Donald Trump's favorite catchphrase 'America First' has dark ties to the Klu Klux Klan
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • 4 years ago • 73 commentsBy: Sarah Churchwell ( httpsscoop. upworthy. com)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The President does not seem too concerned with the phrase's long, twisted, and tainted history which is peppered with pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist sentiments.
By Jisha Joseph
October 9, 2020
Posted October 9, 2020
"We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be America First." This was the centerpiece of President Donald Trump's inauguration address in January 2017. The summation of his entire political and governing philosophy, it highlighted two words that have been front and center throughout his presidential campaigns: "America First." The President does not seem too concerned with the phrase's long, twisted, and tainted history which is peppered with pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist sentiments.
Putting America first is a campaign slogan mostly, rooted in 1920s American fascism. He does not have a fleshed out policy platform at all. Go to his website. ZERO policies announced for his next term. It's all about trusting in him, a wannabe dictator.https://t.co/QlKKim7z7v — Sascha M. (@saschamaj) October 5, 2020
"It was a Republican campaign slogan in the 1880s, which means it appeared much earlier than most people think. But it didn't become a national catchphrase until President Woodrow Wilson used it in 1915. He was using it to try to keep America out of the first World War. But he was kind of doing a tap dance because he wanted to placate the isolationists, although he was himself an internationalist," Behold, America author Sarah Churchwell explained to Vox. "But then the phrase gets taken up in the name of isolationism almost instantly, and it is quickly connected with other ideas that were also on the rise at the time, especially the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. It became linked to anti-immigration movements, and sympathizers of fascism, and was popularized by Charles Lindbergh."
According to the fact-checking website Snopes, Lindbergh—the famous American pilot who lead the 'America First Committee'—openly displayed pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic tendencies with his use of offensive stereotypes and assertions that Jews posed a threat to the US since they wielded supposed influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government. "The undercurrents of anti-Semitism and bigotry that characterized the America First movement — including the assumption that Jews who opposed the movement had their own agenda and were not acting in America's best interest — is fortunately not a major concern today," said Jonathan A Greenblatt, ADL CEO.
Yeah. It sure was.
And not to be too speculative, but "invisible empire" sounds an awful lot like "silent majority", doesn't it? https://t.co/C3QjmwNifd — Another Fucking Guy With A Podcast (@fucking_podcast) October 5, 2020
"However, for many Americans, the term 'America First' will always be associated with and tainted by this history. In a political season that already has prompted a national conversation about civility and tolerance, choosing a call to action historically associated with incivility and intolerance seems ill-advised," he added, referring to Trump's repeated usage of the phrase. Meanwhile, as Churchwell mentioned, many Trump critics identify the notorious slogan with the infamous white supremacist hate group, Klu Klux Klan.
The phrase even appears in Klan literature as part of a longer credo, "America first, last, and forever," or it's variant "America first, last and always," as a KKK speaker was quoted saying in the Binghamton, New York Press and Sun-Bulletin in 1923. Another version of the slogan also appeared in an "Imperial Proclamation" submitted as evidence during a Congressional hearing on the Klan's activities in 1921 which said: "[The Klan] stands for America first—first in thought, first in affections, and first in the galaxy of nations. The Stars and Stripes forever above all other and every kind of government in the whole world."
"If you're in an anti-immigrant and xenophobic debate, then 'America First' will kind of magnetically accrue those anti-immigrant sentiments. Put America first, native-born people first," said Churchwell. "It connects back to the nativism of the 1840s and 1850s, and it sounds broadly anti-immigrant. In a moment where people were very concerned about waves of immigration, which was a big motivating force for the KKK, it was only natural that America First would become a rallying cry for nativists and racists."
Tags
Who is online
401 visitors
I knew this. Did you? Well, now you do...
For Trump, this is not a bug. It is a feature.
I didn't know this. I suspect hardly anyone worthwhile is aware of this latest "bombshell" of useless non-information.
I know, right? It has been said that there are white supremacists who like ice cream, so any white person who likes ice cream must also be a supremacist. The only people who buy into non-sense like this are the ones already sold on "orange man bad". Seriously! White supremacists have a long history of using doorknobs on their doors so JBB and others will say that Trump, by extension must also support white supremacists by using them as well.
