity who had punished them with Indian wars, the loss of their charter, and the infestation of witches.
We yearn for a different kind of purity, one based in reverence for the political ideals that define our nation. Each wave of new arrivals faces prejudice due partly to fear that their alien background will preclude adherence to our political faith.
246
@James Lee. Your comment is very intelligent. But, I doubt some despise aliens because they have a different political faith. It's enough that aliens have features, language or cultural that identifies them. The best we do is admire and eat their food. That's why our best national holiday is Thanksgiving, not Christmas.
3
The Puritans " sought religious purity, as their name indicates. In England, they had to rub shoulders with all sorts of people they considered violators of God's law. In America, they would create a new community, one that God would bless because it adhered to his laws. Those settlers who failed to qualify for church membership would still have to live a godly life."
So, a Puritan caliphate, more or less. With its own varieties of public executions and mistreatment of women.
So, a Puritan caliphate, more or less. With its own varieties of public executions and mistreatment of women.
3
I agree, AIR, and that is why I attributed prejudice "partly" to the fear of political heresy. Catholics, for example, confronted hostility partly because of the Protestant assumption that the pope and his bishops in America controlled their votes. But I would never deny the powerful impact of racism. The strict limit on the length of responses forces one to concentrate on the main point, omitting important qualifications.
2
Let's face it, "nativism" and all its grubby variants is not just an American wart, it is pretty universal among all of us home-sapiens. It's in our genes, carved into them because it was survival positive for millions of years of evolving primates. To not look at xenophobia as an inbred trait is to miss possible solutions to this behavior that is so destructive in modern society.
15
So we're not really all that "exceptional," after all?
9
will duff - Tijeras,
Well said, "nativism" & "xeonophobia" (from the Greek, xenos -strange).
We might have needed "strange" to distinguish a cougar from a rabbit on the savannah of our neanderthal ancestors to keep from being eaten.
But, some of us (who have traveled), have evolved from then.
And, the stranger we've never met may turn out to be our friend.
Well said, "nativism" & "xeonophobia" (from the Greek, xenos -strange).
We might have needed "strange" to distinguish a cougar from a rabbit on the savannah of our neanderthal ancestors to keep from being eaten.
But, some of us (who have traveled), have evolved from then.
And, the stranger we've never met may turn out to be our friend.
3
It seems like to me that religion was involved in many of these issues faced by the early people of the US. Another defining moment was the Civil War, 4 years of division and hatred sometimes between families on differing sides. Also, the singling out of a people to blame. The disquiet displayed in today's world is harder to pin down but is driven by individuals in the public spotlight trying to win the leadership of our country. So far they have not joined hands with the religious right but that is on the horizon for them to win their aims. We are also beset by outer forces which fuel the fears and uncertainties. There are no easy solutions to these issues and it will take more than an election to solve anything. In the meantime looking to the past as this article as done is a start.
7
Betsy Herring - Edmund
I agree. Religion may be an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.
Religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures.
The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.
There are many ways of perceiving one's world, some bigoted.
I agree. Religion may be an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.
Religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures.
The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.
There are many ways of perceiving one's world, some bigoted.
When you seek to convince others of supernatural agencies and "given" moralities - as do religionists - you must constantly be fighting rearguard actions against other "faiths" and against those who would approach real life issues with reason and science. This necessitates prejudice, fear-mongering, deception, and authoritarianism.
Christianity has gotten a bit better about this in recent times, but it was not always so. Islam is still in this more rudimentary phase.
Once we rid ourselves of the burdensome crucible of religion, we can more quickly eliminate arrogant tribalism from the human experience - or at least reduce its insidious effects.
Christianity has gotten a bit better about this in recent times, but it was not always so. Islam is still in this more rudimentary phase.
Once we rid ourselves of the burdensome crucible of religion, we can more quickly eliminate arrogant tribalism from the human experience - or at least reduce its insidious effects.
42
I would wage my life that no more than a dozen of Trump's supporters recognize half of the names mentioned in this article, if that. Which begs the question. Does the xenophobia that has been unleashed recently by the likes of Donald Trump and the anger it feeds can be based on anything else but profound ignorance?
