Author’s Note: This is intended as a starting point on this discussion. I make no claim to be a final authority. In fact, much of this article is my own “thinking through” the issue. I am sure I have a few errors, omissions, or misunderstandings. I am always open to learn and adapt my understanding to fit reality. Still, it can serve as a jumping off point, as we Men of the West work through the topic.
We have had an onslaught of comments on recent posts, where a call for the rise of “White” people has been made. Various calls for “your skin is your uniform” or other such things permeate the message. At the core of this call is a misunderstanding of nation. It takes a simplistic view that skin tone makes a nation. So, in this incorrect view, all Whites are a nation, all Blacks are a nation, and so forth. However, this is simply not true.
History proves otherwise.
Julius Caesar brought the Roman Legions to the British Isles, got off the boat and proclaimed, “My White Brothers! We are all one people. Let us be joined together in racial harmony.” The native Britons, overjoyed at finding lost kinsman of their own race, gladly joined with the Romans.
Wait. That is not what happened. No, twice Caesar invaded Britain, in 54 and 55 B.C. The first time, more of a recon mission than a full blown invasion, the Britons were able to hold the Romans at bay long enough to cause them to leave. Of course, the next year, Caesar was back, and this time successfully defeated the native forces, eventually leading to the occupation of the island. Note that there are multiple “white” tribes here. Their skin was not their uniform. Romans were not Britons. And when the Romans, 500 years later, pulled out of Britain, the new invaders, the White Anglo-Saxons were neither Roman nor Briton. And so it goes. A multitude of nations, all white, but not monolithic.
European history is full of such examples. The British are not French, and neither are German or Polish. The Slavs are not Scandinavians. Being white, in and of itself, does not a nation make. This is why the World Wars were fought between various white nations and their allies. Germans and Italians fought English and French and Russian. Nations are more than skin color.
But it not just the white folks.
What about Blacks? Surely, black is black, right? They all are the same, right? Well, they certainly do not think so. In 1994, two black tribes in Rwanda, the Hutus and Tutsis, went at it, with somewhere between a half million and million people being killed in a few short months. The ruling Hutus darn near wiped the Tutsis out. Seems odd for folks who should see their skin as their uniform to behave.
Obviously, this is simply a quirk of history. Other people groups surely see themselves a monolithic nation, based on skin color. Well, except for the Native American Indians. Yes, it seems that the Red Man also missed this important marker. The Lakota fought with the Pawnee. In fact, most of the tribes fought with other tribes with which they came into contact. Their skin did not define their tribe.
Thank goodness for the Asians. They are the smartest race, right? They must have figured it out. Sadly, they succumbed to intra-skin tone battles, too. Just consider the historical relations between China and Japan. They have fought with one another for centuries. They do not see their skin color as a uniform.
This is a reality. There is no “White” nation. There is no “Black” nation. There is no such thing as “Skin Color X” nation. Nations are people groups with a common heritage. Ethnicity is only one component of that definition. It is important, but to ignore the other components is fool-hardy. From the Infogalactic article linked above:
…a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.
To make claims that there is a “White Nation” is to lose sight of what a Nation truly is. Really, we all know this, but in our reactions to the current political situation, we forget. Remember the old joke?
Heaven & Hell
HEAVEN is where:
The police are British
The chefs Italian
The mechanics are German
The lovers are French
and it’s all organized by the Swiss
HELL is where:
The police are German
The chefs are British
The mechanics are French
The lovers are Swiss
and it’s all organized by the Italians!!
See, we recognize the difference between nations. Do not confuse ethnicity with nation.
Ok, I know the next question: “But America was founded as a White nation.” Well, that is partly correct. There were five major European powers that colonized North America, with three of them having a major impact on the formation of the United States. Spain arrived first, settling in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. They were quickly followed by France and England, all three nations vying for control of the New World. Note that all three were European (and White), but none recognized the other as being of the same nation. The Dutch also colonized small regions of North America, but England soon took over these provinces (such as New Amsterdam, which we call New York). The fifth European nation was Russia, which colonized Alaska. While that would play an important role later in American history, it was not as foundational for what became America as the other three, so we can keep our focus on “the big three.”