Why don't you produce citations?
If you cannot produce citations... it's because you're just makin' shit up.
Most of the time when people say something it means exactly what they're saying there is no coded meaning. America First means exactly that, Make America Great Again means exactly that, being against illegal immigration has nothing to do with the color of the Illegal's skin and everything to do with upholding the rule of law. The Left loves to accuse the Right of Dog Whistle Politics but it's rarely true, in fact the accusation has become the Dog Whistle.
You're joking, right?
It's so much easier to claim something is coded language, because then a person doesn't need facts to attack people's words. They can just claim without evidence that the target means to say whatever they claim. You can't defend yourself with the fact of your own words because these people aren't dealing in facts.
First rule of white club is you don't talk about white club.
Apparently some are surprised this got leaked as they have gone into full denial mode.
I think it would be beneficial for you to look up the word "simile".
I agree. However, assuming otherwise has been a favorite tactic of the left. If any opponent says anything at all that they can link to something bad, even tenuously, they will do so and go about their cancel culture work. The Chinese saw a lot of this during their cultural revolution. Especially their academics. Ignorant revolutionaries would make the most ridiculous connections concerning something about an academic and use it as justification for persecuting them. Sometimes to death.
Excellent example of what we're talking about. Thanks DP! You state something like this that can't be falsified empirically and then insist on it as truth. Well done!
Hmmmm
Be my guest : )
You're welcome.
Claiming white supremacists use doorknobs just like everyone else to try and make some false equivalency to them choosing which candidate they believe supports them and their vile ideology and insisting that's truth is a better example.
Without the white supremacists, white nationalists and those sniveling pieces of shit who fear losing some fantasy "white culture", dishonest Donald would have no chance of winning any election. He knows this, they know this, which is why Trump tip-toes around the subject even when he's forced to condemn them. Do they feel condemned after that? Hell no! They believe he was forced to condemn them by the MSM and know in their blackened little hearts that he really loves them and is a HUGE racist himself.
Trump reads from a script in monotone when he denounces white supremacists but every other comment he makes seems to support and defend them. It's not just a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" either, it's outright complicity.
They all heard him loud and clear during the debate:
"Stand back, stand by"...
Um, no. Not really, since you are addressing something entirely different. The seed seeks to connect Trump's catchphrase "Make America Great Again" with white supremacy. The seed isn't about why white supremacists may or may not like him. So.... nope.
Nor is it a false equivalency. While it may be true that the phrase was used by other groups doesn't necessarily mean Trump has the same motives as they had. The only thing the seed does is claim both used the phrase and imply both must have the same motive behind it. So, hardly a false equivalency. But thanks for playing : )
The way I see it, what does make America great AGAIN mean?
Does it hark back to another time? Say like the 1950's?
If so, do you really not understand how some could have the connotation?
Going back to a time of separate water fountains, separate restaurants, subjugated sexes and races...
The country should be looking forward, not backward.
Ok then, how about we bring back the tax structure of that era?
I am sure many people would whine and complain about that.
Manufacturing is only a small piece of the puzzle. Demonizing unions that were a part of manufacturing hurt as well. Unions that brought higher wages, safety and benefits.
It is not as simple as bringing back a factory. The class divide has grown significantly, which some people want to ignore or dismiss.
No matter what anyone says, we are a global environment now.
Sounds like us here in the US.
The way you see it is not realistic. That isn't a dig. It's just fact. To understand why America was great from the beginning, you have to look at the history of mankind as a whole. Throughout history, man operated by the idea that some people were better than others. Power was everything.
America was never great because it was perfect, it was great because of what the Constitution strived to achieve. There was nothing like it in the history of the world. It enshrined the idea that no man stood above another. It enshrined the idea that every person had inalienable rights. It enshrined the idea that the government could not dictate conscience.
The left wants to claim that America was never great because it wasn't perfect. Cancel culture wants to say that men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were bad men because they had slaves when the truth was that they were just men of their times. It is true that they did not live up to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution, but that didn't make America less great than it was. The reason these men were great was that they began and fought for those ideals in the first place.