81
Long before the events in New England described in the article, down in New York Peter Stuyvesant who was head of the colony there tried to keep Jews out and subjugate the Quakers who lived there.
One comment about the Rosenberg case the writer refers to: the judge was, like the Rosenbergs, Jewish. Many think he was purposely chosen for the case to deflect charges that prosecution of them was based on antisemitism (at the time many people still considered Judaism and communism to be close allies).
One comment about the Rosenberg case the writer refers to: the judge was, like the Rosenbergs, Jewish. Many think he was purposely chosen for the case to deflect charges that prosecution of them was based on antisemitism (at the time many people still considered Judaism and communism to be close allies).
4
The puritans weren't in search of religious freedom. They were intolerant of opposing religious views. Rather, they were fleeing what they believed to be the coming of the end (you know, the Whore of Babylon and stuff like that).
8
We cannot talk about America's early xenophobia without adding its racism to the discussion. The southern colonies had made their own pack with the devil in the form of African slavery, its peculiar form of immigration. The great and constant fear was that the slaves might one day revolt and give back to their owners a measure of the cruelty that they suffered. Numerous laws were passed to prevent any intermingling between free men and slaves, including the penalties for teaching a slave to read. Religion was not an issue because any African caught practicing his own religion or even speaking his own language faced severe punishment or death.
One irony among many of this system was that Africans and whites lived and worked in close proximity to one another. This common southern experience would lead Dr Martin Luther King to exclaim how similar whites and blacks were in their culture, but dissimilar in their ability to live equal civic lives.
A little mention fact from this period of American "fear of the other" is that the mandatory slave patrols in the southern colonies accounted for the language in our 2nd Amendment. The south feared that the federal government might pass laws interfering with slavery and so the "well regulated militias" clause preceding the right to bear arms language was to retain the forced slave patrols imposed on all whites, slave owners and non-slave owners alike. We are sadly still paying the price of this fear and hatred.
One irony among many of this system was that Africans and whites lived and worked in close proximity to one another. This common southern experience would lead Dr Martin Luther King to exclaim how similar whites and blacks were in their culture, but dissimilar in their ability to live equal civic lives.
A little mention fact from this period of American "fear of the other" is that the mandatory slave patrols in the southern colonies accounted for the language in our 2nd Amendment. The south feared that the federal government might pass laws interfering with slavery and so the "well regulated militias" clause preceding the right to bear arms language was to retain the forced slave patrols imposed on all whites, slave owners and non-slave owners alike. We are sadly still paying the price of this fear and hatred.
11
It wasn't just the south that had slavery. Most of the northern states didn't end slavery until the 19th century.
And laws varied from colony to colony and state to state as to educating slaves and whether they were entitled to any profit from their labors (in some slaves could hire themselves out for pay).
And laws varied from colony to colony and state to state as to educating slaves and whether they were entitled to any profit from their labors (in some slaves could hire themselves out for pay).
3
Unfortunately, religion's mythologies take a strong hold on the minds of men and women. When a group of people believe strongly in things (angels and devils) and beings (gods) that cannot be known with human senses, rational logic breaks down. Religious mythology forces people to live in a make-believe world. It has an adverse effect on believers and society because the power of human reasoning is abandoned in favor of hocus-pocus.
50
The notion that rabid xenophobia is what this country was built on is absurd.
Certainly, Americans throughout our history were as xenophobic and racist as any other society on Earth, but not more so. The xenophobia that operated in early times was cosmic background radiation that existed within which we built this country on unrelated principles.
Race and numerous ethnicities were our bugaboos – as the British, French, Chinese and Japanese, among others, had them as well. But it should be said that it was Americans who commissioned the famous work that contains the immortal words of Emma Lazarus that testified to our ability to get beyond our prejudices. Not coincidentally and despite the prejudices, our collective American bloodline contains much African, Jewish, Irish, Asian and Hispanic contributions. Sadly, less can be said of the indigenous American.
The author seeks to take out of their historical context attitudes that were as commonplace anywhere in Europe as they were here, and just as common in the large Asian countries of the time. This is an invalid means of historical analysis.
