imageLast year, the Super Bowl was greatly enhanced by the “God Made a Farmer” commercial by Dodge Ram trucks. The year before that, it was “Halftime in America” from Chrysler. This year, however, was a controversial ad by Coke, presenting the song “America the Beautiful” in multiple languages while showing various people in cultural dress and customs. It was, of course, artistic. But it was also worrisome, possibly even offensive.

I posted my first reaction to Facebook, saying: "America the Beautiful" should always be sung in English. Period.

At the heart of the matter are two "isms"–Nationalism and Multiculturalism.  I always tell my history students to pay special attention to "isms".

Nationalism is generally considered to be pride in one’s country. It’s carries a sense of national identity, and is expressed in national symbols like the Washington Monument, documents such as the Gettysburg address, and songs, like "American the Beautiful".

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is the uncritical acceptance of a variety of cultures, regardless of the success or merits of each. For example, I once had a student studying law enforcement tell me that he would not interfere with a Muslim father’s "right" to kill his daughter under Islamic law, because the practice is their religious belief. (I would venture to say that in that scenario, the daughter might disavow it was *her* belief….) To embrace any and all cultures who wish to join your culture without critical consideration for whether they might line up with the values of the host culture poses a danger to the continuation of the host culture. In this case, the host culture is American, and our core values being democracy (including the Rule of Law) and freedom (including the rights of the individual). 

I would content that you cannot have a strong sense of Nationalism when there is unabashed acceptance of multiculturalism.  To uncritically embrace sub-cultures within our American culture that hold values, beliefs, or practices at odds with these core principles is to risk American culture’s demise from within. European countries such as England and France have done exactly this, and I believe we are already seeing the potential outcomes play out in Europe right now. The question to ask might be whether Coke was simply reflecting reality–that we have abandoned our nationalism for multiculturalism.

It’s also true that American is comprised of people from many cultures, and that–as one of my Facebook commentators put it–American was "built on the backs" of people from various cultures.  I, like perhaps many of our readers, am a self-described ethnic mutt. My Scandinavian, German, and Scotch-Irish great-great-great-great grandparents came to American with their own ethnic customs and languages. Yet, here I am, along with my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, speaking and reading in English. This is because my ancestors (like most American immigrants until very recently) considered it a priority to adapt to their new country. They were proud to be considered "American."  Today–and perhaps Coke was only reflecting the reality of our times–the country is attempting to adapt to the immigrants instead.

Some have argued that we have no "official" language in the United States. While this may be true, it is also true that all our founding documents were produced in English. The business of the Revolution was conducted in English. And even today, legislative bills and executive orders and military commands are all produced in English. So it’s safe to say that the official business of the country is done…in English. It follows, then, that the symbols of Nationalism–that is, pride in our country—can reasonable by expected to be done in English. This most certainly includes the National Anthem, and also songs with great meaning to nationalistic pride such as "America the Beautiful."

So the bigger questions, then, raised by this ad are: What does it mean to be an American in 2014? Do we have any one national identity? How can we restore national pride in the face of multiculturalism?  These questions, along with many pressing economic issues, will have to be answered soundly if American is to survive. Indeed, it may not be much of a stretch to say that these questions reach at the heart of Western Civilization and its tradition of freedom and democracy. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

I would like to thank Coke for one thing. They have produced a terrific conversation-starter for my class later this semester when we discuss Nationalism.

8 comments
  1. I wouldn’t say nationalism and multiculturalism are mutually exclusive.

    Looks like you’ve brought DISQUS back. Thanks, Shane.

    1. You’re welcome. Facebook comments were doing hinky things with my theme, and then the comment box the other night didn’t load properly. I liked Disqus, but was encouraged to try out Facebook. I no longer allow guest comments though.

  2. Anita, your statement “Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is the uncritical acceptance of a variety of cultures, regardless of the success or merits of each,” is just plain wrong. Having participated in the multiculturalism debates in the 1990s, I should know: none of us “uncritically” embraced other cultures. Your assertion ignores the criticisms of clitoridectomy and polygamy which came from feminists, class differences articulated by Marxists like me, and the conservatism and authoritarianism of governments like Singapore’s that many of us made. Much of the work focused on the quincentennial of Columbus and the idea that the Americas were there to be “discovered” by Europeans; Kirkpatrick Sale, among others, also presented an ecological critique of Columbus and the Europe which produced him and financed his voyages. And, there is no way we can discuss American nationalism without acknowledging the triangular trade, slavery, and imperialism. Your vision of nationalism is pretty dated: the right Hegelians beat you to it 150 years ago. None of the academic historians I’ve worked with understand nationality the way you do…

  3. The USA was FOUNDED and BUILT by Whites. Non-Whites ADDED to it.

    (Since recorded history, Blacks have not built and maintained their own 1st world nation. Picking cotton does not build 1st world nations).

    – Only 2% of Whites owned slaves. Also, Blacks enslaved their own long before Whitey came along.

    – The Founding Fathers were White.
    – The Constitution was written by Whites.
    – The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by Whites.
    – Most people that have fought and died for the US were White.
    – Institutions were built by Whites.
    – White ancestors did not work hard to build a 1st world nation to give it away to other races to turn it into a 3rd world nation.
    – Up until 1967 the USA was traditionally a nation of immigrants, mainly WHITE immigrants.

    Whites have brought freedom of speech and democratic values and freed slaves wherever they go, prevented tribal wars between natives, cured diseases through medicine, as well as raise living standards of ALL races. However, Whites’ efforts at civilizing the globe have led to their own nation’s dysgenic destruction and demise.

    Why are White Liberals the only group of people in the world celebrating diversity as Whites become minorities in their own nations?

    Have White Liberals worked out that non-Whites are taking advantage of White compassion and altruism and tolerance?

    Have White Liberals worked out that you can’t build/maintain 1st world nations with lower average IQ, 3rd world immigrants that have higher average crime rates and lower average productivity?

    Has it dawned on White Liberals that diversity = less Whites? (i.e. Whites are being ethnically cleansed by huge non-White immigration and their high numbers of offspring)

    Has it dawned on White Liberals, every race has a strong instinct for self-preservation except Whites. Why?

    Did White Liberals even stop and think for a moment, non-Whites flock to White majority nations because Whites build the most desirable societies? When Whites become a minority due to lack of instinct for self-preservation, will those societies still be as desirable?

    Did White Liberals know that diversity = lower social trust, lower confidence in local government, less likelihood of working on a community project, less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering, less happiness and lower perceived quality of life AND less democracy?

    Finally, why are only White majority nations being deliberately targeted for diversity? Did White ancestors work hard so their offspring would give their nation away to foreigners who don’t care about White history and achievements?

    1. Awesome! An unapologetically racist post. You do know there is no such thing as a “white” person?

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Cheap Grace vs. Costly Grace

From The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945): Cheap grace is…

Monkeying Around With End-of-Life Health Care

If only Americans will receive the same type of end-of-life health care under Obamacare that Panbanisha received at the Great Ape Trust in Des Moines.

Planned Parenthood Ignores Women Who Support Defunding of Abortion-Centered Business

Washington, D.C. – Today the Susan B. Anthony List criticized Planned Parenthood…

Why I Am A Nationalist

John Gustavsson: I am a nationalist. More specifically, when people ask about my ideology I tell them I’m a national conservative.