So what we got was really great ideas enshrined in the Constitution practiced by men who were just people. Imperfect people who had to switch from one historical way of thinking to a new one. Over time, we came closer and closer to realizing those ideals. Slavery was outlawed. Women got the right to vote. The Bill of Rights became the law and so on. Only someone completely divorced from reality could claim that a black man today is no better off than his ancestors of 200 years ago. That a woman faces the same problems her great grandmother three times removed faced.
But all of that is being destroyed by the fascism of the Left. There is no longer the idea that no man stands above another. Only those who hold to their particular ideology are worthy and the rest are enemies. Freedom of opportunity is being replaced with equality of outcome, regardless of effort. Freedom of conscience for conformity to leftist ideals. Morality is whatever you think it is, as long as it adheres to Leftist ideology. Truth for personal wish fulfillment.
So, to answer your question...
...no, it doesn't mean that in the sense you portray. What it means is a society where you aren't held back in your effort to succeed. It doesn't mean you are owed anything by the rest of society. It doesn't mean the government is responsible for your success or failure.
I said I can understand why it is taken that way. I am not going to deny it.
You can blame 'the left' all you want it would simply not be true. The extreme left is no more fascist than the extreme right.
The whitewash of this countries history is a real thing.
Yes things have been turned into law and improved yet why would anyone want to 'go back' and have to do it all over again.
As far as I can tell, you take maga as the country was great until them damn Liberals ruined it....
What ever that is suppose to mean.
Agreed. However, that doesn't mean neither is fascist. They are just equally so.
Perhaps. But, no more so than what the left is currently trying to do. Rewrite history to make it solely about slavery. About oppression. That's complete crap.
Who is trying to return us to times gone by? No one I can see.
Understandable, since you do not know me. I do think this is a great country, although that is diminishing for various reasons, not all having to do with the left. I just think they are doing more, faster, to make it less great.
That would be a very good meaning.
Where I see it different. Some are trying to show how bad it was while not trying to forget. Showing how it still exists in some segments of society. Better to shine a light than ignore what is in the dark.
Just look at how many kids don't know how bad the holocaust was.
I would add that wanting to not have to look at a statue of someone that oppressed people is a valid concern and is in no way trying to rewrite anything.
Imo, only if that was ever taken away...
... or could be better.
What would you do without strawmen?
You invent policy-positions - you never prove their reality. Then you argue against the propositions that you yourself have invented.
Last but not least, you crow about your victory... over yourself...
Yeeeesh...
And this is where I see it different. I would be fine with not forgetting. That is important if we are going to keep from repeating the past. But some are trying to make us responsible today for what happened in the past. Because I am white I somehow bear responsibility. Nope. Not one shred of responsibility on my part. I am responsible for what I do or have done. Nothing else.
From my perspective, many of those you refer to here are not primarily trying to show how bad it was. Instead, they are trying to show, through that critical race theory nonsense, that nothing has changed at all. They are trying to redefine words and concepts in order to justify their case. They are not trying to eliminate racism at all. They are trying to do just the opposite. They are trying to make their concept of worth about being black. That being black is something to glorify while at the same time castigate whites who do the same thing. And many don't see the insanity of this.
I would be fine with this if that was what they were really doing, but it's not. Again, what they are actually doing is redefining what they are actually doing to themselves as being racism on the part of whites. I have heard that the three greatest things one can do to get ahead in this country are to graduate high school, don't have children outside of marriage and get a full time job. But rather than do this, the thug life is glorified and then whites get the blame when it inevitably causes problems.
Totally agree. Unfortunately, this isn't what's happening for the most part. Instead, because it serves the interest of the Democrats, we are being sold on crap like critical race theory and white privilege. It's white peoples fault that north of 70% of black women are single mothers. It's white peoples fault that blacks make up around 13% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes. In actuality, this is why BLM is just a lie. If blacks really wanted to do something, they could start with those statistics. But they don't want to do something about it. What they want instead is to keep doing what they're doing without consequence and everyone else to pay for it.
Of course, that doesn't apply to all black people. There are black people who've done exactly what I have and are succeeding the same way. They have what I have. No one stopped them. No one put barriers in their way. They just did what they needed to do.