Many have problems with American immigration on the basis of race and ethnicity – yet we remain one of the most sought after destinations of emigrants ANYWHERE, we absorb IMMENSE numbers of people, and indeed we are the only developed nation projected to INCREASE in population, due to net positive immigration. We’re not so angry that it has a lot of effect – and we never have been.
Certainly, Americans throughout our history were as xenophobic and racist as any other society on Earth, but not more so. The xenophobia that operated in early times was cosmic background radiation that existed within which we built this country on unrelated principles.
Race and numerous ethnicities were our bugaboos – as the British, French, Chinese and Japanese, among others, had them as well. But it should be said that it was Americans who commissioned the famous work that contains the immortal words of Emma Lazarus that testified to our ability to get beyond our prejudices. Not coincidentally and despite the prejudices, our collective American bloodline contains much African, Jewish, Irish, Asian and Hispanic contributions. Sadly, less can be said of the indigenous American.
The author seeks to take out of their historical context attitudes that were as commonplace anywhere in Europe as they were here, and just as common in the large Asian countries of the time. This is an invalid means of historical analysis.
Many have problems with American immigration on the basis of race and ethnicity – yet we remain one of the most sought after destinations of emigrants ANYWHERE, we absorb IMMENSE numbers of people, and indeed we are the only developed nation projected to INCREASE in population, due to net positive immigration. We’re not so angry that it has a lot of effect – and we never have been.
7
@Richard: I'm afraid you have it a bit backward - we actually have absorbed and benefited from many and various immigrations IN SPITE OF the xenophobia each succeeding generation seems to inherit and exhibit. Your comments continue to display that continuing sad trend.
5
Aaron
The whole point of my comment is that while we have possessed the xenophobia that all societies demonstrate, we've been able to overcome it in every generation, even when it was at its strongest, to attract in particular the targets of that xenophobia, which have come here in great numbers to prosper.
The whole point of my comment is that while we have possessed the xenophobia that all societies demonstrate, we've been able to overcome it in every generation, even when it was at its strongest, to attract in particular the targets of that xenophobia, which have come here in great numbers to prosper.
Organized Religion seems to be at the root of all the problems, just as radical religionists are trying to cause chaos, fear, anger and hate today. This is why WE must DEMAND that separation of church and state be enforced by OUR politicians and courts. Time to take away tax-free status, and make them pay back taxes for all the years they have been manipulating OUR governments and getting OUR taxpayer-funded tax-free grants along with tax-free "donations" and property. Tax ALL religious and political "non-profits" unless and until they keep their religion in their homes and places of worship.
211
Thank you Tomas de Torquemada,your opinion is precisely why the Pilgrims left Europe to escape the oppression of government. Progressives such as yourself knell before the jackboot of government as you surrender your personal and the nations sovereignty and liberty to forces that are hellbent on destroying what Lincoln said is "the last best of earth."
BEWARE THE IRISH MENACE! That headline screaming from Page 1 of an 1840s Connecticut newspaper proves why Trump and his fellow Republicans are right. America failed to stem the Irish Menace, and look what happened to America.
66
Lots of people coming from Ireland were actually French/German, having earlier fled the Palatinate over which Germany and France had been continually fighting. The English welcomed them at first, but later encouraged them to resettle in Ireland because increasing the Protestant population on that other island was deemed highly desirable. Some of the Irish immigrants came here to escape a violence during a time when Irish peasants were rising up against the Scottish Protestant nobility that the English had installed as their overlords, and some fled here to escape punishment for that violence.
4
Cotton Mather expected the final battle between good an evil was going to take place in New England and he was determined to lead the fight on the side of good.
He had two other motivating factors: lust for political power and for the presidency of Harvard. He failed in both, largely due to his role in the Salem witchcraft panic, and the Godwin children and Margaret Rule's cases.
I don't want to sound like a Mather apologist, but it's very easy to spin Mather's writings (the guy only wrote, like, 1,000 books and tracts) thanks to his use of what John Calef called "the ambidexter style" where Mather started out saying one thing and finished by contradicting himself. This was quite common among ministers in his time.
