Search Results
6/21/2025, 3:04:35 AM
>>101409194
>You're contradicting yourself. If the native Americans are not considered American because they lived in a different nation than modern Americans, then the same is also true for the original European settlers, because they arrived on the continent centuries before the US was founded and therefore lived in a different nation than the modern America.
Wrong. We are the SAME nation as those settlers, because we are descended from them. The only thing that changed is that we founded our own new STATE - the Union. But that is distinct from the nation, because the nation is the people, not the state. There is no contradiction.
>Also keep in mind that the US wasn't the size it is now back when it was founded. Louisiana for example was purchased from France while Alaska was purchased from Russia, and Hawaii hadn't even been discovered by westerners yet at the time the US declared its independence. These territories were simply incorporated into the US at a later date, just like the territories of the native Americans.
All irrelevant, because nation = people, not territory. We, along with different sub-nations who intermixed to varying degrees, simply settled those territories later.
>If being incorporated into the union doesn't make the native Americans proper Americans, then the same also applies to the original denizens of most US states and to their descendants as well.
Not in the case of Anglo settlers, such as those who were paid to settle the 99% empty territory of Texas by the Mexicans. In the case of other territories settled by distinct founding stock, such as the Swedes and Germans, I agree that they WERE separate - until large scale intermixing occurred, thus creating mutt populations who descend from both nations, and are thus American.
>Only those present at the very beginning of the US would qualify.
Nope. Anyone who is descended from that original founding stock is also included in the true American ethnos, as explained.
>What percentage of modern day white Americans can trace their origins to the first settlers?
The same percentage as are actual Americans.
>Given how many Europeans immigrated to the country after it had been founded, in particular during the 1900s, that number should be pretty small.
Correct, although as explained, you have to account for the intermixing of lineages. Any who did not descend from the Anglo settlers are not Americans; likewise, anyone who does not descend from the settlers of any particular town, region, etc. cannot claim to be part of THAT area's native nation, which happens to be part of the large tribal confederation that bears the name of "USA".
>According to this source which may or may not be valid, that number is 3-10%: https://www.restonyc.com/what-percentage-of-americans-have-an-ancestor-on-the-mayflower/
Correct, most US *CITIZENS* today are not what are colloquially called WASPS, and are therefore not actually Americans. Blame JFK, (((Emmanuel Celler))), the 1960s Community Relations Service-sanctioned "civil rights" psyop, and the deluded adherents of Lincolnite "propositional nation" brainrot for inflicting us with that particular condition. Like I said, there are other, similar genetic clades who are native to their respective regions, and they are their own nations - it's basically just a polite lie when we say they are also "Americans" in the same sense as the Anglo WASPs, one of many told for the sake of propping up what is essentially a tranny state that is effectively untethered to ANY nation.
>What this means is that by your definition, most white Americans are not actually American either.
Yes.
>That's a very strange standard.
No. It's the norm throughout history. What's "strange" is the confused mental gymnastics people have been programmed with for the sake of justifying the post-enlightenment liberal order.
>A people can exist without a nation or land, and a nation can also be formed out of a multitude of different peoples.
You're contradicting yourself. If a people exists, they are by definition a nation, regardless of territory or statehood - look at the Kurds or the pre-Balfour Declaration Ashkenazim for examples of nations without a state, and the classical Greek city states or feudal Japan for an example of one nation with many states.
>Clearly those two concepts are not exactly the same.
Nation == people == ethnos == extended blood family descended from a common stock of ancestors =/= land/state. That's how these concepts relate.
>Americans are barely even a people in the first place given how muttified they are.
Again - see (((Emannuel Celler))), (((Israel Zangwill))), (((Emma Lazarus))), and others throughout history for utterly destroying the presumed, unspoken Anglo homogeneity of which so many Founders spoke so fondly and which they took for granted. Now the nucleus of the American nation exists, but is a minority in its own homeland. Never mind the subsidiary nations that over time might have been grafted on.
