“To Be American is to be British.” Says Vox Day

In this video, author, editor and publisher, Vox Day, makes the case that “American” is an ethnicity and that ethnicity is British.

It’s an interesting furthering of the idea Ann Colter made famous a few years ago, that America is not a nation of immigrants since it was settled and created by people from a “postage stamp” size area of the world – that being the British Isles and Holland.

Now, Vox is speaking for himself here. Neither him nor I are advocating for kicking non-British people out of the country or stripping them of American citizenship or anything ridiculous like that, so no one freak out please.

I thought this was an interesting discussion particularly the subtly between a “nation” and a “state.”


12 Comments on ““To Be American is to be British.” Says Vox Day

  1. Leaving aside the explorations of Erik the Red, Christopher Columbus, and some other early explorers, Spain, England, and France all colonized what is today the Americas. Spain began colonizing what is today the United States with the founding of St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Jamestown wasn’t established until 1607, so I think it is fair to say that the history of our country is Western European but it’s overstating it to say that our roots are strictly British, albeit our form of government today can be said to be British-influenced.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. True, I didn’t — so sorry — I was just meaning to write that comment to you from the other day when you had a similar post. However, many of the writers, such as Jefferson, were born here, not England, and England may not have been their only frame of reference for their documents. For example, Jefferson was very well-read, eventually spending much time in France, and so may have been influenced by other European governments. I’ll have to re-read my copy of The Federalist Papers. xxPax


  3. They were ethnically British, regardless of where they were born, and a nation in a people, not a border. The word Nation comes from the Latin “natal” -meaning the family you are born into. The French revolution, and the lead up to it, had virtually no influence on on the American revolution. The French revolution was pre-communist in nature. It went directly after the clergy, killing hundreds of priests and nuns, tearing down the churches or turning them into secular buildings. The burned relics and destroyed holy sites. The American revolution was not anti-Christian at all, in fact quite the opposite. The American revolution did not seek to abolish the monarchy, simply to declare Independence from it. Again, this is contrary to the French revolution. The nation of America was founded by ethnically British people, using British laws, morals, philosophy, language and religion. The continent of North America has a more diverse and lengthy history – that is a separate discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ayla, that’s a great analysis about the American & French Revolutions. The American was a kind of proto-Libertarian revolution, while the French was proto-Communist. Much more could be said here, but Vox Day is correct, as usual.

      Also,, to continue our use of VDisms, it looks like you’ve got your first “midwit” commentator, nkmommy. Ha. Enjoy!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Anti warrior, I would appreciate an apology, I am far from being a “midwit,” whatever silly meaning that has. Your insults are unnecessary as I was merely trying to have a discussion and not provoke a fight. Moreover, even if I were unintelligent or being disagreeable, charity is a far more feminine manner of discourse than crude insults. Again, apology would be appreciated.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I can appreciate that analysis but I didn’t at all have in mind the French Revolution (which Inagree on your stance regarding the Church and monarchy). I meant more along the lines of the enlightenment philosophers being a big influence on the framers. Locke was one but so was Baron de Montesquieu who was French and his writings influenced the framers notions of “separation of powers.” I also had in mind the Greek philosophers. For example, John Locke’s idea of a “social contract,” may have stemmed from Socrates. That was my point that the influence was not strictly British but French and Greek as well.


  4. I never questioned if nkmommy was arguing in good faith. In fact, I assume she is.

    However, saying that America’s founding ethnic stock has anything to do with non-British people simply because the founders had non-British intellectual influences is a bit like arguing that China is currently a nation of Germans too, since Mao’s idea of seizing property from the Capitalist ruling class came from Kar Marx.

    Influence does not equal founding stock. Ideas are not blood.

    That’s what Ayla & Vox are saying.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. So you could have simply stated your position without trying to demean me and call me a name.

    I like the guy’s video, haven’t heard it all yet. He seems to hinge a lot on the term “posterity.” I’ll add at this point the framers had considered considered writing, “We the people of Virginia, Delaware, Connecticut,” etc. instead of “the United States.” The significance of that is that there were already different ethnicities in those various states, such as French, and later with Florida, Spanish. So the “posterity” of those residents would be other than British yet he seems to think the Founders only meant the posterity of the British is who makes up an American “nation.” Not sure about his argument but very interesting.


    • There was no need to state my position, since Ayla and Vox had already stated it. Multiple times. Since Ayla strives to keep this a family friendly blog, I’ve refrained from using any insults against anyone here.

      A “midwit” in VD’s terminology, is not necessarily an insult but a description. Namely it is a person of above-average intelligence who fails to grasp a higher point. I thought it was impressive that you admitted to not watching the video Ayla explicitly linked too, didn’t read the Coulter book she referenced, yet felt bold enough to comment on it, and continued doing so after Ayla explained things to you. I assumed you just ignored the sources, rather than lacked the capacity to understand. However, if midwit offends you, I’d be happy to describe you as average or below average in intelligence and assume you truly lack the ability to understand what we’re saying.

      Finally, your point about non-British ethnicities remains irrelevant. Even when those ethnic enclaves were added, America was still super-majority British. Besides, those states included numerous African slaves and Native Americans, but we know they weren’t considered Americans in the full, legal or rhetorical sense.


%d bloggers like this: