This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies.
Opt Out of CookiesThis website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies.
Opt Out of Cookies
By Olivia Pierson
America never was 'a nation of immigrants.' Neither was New Zealand, nor Australia, nor any other Western nation. We are nations of citizens - and citizens flourish under laws which are designed to preserve our natural rights as a free people. Our archaic ancestors began moving around the globe when they first left the savannahs of Africa 1.5 million years ago. By the time homo sapiens graced the archaeological record some 195,000 years ago, they had just begun their epic migration across the fertile steppes of Europe and Asia. Dwelling in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, the concept of ritually burying their own dead was still another 145,000 years into the future; any notions of ‘nationhood,’ let alone ‘citizenship,’ were at least 173,000 years away. History has gifted us with a written code of law and conduct as early as the ancient Babylonian empire, engraved on a seven and a half foot stone - the Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC). But it was the ancient Greek city state - the polis - especially the polis of ancient Athens, which gave us the first comprehensive idea of what it meant to be a citizen, not a subject. In the polis, the private lives of men were very closely enmeshed with their public lives as citizens. Eligible men were intended to both rule fellow citizens and be ruled by them in their turn - this was the foundation of democracy and citizen government. This was the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who set the Western world on its strong-minded course. The later Roman Republic furthered the concept of citizenship by defining it as a man’s legal relationship to the state - with justice and common interests at its very core. Roman citizenry was made up of Italians, Jews, Persians, Illyrians (modern day Dalmatians), Greeks, Alexandrines, Anatolians (modern day Turks), Carthaginians (modern day Tunisians) and many more ethnicities - even Britons and Gauls. If they wished to live in Rome, they abode by Roman law, first under a republic then under an empire. Roman jurisprudence expanded into unifying even distant outposts of the Empire into a vast network of citizens. In 1216, at the time that Britons authored the Magna Carta (the great Charter of Freedoms), a charter to define the rights of citizens, the native inhabitants had already absorbed the conquering Romans (A.D 43), the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and then the French Normans (A.D 1066). …. "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled … except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” [Magna Carta] When the thirteen colonies which formed America fought for and won their independence from Great Britain to form a citizen government, the constitution defined the nature of what it meant to be a citizen: anyone born in the United States. Yet it excluded all blacks - even freedmen. The Fourteenth Amendment enacted after the Civil War corrected this to include them. All blacks and their descendants then became citizens in the fullest sense of the law, even though the hangover of segregation still existed. But even segregation was eventually overturned by law, as it ought to have been when one considers that blacks were brought to America in chains, against their own will. America owed it to them to right these wrongs - and it resoundingly did. Now the sanctimonious narrative parroted, nay - shrieked from every Left and many Right rooftops are words which demand that the whole third-world ought to be given admittance to America on the basis that “America is a nation of immigrants!” It is not. Immigrants did not build America anymore than they built Ancient Rome - loyal, passionately patriotic citizens did. George Washington was not an immigrant, neither was Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or John Hancock. Abraham Lincoln was not an immigrant, and for that matter, neither was Martin Luther King. If immigrants found a home and a big American Dream to pursue inside the borders of a free nation, it was because a great nation had already been set in motion by the tenacious veracity of its founders' creed and ensuing constitutional laws - that's how it came to be free. To say that America, or any other modern Western nation, 'is a nation of immigrants’ is to erroneously define a nation by its least essential element of what an inspiring nation actually is. What has made first-world Western nations so incredibly attractive to those coming in from second & third-world $h!tholes is the absence of tyranny precisely because they uphold these five hard-won principles of enlightened individualism: - the separation of religion from state - the emancipation of women and children - a commitment to scientific inquiry - a commitment to the economic system of capitalism - the law of free speech and a free press This civilisational oxygen is what animated the passions of those who built our remarkable nations, America being the greatest living example. Considering how ubiquitous the movement and migration of people has always been around this great globe for hundreds of millennia, to say, “we are a nation of immigrants” is as hackneyed as saying, “we are a nation of people.” What else could we possibly be? Such a banal assertion tells us absolutely nothing about the spirit or character of a nation that so many different people want to be a part of. If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"
8 Comments
Mike Webber
5/2/2018 11:43:54 pm
Excellent as usual, thank you.
Reply
Robert B.
6/2/2018 07:54:13 am
Your article is excellent. You appear to be a bright spot in a rather bleak future for Objectivism. The New Intellectual has turned into a nightmare of simulated cardboard characters who have trouble thinking for themselves. But the big question I put to you is who are you reaching out to with your writing? I don't see any response or any type of following.
Reply
9/2/2018 07:55:02 pm
America’s population grew over the 19th century ten fold. Approximately estimated ten millions to one hundred millions between 1800 and 1900. Drove a westward expansion, rail link from the east to the west, an economic free-market boom based on idea of manifest destiny, ‘America’.
Reply
Robert B.
13/2/2018 08:27:07 am
Mr. Allen...Olivia makes a crucial point about immigration but who is listening? The immigration to the larger eastern cities of the Irish, Italians, Russian Jews, and Polish in late 1890's and up to the world war changed America forever, just as the large Mexican entrance will change the future America. The Irish, Italian and Jewish population was the foundation of the Democratic stranglehold on the Eastern cities, as well as the foundation of organized crime in the USA. While immigrants, including many in my family did great things, the Mafia and the Jewish gangsters like Meyer Lansky controlled the big cities, politics and all forms of business. Jews and Italians still vote Democrat because they see the Repubs as foreign to their lives.
Reply
Robert B.
14/2/2018 05:25:40 pm
O. Pierson....If you are not interested in discussion why do keep writing? You remind me of a prominent Objectivist with a website, who when I questioned him about his audience, had no idea to whom he was appealing to. He was, of course, another sad Objectivist onanist or solipsist living in his own Galt's Gulch.
Reply
Olivia
14/2/2018 07:00:20 pm
I'm not sure why you demand so much attention on a site which is not an Objectivist one. There are places to have the kinds of discussions you seem to want, like Solopassion.com, but analysing the followers of Ayn Rand just bores me to death. She was a great writer and thinker, I love her books. A few of my friends are Objectivists, but I have never had the tolerance to delve deeply into the actions of Rand's disciples - in fact, on the whole, I have an aversion to organised philosophical movements. The demographics of my site's users are predominantly NZers and secondarily Americans who are sympathetic to the cause of Reason and conservative viewpoints.
Reply
Robert B.
16/2/2018 05:15:07 pm
I read your essays from Solo so assumed you are one of the gang. No big thing. I think you are right about Ayn "liking that." Lindsay is much more a Rand character than the stiffs at ARI. In fact, Lindsay is somewhat an Urban Legend in Lib/Objectivist circles in the USA. When you mention his name, like Rand's, the reactions are always explosive, always black and white no greys. Like Rand, Perigo is vibrant and always his own person although his crusade against Nathaniel Branden deprives his followers of vital psychological knowledge.
Reply
Olivia
19/2/2018 06:48:18 pm
I'm glad to know that Linz is an urban legend in some circles - he really is utterly his own man in every respect. That makes him pretty interesting, to say nothing of unique, as a human :-)
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Reality Check Radio: Six Hit Shows in One Week on the Assassination Attempt on Trump. NZ is Engaged!
Post Archives
December 2024
Links to Other Blogs |