Arguable, but what's more relevant is that these people are making that decision for the rest of us. They don't care what anyone else's view is because the only one that matters is theirs. What's so bad about that is that the Constitution was supposed to give us freedom of conscience but, instead, we are being dictated to as to what that conscience should be.
Let's take a look at Jefferson. It isn't that they are rewriting history, it's that they want to restrict it to only one view of history. Jefferson owned slaves and that is all that is relevant to them. Apparently, leaving a statue of him up means the rest of us can't help but conclude that owning slaves must be okay. Don't you find that a little bit ridiculous?
Speaking for myself, when I see a statue of anyone, what goes through my mind is something like "I wonder what kind of man (or woman) this person was. Obviously I consider why the statue was erected in the first place, but mostly, I wonder what faults they had. Take General Lee, for instance. Looking at his statue, I don't think "what a great guy". In some ways he was but in others he wasn't. Mostly, what I wonder is how could someone who was basically a good man fight for the cause that he did?
But that would be, is being, taken from us because individuals think they have the right to dictate to the rest of us what we should think. How we should think. I get what a statue of Lee means to some people. They can glorify or demonize it as they wish. But how can you hold to what is essentially the thought police dictating those things to you?
For the same reason I don't try to prove the reality of the sun. If I actually had to do that in order for you to acknowledge the sun exists, you aren't likely to heed my proof anyway. Same applies here. Even so, I will give you an example so you can prove my point.
Microaggressions. Apparently, if I ask someone with a foreign accent where they are from I am expressing prejudice against them. I am stating that they aren't Americans or some such nonsense, rather than just being curious as to where they originated. Microaggressions is claiming that a person can only have one possible motivation for what they are doing. Idiotic. Yet we have people falling all over themselves to appear woke and fall in line over this crap.
Care to give an example?
Hate to break the news to you but white privilege is a real thing.
What you are saying is the epitome of white privilege.
Systemic racism is a fact, no matter how much people want to dismiss it.
I read an article today (not the first one either) that shows how just being Black they devalue housing at appraisals.
You are only blaming Black people for problems they have had to deal with going on centuries.
You can say all you want that problems are not yours, that some problems are history yet that is not the truth. There are problems here and now that we all have to deal with instead of denying their existence.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course. Not much point in continuing this, since all you do is state there are problems but fail to give examples, as I have done. Basically, you're just saying "nu uhhh!" Not worth my time trying to argue with that. Thanks for the conversation.
Yet you fail to provide evidence of it
Totally awesome! Thanks for proving my point. You took us right back to the doorknob simile. Well done!
And some would rather ignore what is in front of them.
I could say the same. You only see what you want to see.
So you are correct, no point in trying to open the eyes of those that refuse.
Thank you.
Do you agree that self-improvement requires critical observation of one's own thought processes? It is circular reasoning to assume that one's own conclusions are correct - because they themselves produced those conclusions, and their thought processes are impeccable.
How often do you critically examine your own thinking?
One of the benefits of genuine debate.
Yes.
... on condition of actually listening to the other person...
Agreed. The debate needs to be genuine (not a lame game of dishonest tactics like 9x% of social media 'debates') and one must seriously question one's position based on the challenges made (and one's response to same). Not sure how often that is done, but I would say 'rarely' is a good word.
Nonetheless, debate is an excellent way to expose one's own thought process for critical review. Do that and one's arguments will naturally improve. Avoid that and we find the confirmation-bias-sourced, nutty nonsense that is oft spewed by those who absolutely know they have a firm grasp on truth.
( To be clear, my comment is not directed at Drakkonis. )
I agree completely.
Yes.
I assume what you mean here is that some people have such faith in their own presumed intelligence that they cannot imagine their conclusions could be wrong because, hey, they're intelligent. I'm sure you're not suggesting that anyone who holds to their conclusions is guilty of such circular reasoning.
Constantly. I'm a constant source of frustration for my brother because he says I'm always sitting on the fence. Says I never take a side. This is because I constantly try to examine why I believe the things that I do.
But, is the problem really about the circular reasoning you speak of here or is it a problem of perspective? I'm sure you know the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each came to a different conclusion because each began from a different perspective. In truth, none of them were correct in their conclusion.