There were various conflicts (French and Indian War, for example), where these nations fought with one another over their American colonies. They schemed against one another. They sold lands to one another. Eventually, Spain (and Portugal) turned her eyes southward, and focused on South and Central America, while France took over control of Louisiana, also maintaining rule over her original colonies in Canada. England ruled the Eastern Seaboard, where we find the original 13 colonies.
So the original colonies that later rebelled against England, fighting the Revolutionary War were predominantly British in origin. The aristocrats were English, with a large number of Scots, Irish, and other British peoples making up the rest of the populace. The only other large European group to make up Early America’s population were the Germans of Pennsylvania, many of whom migrated in response to the Thirty Years War between France and Germany.
So, at the time of the American Revolution, the primary nations that made up the United States were English, Irish, Scots, and German. Before you argue that they melded into one, you might want to explain the signs that could be found, as late as the mid-18th Century proclaiming that “No Irish Need Apply.” It is quite apparent that each of these groups saw the other as being separate. There were not melded into one American “White Nation.” They remained individual people groups. Certainly, they were part of one country and lived under one government, but they were not a single nation. All were (and are) white, but they were not monolithic. In fact, just a few months ago, after a public dispute, Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly posted a follow up, saying “We’re Irish. It’s complicated.” Even now, 240+ years after the Revolutionary War began, American Whites still have a sense of their origins.
The United States of America was not founded as some generalized “White nation.” It was founded as a more secure governmental body in order to protect their decidedly British (and primarily English) heritage, to ensure a secure future for their British-descended progeny. Note these lines from the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
…[the King has abolished] the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies…
[and] taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
And so it goes on. Note the specific items here: Government is not nation. Government is politics. Nation is people. The King had abolished “English Laws.” He was bringing in “foreign Mercenaries” to harass the American British people. Pay attention to the language. Who were these foreigners, these of another nation? Germans. They are referring to Hessians. What laws were being suppressed? English laws. Not White laws. They were objecting to White foreigners.
It is an abuse of language and of history to proclaim that the United States was founded as a “White” nation. It was founded as a English nation, but divorced in government from the home nation. Were they white? Of course. But they did not distinctively identify as white. That was just assumed. Germans and French were white. And, in the beginning, these new “Americans” identified as English (or Scots or Irish, etc.). And as was stated earlier, even within the newly formed United States, those various British identities did not really meld. They remained separate from one another. Irish clung to Irish. English to English, and so on.
Without a doubt, over time, those distinct lines blurred, and a new identity arose: American. It was composed of Whites who acclimated to the new political system, with the ties to Great Britain decidedly cut. The foundation was still English, but the people no longer identified as English. When another European would immigrate and assimilate, they too became American. This was reserved to Whites, at least on the whole, but as long as there was true assimilation, a new nation was being formed. Even then, these Whites were not a single group, but fell into three broad categories, at least: Yankee, Southron, Outsiders. Of course, the Yankees were those descended primarily from the Puritans who colonized New England; Southrons were those who traced their lineage back to the English Cavaliers and Scots-Irish settlers, tending to settle in the Southern colonies. The Outsiders were those who tended to stay self-contained, rarely participating in anything outside their own groups (Quakers, Amish, etc.). Surely, there were other small groups of White settlers, but these were the main ones.
Non-whites lived within the system, and as long as they did not cause trouble, were tolerated, and allowed to live in fairly close proximity to this new nation, but they were never really members. Why? Because to be an American, one needed to be a part of a “cultural-political community.” Non-whites were not from the same culture. Western culture is European and Christian, not African, Asian, pagan, etc. Tolerated? Usually. Part of the nation? No. There is a reason why African slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the census.
Yet, at the same time, back in Europe, we still find English, Irish, Scots, Germans, Swedes, and so forth. They are white, but not American, just as Americans are not English or Swede. Within America, we still find Yankee, Southron, Outsiders, but now have even more sub-groups: Westerners, Alaskans, and so forth. There is simply no monolithic white nation. It does not exist.
Again, White is not a nation. Do not confuse ethnicity with Nation.