Mather was pedantic but he was fairly open-minded. He worked with his political enemies like Leveritt and used himself and his children to encourage his flock to prove the safety of a smallpox vaccine.
Mather was angry because of his own failings in life and his distress at the way he felt the world was treating him after the end of the Phips administration.
He hated much and judged harshly, and that's how he should be remembered but he was an equal opportunity hater, not a bigot.
He had two other motivating factors: lust for political power and for the presidency of Harvard. He failed in both, largely due to his role in the Salem witchcraft panic, and the Godwin children and Margaret Rule's cases.
I don't want to sound like a Mather apologist, but it's very easy to spin Mather's writings (the guy only wrote, like, 1,000 books and tracts) thanks to his use of what John Calef called "the ambidexter style" where Mather started out saying one thing and finished by contradicting himself. This was quite common among ministers in his time.
Mather was pedantic but he was fairly open-minded. He worked with his political enemies like Leveritt and used himself and his children to encourage his flock to prove the safety of a smallpox vaccine.
Mather was angry because of his own failings in life and his distress at the way he felt the world was treating him after the end of the Phips administration.
He hated much and judged harshly, and that's how he should be remembered but he was an equal opportunity hater, not a bigot.
91
@marklemagne: "Mather started out saying one thing and finished by contradicting himself. This was quite common among ministers in his time." Perhaps an additional line can be added to that comment: "And quite common among ministers in all times, including the present."
3
This Sunday; the New England Patriots versus the Tennessee Titans. The final battle between good and evil. It's this important!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
"An equal opportunity hater" sounds to me very much like "I'm all right, you may be, and they are beneath contempt." The division of the world into "us" and "them" strikes me as one of the most pernicious symptoms of religiosity.
That said, perhaps a religion has an arc of maturity, much as does an individual: Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, and what was the Christian world doing around 1500, or thereabouts? To non-Christians, or to flavors of Christianity considered to be heretical or just different. It wasn't far from what Islamic fundamentalists are doing now. And to some Christians, it seems to make sense to respond in kind. That's "kind" as in "alike," not "kind" as in "compassionate."
That said, perhaps a religion has an arc of maturity, much as does an individual: Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, and what was the Christian world doing around 1500, or thereabouts? To non-Christians, or to flavors of Christianity considered to be heretical or just different. It wasn't far from what Islamic fundamentalists are doing now. And to some Christians, it seems to make sense to respond in kind. That's "kind" as in "alike," not "kind" as in "compassionate."
5
Omg, blood curdling, hair raising account. We still have blue blood Boston Brahmin towns in MA, to this day, 2015. The realtors and brokers screen home buyers apparently. Chinese cash buyers are still resisted somewhat. White Americans from outside Boston also struggle to fit into the culture. Once in, they too become simewhat snobbish, easily and quickly forgetting where they came from. Humility is not a Boston Brahmin trait, sadly.
9
Here's to the town of Boston the town of the bean and the cod.
Where the Cabots speak only to Lowells and the Lowells speak only to God.
Where the Cabots speak only to Lowells and the Lowells speak only to God.
12
Few groups have no violence in their history. It was part of the basis of Islam, hundreds of years before the Crusades. Nevertheless, with 1.7 billion Muslims, it is probably not a good idea to encourage the violent among them.
20
Why not? We seem to be encouraging the violent among the "Christians."
9
WHAT and why did you single out Islam? Ever hear of a little bellicose ethnic tribe from back in the day called "the Israelites"? Also, please provide names of the "few groups" that have no violence in their histories. Thanks!
9
What you say about the Israelites is true. I think there is violence among even Buddhists, and almost every church/cult. Living in Colorado I have experienced the violence of evangelical Christians targeting Planned Parenthood and others and do not need to be told about the issue. If it wasn't for Charles "the hammer' of France Islam would control most if not all of Europe. I am not a believer of any church but as far as I know Jesus did not send his followers to kill members of other groups. In fact, according to conventional history he did even object to Hebrews paying taxes to Rome.
4