Point is, everyone has a perspective from which they begin their chain of reasoning resulting in the conclusions they hold. Somewhere they begin which they assume to be true. For instance, both the atheist and theist begin from certain assumptions they hold to be true. Therefore, their conclusions concerning certain things will seem incomprehensible to the other as far as reasoning is concerned.
And, as TiG, points out, genuine debate is a great way to challenge oneself concerning what you really believe and whether or not it stands up, critically. The adverse part of debate, however, is that often, the frame of reference each argues from can be so different that nothing gets accomplished. Pretty much what happens in here constantly. In fact, especially in the political arena, I wouldn't even call it debate.
OK. We're getting somewhere...
Let's go back to the start:
You say "The left wants to claim..." but you offer no justification. I am way left. I would never even consider the proposition that "America was never great because it wasn't perfect." It's a blatant logical fallacy, conflating words that have only a distant relationship. You are accusing me of illogic. I resent it.
Later you make a "doorknob" argument. Again, an obvious logical fallacy. ("If A then B" does not justify "if B then A".) That's an error that no thoughtful person would make. When you say "the left" does such-and-such, you are saying that I do it. I resent your insult. I resent your imposition.
Strawmen are easy to debate against. It's easy to invent an argument (with fallacies) and then demolish it. These two examples are exactly that.
I doubt it.
I don't need to. All you have to do is type in "America was never great" in your search engine and note what pops up. It isn't a logical fallacy, it's easily retrieved evidence. And, how does saying so conflate anything?
I haven't accused you of anything until now. Now I will accuse you of either lying or willfully ignoring what everyone already knows is the truth.
The logical fallacy concerning the doorknobs and ice cream was the whole point! I don't know how I could make it more obvious!! It was pointing out the logical fallacy of the seed. That just because white supremacists had a certain thing in mind when they used the phrase "Make America great again" doesn't mean Trump has the same motivation for doing so. All you have done is make my point for me. Again.
Have a great life.
I'll do my best, but I'm disappointed you can't stand up for what you've written. I never accused you of illogic. I never said you specifically do the things I've talked about. That's you trying to make what I have said about you personally. So, either you are lying about what I've said or being willfully ignorant. Instead, don't make this about you and just stick to the issues, if ever we speak again.
Have a great life.
Taking about ties to the kkk, the klan dominated a democratic convention to the point it was called the klanbake. Luckily, the progressive candidate, the klan’s choice, was eventually stopped by the conservative John Davis.
Seriously, Sean?
To what period are you referring? What significance do you think remains today?
What significance do you think remains today?
as much as the seeded article.
Ah, Sean.......
I don't see any mention of the KKK.
This seed talks about the 1880s and the 1920s.
What about the KKK?
Old and irrelevant news.
In case you haven't figured it out, or simply deny the truth, the Democrat party is the original and real racist party.
Biden is as racist as they come, his history proves it
Yep, just like a black guy asking him to be VP. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo racist... /s
Yep, just like asking a black woman to be VP. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo racist... /s
Oh come on. This is dumb. These silly stories have been popping up for four years now, and it's not really about journalism or good history. It's just another disingenuous sideways attempt to paint Trump as Hitler.
There's nothing - or there shouldn't be, at least -anything unique, obscure, or "phrase"-y about "America First." It's simple language with an obvious context that doesn't have any necessary link to white supremacy.
Unless you also think all of these things have ties to the KKK:
America First Credit Union
America First (policy)
America First Investment Advisors
The KKK did not invent "America First." We really need to fight against this urge to demonize ordinary language just because some assholes in the KKK or some other group also used the language in a negative way.
Any honest observation of the Trump administration will recognize that Trump has long said he felt government should focus more on the needs of Americans and somewhat less on the needs of other countries. It's not pure isolationism, but on the political spectrum, it is a shift in that direction. It doesn't have anything to do with white supremacy.
You know you can't use facts here. It triggers to many.
The comparisons to the 'president' and Hitler are quite apt.
how desperate are Democrats?
It's the republicans who are desperate
Thought I would point out that the author of the seeded article needs to check his stuff. It's KU klux klan not kLu
"However, for many Americans, the term 'America First' will always be associated with and tainted by this history." If by many Americans you mean you and a dozen others with a severe case of TDS you are probably right.