Now, having said all that, there is no doubt whatsoever that however we define what it means to be American, we finds its roots in White, European, Christian culture. With the increase in immigration, post 1965, we find that the foundation of that culture is being destroyed. A recent survey shows that a majority of Americans believe their culture is being wiped out. It is possible for a nation to allow a few outsiders to live and participate in the system, but too many foreigners spells doom for a nation. Whether your own nation is Yankee, Southron, or something else, if you import others from the outside, your nation will not be the same. It will, by necessity, change into something else. The Left certainly understands this.
It would behoove us, therefore, to stop with “White” Nationalism. If you are Southron, then stand up for the Southron nation. If you are a Yankee, and want your region to remain historically Yankee, then hold firmly to your heritage.
In a future article, I will address the secession question, which is intricately tied to this whole issue. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers of the united States of America opted for a federal system. For the time being, we can use this as a starting point. For the purpose of this discussion, I would just say that we have a better chance at reclaiming our culture if we understand that it is much more than just “white.”
I think to have a nation, it is also required to have a geographic area associated with it. The problem with America, even among the white sub-nations, is mobility. People move all over and I don’t think there is any city in America that has a majority of people actually from there for generations. I don’t know how typical my own situation is, but my yankee mom married my Western dad and raised us in the South, an area where hardly any of us remain. I’m American. Heck, I could join DAR if I wanted, but what nation do I belong to? When does American become a nation? America at least has a border, even if it is not very respected these days, unlike the American regions.
That is a great point, and I agree. There is no way to divorce nation from a specific region. I would argue, as I understand it now, that we have multiple nations contained within the borders of the USA.
Joel Garreau wrote an interesting and insightful book in the 80s called The Nine Nations of North America that explored exactly that point. If anything, the differences have grown larger since he wrote it.
Additional thought on ‘geography’: The politicians who have stated, “America is an idea not defined by borders,” are panderers of the worst sort and are an enemy to the Constitution that they’ve sworn to uphold and defend.
I believe Bush II as well as the last president (can’t stand to say his name because of his Marxism) both said it at one time or another.
Theo, this was a great article. I learned a lot. I think one of the selling points for immigrants that come to America is that they are amazed at the freedom of movement we have in this Country. We do not have to produce papers every time we come to a border. We can go from Left to East coasts without encountering a single authority who would prevent our travel.
I would put this article of yours today in the same category as Vox’s magic dirt theory. It does indeed take more than appearance and soil to make an American.
Thank you, Susan. I am still working some of this out in my own head, but I do think it is a good starting point for the discussion.
I would propose that ‘nation’ is effectively equivalent to ‘culture’ in its broader sense. The most basic aspects of culture are race and religion. Hence, nations are usually defined by such. The original colonies were a WASP culture with republican tendencies. This accounts for the use of English law/language, a dislike for monarchy, and the broad application of Protestant ethics. Since the founding, American society has been fairly open to inclusion, but only to those who adopt WASP values and habits. The more any particular immigrant’s culture differed from WASP ideals, the longer it took for them to assimilate. Until recently, immigrants responded by striving to ‘become American’ (i.e., WASP) and willingly abandoned the practices of the ‘old country’. This process routinely involved Americanized names, intermarriage with natives, and significant changes in lifestyle. It goes without saying that assimilation was almost immediate for an Englishman and only a short journey for a Protestant Scotsman. A Catholic Irishman or a Protestant German had a longer journey, but shorter than an Orthodox Greek and much shorter than a Confucian Chinese.
Since the Civil Rights movement, the American body politic has made a conscious decision not to maintain its founding culture. Gone is the expectation that new arrivals conform to and adopt a WASP culture. Instead, society has pursued multi-culturalism where all cultures are equal with no judgement or shaming allowed.
At this point, I would refer the reader back to where we started. Nation = culture. Multi-culturalism by its very nature prevents the formation of a unified nation, and creates internal tribal divisions that will seek to become nations in their own right.
So you would remove race altogether? Or am I misreading you?