>You're contradicting yourself. If the native Americans are not considered American because they lived in a different nation than modern Americans, then the same is also true for the original European settlers, because they arrived on the continent centuries before the US was founded and therefore lived in a different nation than the modern America.
Wrong. We are the SAME nation as those settlers, because we are descended from them. The only thing that changed is that we founded our own new STATE - the Union. But that is distinct from the nation, because the nation is the people, not the state. There is no contradiction.
>Also keep in mind that the US wasn't the size it is now back when it was founded. Louisiana for example was purchased from France while Alaska was purchased from Russia, and Hawaii hadn't even been discovered by westerners yet at the time the US declared its independence. These territories were simply incorporated into the US at a later date, just like the territories of the native Americans.
All irrelevant, because nation = people, not territory. We, along with different sub-nations who intermixed to varying degrees, simply settled those territories later.
>If being incorporated into the union doesn't make the native Americans proper Americans, then the same also applies to the original denizens of most US states and to their descendants as well.
Not in the case of Anglo settlers, such as those who were paid to settle the 99% empty territory of Texas by the Mexicans. In the case of other territories settled by distinct founding stock, such as the Swedes and Germans, I agree that they WERE separate - until large scale intermixing occurred, thus creating mutt populations who descend from both nations, and are thus American.
>Only those present at the very beginning of the US would qualify.
Nope. Anyone who is descended from that original founding stock is also included in the true American ethnos, as explained.
>What percentage of modern day white Americans can trace their origins to the first settlers?
The same percentage as are actual Americans.
>Given how many Europeans immigrated to the country after it had been founded, in particular during the 1900s, that number should be pretty small.
Correct, although as explained, you have to account for the intermixing of lineages. Any who did not descend from the Anglo settlers are not Americans; likewise, anyone who does not descend from the settlers of any particular town, region, etc. cannot claim to be part of THAT area's native nation, which happens to be part of the large tribal confederation that bears the name of "USA".
>According to this source which may or may not be valid, that number is 3-10%: https://www.restonyc.com/what-percentage-of-americans-have-an-ancestor-on-the-mayflower/
Correct, most US *CITIZENS* today are not what are colloquially called WASPS, and are therefore not actually Americans. Blame JFK, (((Emmanuel Celler))), the 1960s Community Relations Service-sanctioned "civil rights" psyop, and the deluded adherents of Lincolnite "propositional nation" brainrot for inflicting us with that particular condition. Like I said, there are other, similar genetic clades who are native to their respective regions, and they are their own nations - it's basically just a polite lie when we say they are also "Americans" in the same sense as the Anglo WASPs, one of many told for the sake of propping up what is essentially a tranny state that is effectively untethered to ANY nation.
>What this means is that by your definition, most white Americans are not actually American either.
Yes.
>That's a very strange standard.
No. It's the norm throughout history. What's "strange" is the confused mental gymnastics people have been programmed with for the sake of justifying the post-enlightenment liberal order.
>A people can exist without a nation or land, and a nation can also be formed out of a multitude of different peoples.
You're contradicting yourself. If a people exists, they are by definition a nation, regardless of territory or statehood - look at the Kurds or the pre-Balfour Declaration Ashkenazim for examples of nations without a state, and the classical Greek city states or feudal Japan for an example of one nation with many states.
>Clearly those two concepts are not exactly the same.
Nation == people == ethnos == extended blood family descended from a common stock of ancestors =/= land/state. That's how these concepts relate.
>Americans are barely even a people in the first place given how muttified they are.
Again - see (((Emannuel Celler))), (((Israel Zangwill))), (((Emma Lazarus))), and others throughout history for utterly destroying the presumed, unspoken Anglo homogeneity of which so many Founders spoke so fondly and which they took for granted. Now the nucleus of the American nation exists, but is a minority in its own homeland. Never mind the subsidiary nations that over time might have been grafted on.
Page 1