“In the pre-formation of the United States, Puritanism and Calvinist Protestantism uniquely refined white supremacy as a political/religious ideology (a covenant with God) requiring the shedding of white blood for purification. The Ulster-Scots Calvinists were the settler/colonizers of Northern Ireland and constituted a majority of settlers in the western lands over the Appalachian/Allegheny spine of English North America. Their origin story became the origin story of the United States. It tells of pilgrim/settlers doing God's will and forging into the promised land, being surrounded by savages, and killing the heathen (first the Irish in Ulster, then the Native Americans in North America). Thereby, the sacrifice and blood shed is perceived as proof of the sanctity and purity of the nation itself. All the descendants of those who made such sacrifices are the true inheritors of the land.”

quote:

---

“In the pre-formation of the United States, Puritanism and Calvinist Protestantism uniquely refined white supremacy as a political/religious ideology (a covenant with God) requiring the shedding of white blood for purification.

---

Wouldn't it be nice to have an example of who, precisely, were the Puritans who required the shedding of white blood as part of a Covenant with God?

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

Wouldn't it be nice to have an example of who, precisely, were the Puritans who required the shedding of white blood as part of a Covenant with God?

What exactly are you asking? -Do you want names of individuals?

One can always pick apart any essay or article. I honestly don't see how which puritans she was referring to weakens her argument. I suppose if you are left with questions or feel the essay is incomplete you can do what I would do, go to the bibliography and read her sources.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

quote:

---

Iraq is just one more way for the US to keep its us-against-the-wild-frontier ideology intact. They cannot exist without it.

---

GG:

With all due respect(and I mean that), I think you've got the cart before the horse here. I don't think any country goes off on imperial adventures in order to keep the ideology intact. Rather, they use the ideology as moral justification for the imperial adventures, which result out of economic and/or(depending on who you believe) security considerations.

The "frontier" plays a big role in the American psyche, so of course the war propagandists are gonna use that as part of their rhetorical arsenal. But suppose that, somehow, the US had been able to develop its current political power without expanding westward(say, by becoming a naval power instead). They'd probably just cook up some other defining mythos to justify what they do.

The article was interesting, but I found that the writer conflated things a little bit, and talked about various ideological currents as if they were all indistinguishable from one another. The Puritan tradition was strongest in New England, but relatively weak in the Southern states(whose culture was even nicknamed Cavalier by the time of the Civil War). But institutional white supremacy was at least as strong in the South as it was in New England, given that they had slavery on a grand scale. Plus, the writer correctly cited the role of the Catholic Church in the development of imperialism, but the Puritans who settled New England would likely have rejected almost all aspects of Catholic doctrine(at least in their own minds), and certainly weren't looking to the Pope for inspiration. If religious ideology is the key, how does the writer account for the same imperialist tendencies emerging in fairly divergent religions? Nowadays, we tend to lump all Christians in together, but historically the various creeds have been about as far apart, at least in their conscious attitude toward one another, as Christianity and Islam are today. What with the Gunpowder Plot and all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Plus, the writer correctly cited the role of the Catholic Church in the development of imperialism, but the Puritans who settled New England would likely have rejected almost all aspects of Catholic doctrine(at least in their own minds), and certainly weren't looking to the Pope for inspiration. If religious ideology is the key, how does the writer account for the same imperialist tendencies emerging in fairly divergent religions? Nowadays, we tend to lump all Christians in together, but historically the various creeds have been about as far apart, at least in their conscious attitude toward one another, as Christianity and Islam are today. What with the Gunpowder Plot and all.

---

Of course there was a lot of variations within christianity, not to mention orthodox christianity- but regardless of whether settlers practiced catholism or protestant faiths, they shared a similar ethnicity and geography which combined to articulate a specific culture. The other thing they shared was their imperial pursuits outside of Europe and the ideology they used to legitimize their brutality. I think the author does a good job of outlining this in her essay and how ideas were borrowed and modified between different nations.

quote:

---

North or south, I'll bet both catholics and protestants believed that africans were descended from the bad son of noah.

---

That would be Ham, I believe. The one who saw Noah naked. I don't know if I've ever heard about that idea being taught by Catholics, but I'm sure they had their own ideological justifications for the subjugation of Africans in any event. I suspect it basically just came down to "well, they don't believe in our god, and they're militarily weaker than us, so why the hell not."

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]