‘White’ is an integral part of WASP. As I mentioned in the second line, race and religion are the two most basic aspects of culture. I might add vocation as the third. Blacks will gather with blacks. Catholics with gather with Catholics. Teamsters will gather will teamsters. One might add political ideology, but in many cases that is a product of the first three elements. All of these factors add up to a sum. Cultural acceptance is based on the degree of separation when all parts are added together. Race is weighted heavily in such social calculations because it is readily observable from a distance, but it is not the only factor.
Using my WASP example, one can observe a spectrum of inclusion based on how closely the immigrant in question conformed to the WASP template. In Colonial America, whites were automatically assumed to be culturally acceptable. The first immigration act made this explicit. However, having the ‘wrong’ religion, bad habits, no English skills, or a low vocation would add degrees of separation from mainstream society. Such immigrants would not find themselves invited into the top social circles despite being allowed into the country. Hence, immigrants traditionally tried to fit in by changing their names, learning English, losing their accent, working hard, advancing to a higher career, etc. All of these achievements reduced the degree of separation and moved the immigrant closer to general acceptance.
The same is true in reverse. Even in Colonial days there were numerous cases of Jews, blacks, French Catholics, and even Indians actively participating in local society on the basis that they adopted and practiced WASP values and habits. This acceptance built a cultural bridge with their neighbors. The phrase that comes to mind is…. “Well, for a (insert group), he isn’t too bad…” I often heard that phrase from my mid-western relatives when they would interact with middle class blacks on the west coast. Predictably, this acceptance is usually limited to local society where others are intimately familiar with the immigrant in question. Once removed from the local environ, the very same immigrant will often face discrimination because strangers revert to the base indicators of race, religion, and vocation.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
The great amalgamation has picked up speed in the post WWII era. After years of remaining ethnically unified, post war families started to intermix different nationalities but common religions. Irish Catholics marrying Italians as an example. From there it has spread through the United States such that very few people are marrying within their nation, religion, or living in their “homeland”.
I think this is some of the reason for the appeal for “White Nationalism” in the United States. At this point the nations are intermingled and indistinct. The only connection left is “White”. In Europe “White Nationalism” is a non sequitur for the reasons mentioned in this article. In the United States it finds more fertile ground because in many cases the people have been cut off from their historic nations and are so mixed and confused that “White” is all they have left to tie them to each other.
I can see that, but at the same time, “white” is not the same thing across the entire country. Whites in Alabama are not like Whites in New Jersey.
I agree Theophrastus but in many cases the whites in Alabama are from New Jersey and the whites from New Jersey are in Alabama. Free movement of labor has caused people to leave their national homeland and they are disconnected from the nation. They look around and realize that they only thing they have to tie them to their neighbors is their race, they have nothing else. That is why I believe that “White Nationalism” finds more fertile ground in the US than in Europe.
That said I am not sure it is enough to tie a people together long term and I believe that in tough times people will move back to be with their tribe and nation, that doesn’t mean that people will be attracted to that idea until reality proves that thinking flawed and false.
We are about to get into a urban/rural discussion. Few Yankees move to the south and live in rural communities. Sure, there are a few, but not many. They move to the cities. So the outside influence on a culture tends to start in the cities, and only slowly makes its way out to the whole region. That might lead to a third article on this very topic….
Look forward to reading it.
The Urban vs Rural paradigm definitely plays a role. Last census data shows that @ 81% of the population lives in an urban setting. There is a wide range on a state by state basis with only Maine moving to a lower percentage of the population being urban. I very much doubt that the urban vs rural % for Men of the West is the same as that of the general population.
Yes, the US is largely urban. I just read an article that said those numbers (to get to 81%) include towns of 2500 or so, which I would hardly call urban, but even if we deduct those, we are at 71-75% urban, which is way too high in my opinion. Yes, you are correct. MOTW probably skew much more rural, though we do have folks that live in urban areas.
I agree with your thinking. You cannot have a discussion like your article today and not get into the urban/rural divide. Having lived both ways, I can tell you that there is a definite difference, both socially and in thinking in general. I think people connect more when they are rural as opposed to living in cities.
There is no doubt. I am inclined to think that the urban/rural divide is more definitive than the Yankee/Southron divide in the modern world.
Good points all.
We have (had) three things:
-Greco-Roman philosophy and pursuit of science.
Becoming separated from any one of them changes our nation. It’s the necessary triad of who America is (was?). Turning away from God has much to do with the American change in trajectory. You mentioned a follow up article, include this aspect please. Thank You.
Fred, that is a good point. We have spent lots of time delving into Christianity and Ancestry. The philosophical underpinnings are also important. I am sure that we will have multiple follow ups, so will try to address that more.
1. Everyone wants to consider themselves to be special and stick out from a larger group as part of smaller, more exclusive group.
2. When everyone around them is of the same race, people fall back to a lower level and start to think in terms of the nation they belong to.
3. Right now, white Americans still think of America subconsciously as a predominantly white place. Therefore, the focus upon the national distinction as opposed to “white”.
4. The “white nationalists” are dreaming of a reality that is not in place right now. The pendulum has not gone far enough. In areas of high diversity (your cities), people think of themselves on the race level in the general interactions. Less diversity (more rural), the more prevalent the national identifier becomes. Most of America is still on the national level, so shut up white nationalists.
LONG BORING EXPLANATION:
Take for a starting point this fact: try as we might, each and every human on this planet considers themselves special and unique to a degree. This is part of the reason the utopian visions don’t work and why capitalism functions pretty dang well.
In each of the examples you gave above, the vast majority of people involved were of one race. When this is the case, that level of distinction for individuals is wiped out. Sort of a “Same Phylum, therefore look at Class” thought in biology. So we drill down to another level, that of the nation. So when whites are fighting whites, we talk of English vs. Scots vs. Irish vs. Welsh.
Examples for this sort of thought would be more in the vein of the Crusades, the Mongol Invasion, the Boxer Rebellion (yeah, yeah the Japanese were there). There we have multiple races fighting another. The great call in Europe was to unite against “the other”. So the bonds of nation are set aside and put into a larger group.
Those of other races see “white”. Goes back to the observation that Asians can’t differentiate white people, but can note Vietnamese vs. Thai vs. Chinaman immediately. Same sort of thing with Blacks. Each race has its own distinctions they recognize instinctively, while the other races are an unknown monolithic block.
The fanatics of “White Nationalism” at this point are hoping for some layer above the nations to be moved into action. But there is a problem, most white folks in America look around and see a “white nation”. Sure, more and more people are noticing more and more other races in their daily lives. As this phenomenon increases, maybe we see some sort of “white nationalism”. But right now, in their daily comings and goings, most of white America is playing under the predominant white America rules. Therefore, the vast majority of people still think in the nation level. So there is still the thought of Yankees, Westerners, Southrons, etc.
Will we see the nation level cast aside into a “white alliance” in America? I will put my money against it, but I am no prophet. It really depends on how long the elite can keep a lid on this thing. The sooner it pops, the more likely the Northeast, West Coast, South, Midwest, Intermountain West split happening. The later the thing blows, the better chance for “white backlash” as a whole against the whole.
If the blog owners feel it appropriate, I will spew more words on the page that teases out this concept in more detail. But that is more than enough for now.
Certainly, feel free to expound your thoughts in as much details you want. This is intended to be a dialogue.
Thank you sir, but I have thought better of it for now and will patiently await part two and read…don’t much care for the spilling of text in comboxes. If I couldn’t make my point in all that, the point isn’t as well thought out as it should be. Feel free to shoot me an email if you want to discuss any more.
Good deal. I hope to get part 2 up sometime this next week. Got some family/life stuff to take care of for the next couple of days.
Very well written post. I tend to agree with most of the comments, but I hope I can add something to the discussion, particularly to one key error of White Nationalism.
I think it is important to recognize that a nation has a spiritual, genetic, and philosophical component and that these three components must exist in harmony. A nation is tied together through a history of philosophical ideas, religion, customs, and genetics. White nationalist completely ignore every component except genetics or consider the genetic component as supreme. I would consider this a form of race idolatry.
Idolatry can be thought of treating what is temporal as eternal, what is contingent as necessary and what is derivatively good as the supreme Good. White nationalist tend to hold the preservation of ones’ race as the Absolute and supreme Good, thus confusing it with something that is contingent and temporal.
I think that is a good point.
HoosierHillbilliy said: “Right now, white Americans still think of America subconsciously as a predominantly white place. Therefore, the focus upon the national distinction as opposed to “white”.
This is a great point. My kids attend a private Christian school in the South. Like most private schools, it is majority white. We hired an administrator originally from a llily-white part of the Northeast. He had never lived around any other races or cultures. You could tell he thought we were all mean-spirited for wanting to be separate. He saw no problems with actively recruiting black students.
After getting a few black students, it didn’t take him long to see the difference in culture. I’m betting he identifies a little more as a white Christian American, and a little less so as a plain old American.
I eagerly await your article on secession. I’ve long believed it is the only way to save a sliver of the republic. This land mass is way too large with too many different people to exist as a single geopolitical entity.
Yes. I agree with your point. I work with students of various ethnicities and backgrounds. You can just sit back and watch how students behave, interact, etc. and notice the difference. It is not all “good” or “bad” but just different. Of course, I find much of it irritating, etc., since the other races, etc. are not my own. I do think you are correct that we have too many nations trying (being forced, maybe) to coexist, and that it is not viable longterm.
Since you said this was a post for hashing this out. I would add that this MOTW article https://www.menofthewest.net/chronicle-decline-part-1/ by Charles Martel along with this one from Zerohedge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-15/globalization-rural-urban-divide to go along with this conversation.
Sound money and the urban vs. rural divide go together. Fiat fueled globalization decimates rural communities and causes folks to leave their native national lands in search of economic opportunity in urban centers. It destroys their historic ties to community and leaves them alone in a strange land. The only thing they have left is “White” so in a search for community they cling to that.
I don’t disagree with the articles premise that White Nationalism is a false song and it will fail, but that doesn’t mean everyone will reject it out of hand. If all you have left is your skin to form a community around that is what it will coalesce around. Fiat and globalization are fueling that.
Agreed. We have to start with something. How it plays out in the real world may not go accordingly to expectation. My point is that there is much more to “nation” than skin color.
Well written post, sir, with one disagreement. Your comments re: “slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the census”, as you contextually include it within this piece (that they were tolerated but not of the nation… is how i read it) is incorrect.
In the formation of our Constitution, Southern advocates wanted to count each slave as a person for the purposes of representation. In some states, slaves outnumbered the whites.
Northern advocates thought it ridiculous to let the South use their chattel for the purposes of increasing their voting power in Congress but would otherwise treat them as non-human in every other sense. the 3/5ths compromise was accepted by the Southern states in their ratification of the Constitution. It was voting power in Congress, not tolerance of a non-Western, non-European/Christian culture, that led to the compromise.
You are 100% correct here. I was painting with a broad brush, and some of the details were obscured.
[…] In my previous post, on nations, I argued that race (skin color) alone is not sufficient to define a nation of people. Certainly, it is an important component, but few would argue that Frenchman are the same people as Swedes, though both are White. The article also delved into the peculiarities of the American situation, where various people groups came together, and those sharp edges of heritage became blurred, though not really disappearing altogether. Still, while an Irishman and an Englishman might be quite distinct in Britain, once their families migrate to the United States, and especially after a significant amount of time has passed, that distinction is not quite so sharp. In fact, most “Americans” can probably trace their family lines back to multiple nations in the fairly recent past. My own heritage, though primarily British (including English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh), also includes a significant German component. So what does that make me? I am mostly English, but that line makes up less than half of my heritage. It is a plurality, but not a majority of my blood. […]
A nation is a people who generally share genes, culture, religion, and geography who are usually politically organized to some degree. All else flows from that basic definition.
[…] There is no national disunity, but there is a civic disunity, and it is growing. As we have pointed out before, a nation is a people group, and it is defined by several things, to include race, history, etc. […]
[…] There is no national disunity, but there is a civic disunity, and it is growing. As we have pointed out before, a nation is a people group, and it is defined by several things, to include race, history, etc. […]
[…] now, we will post it. This just went up at his site yesterday. It is worth your time. It ties in to some things we posted over the past few […]