Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. I'll probably add video notes as the piece ages and feedback comes in, but as of now I don't have anything to add here besides saying that I gave a simple overview of the emergence of the inner self in the first section of the piece. More factors contributed to it that I didn't think were appropriate to get into here, namely the emergence of technology like the printing press, which allowed people to circulate their thoughts, get educated, think for themselves. That section on the whole was mostly taken from 'The Rise And Triumph And The Modern Self' by Carl Trueman and 'Identity' by Francis Fukuyama. Of the two, Trueman goes into more depth if you're interested in learning more, but his book also approaches the subject from a decidedly Christian standpoint if that's a dealbreaker for you. - Ryan
Will you be going into more nuance in future? As its a pretty notable feature of societies and power structures in most of hisotry that identity is often used to divide and distract the people from class struggle. In recent times, we can look at neo-liberalism for the very intentional and conspicuous effort to make everyone into "individuals" and breakdown all forms of solidarity. In other words, the rich and powerful keep their money and power because the people are too busy fighting over social and cultural issues to really take it from them, ya know? I would have hoped you'd mention this, its well documented.
Exactly. Its a strategy called divide and rule. Has been around for a Millennium. Also, it a inherent feature of liberal politics which is simply a free market where groups and tribes battle for political resources and power. Its called competitive pluralism. Its designed to prevent a majoritarian political system.
This is a bit too simplistic and ignores how Power corrupts. It is more powerful than any group identity other than itself becoming a new group (the elite class) with the power to create divisions among lower classes to keep attention off themselves for generations till the entitled elites jump the shark and the people rebel. America is unique because it’s founding is new and made of a melting pot. America was founded and grew because its pioneering spirit that drew people from around the world to leave their homeland to create opportunities for themselves once called the American Dream that is currently being destroyed by the greedy elite class who’s bloated egos cause them to become so out of touch they develop god complexes thinking they know better than the People. This breeds corruption and as generations go by their corruption becomes more blatant and destructive.
I just backed your patreon, your videos are excellent and you are one of the best teachers I've ever had. I hope to see you continue making videos long into the future.
I’m from Eastern Europe, and consume American content daily, the thing which really stands out to me, and so did my friend noticed is the amount of word “community” used in American speech, and the enthusiasm to separate everyone in “communities” on different lvl. Im my daily speech in my country, we use the word community only to talk about countryside people, that a village is its own community of people separate from the main town or city. Or in other case when you talk about jobs as a synonym to “association” or “union” like “artists community/union ect”
I am an American. Born and lived throughout the Midwest. The connotation of the term "community" has changed some over years. It used to refer to people of particular districts, towns, villages and the various organizations they would maintain. The participants in the governments and civic groups; such as chambers of commerce, parent-teacher associations, home owner associations, etc., were effectively understood to be the community. There was a measure of pride that folks carried with connection to these institutions, but there wasn't overt animosity or hostility to those who were outside of these loosely defined communities. Today the term is often caboosed on a group identity adjective. Race, gender, socioeconomic "community". There is now a more separatist association. It is more "this is our group" and "you are not". I think this is more of symptom or indicator of a larger change in our society and culture; where these immutable aspects of our individual conditions have became paramount individual identity. It is not quite clear to me when and how this occurred. I suspect it has been an organic result of our instinct to find and associate ourselves with ingroups and the political expediency of galvanizing voting blocks. The rate of demographic change is also a factor. Cultural assimilation takes time. If the rate of demographic change outstrips cultural assimilation, the push on society will outmatch its pull on the individual. Hope this helps to shine some light on the use and meaning of term "community" in the US.
you are so dam lucky to live mono ethnic state. It sucks to live America. It so expensive to live here. America is house poor. It just kept get worst as immigration continues.
I think it has to a lot to do with American individualism. Nowadays everyone wants to be different more than anything while at the same time desperately wants to belong to a group of similar individuals. A paradox. Identity politics today is most of the time alienating one group from the others.
How can you not ? Human wealthy never being more rich throughout history. Survival is so easy on first world country to the point it seems pointless to think "how can i survival", thus raise another question "why i need to survival". But don't worry, a few economy down turn will crumble the wealthy and subvert all the ego thought thus once again create a new generation focus more to "build" than to "talk"
Everyone wants a dragon to slay. In this, someone has to be the dragon, and someone has to be the slayer. Their identity defines this. The problem is that, all too often, dragons are not real.
Likely because most Americans are atomized reinforced by egotistical solipsism, thinking they are supposed to consume cultures as a commodity and define themselves based on the commodities they consume including those cultures. I think they are just anthropologically, ethnographically confused.
Lotta people just want a dragon they can blame for what afflicts them personally. Too many people are easily manipulated + feel a need to identify with a group dynamic
@@RobinHerzigexactly! it’s why so many conservatives blame “radical leftists” for all the problems in this country. If they can identify a scapegoat outside of themselves then they don’t have to look inward.
I didn't click on this video for a long time, since I'm not too interested in identity politics. Considering I pretty much watched all of your other essays already, I gave this one a try. It started out pretty top notch as usual, where we discover what identity politics is. That was already good content and definitely made clicking on the video worth it. In the last five minutes, you demonstrate with concrete evidence like historical text passages and examples through comparisons (I love how you do both of those), what makes American culture so unique around the world. That was other worldly incredible. I'm a German American, who lived in both countries and France and regularly visits family in both countries. Every time you contrast America to the world or to itself, you put into words concepts, ideas or opinions about the American society that definitely increase my understanding. Most importantly though, I can directly link your content to certain experiences or phenomena like culture shocks in my own life. You say: "America is like this because of this historical development". And I remember a situation, where that exact fact about America probably influenced an experience I had and in all likelihood was responsible for at least part of the culture shock or mindset change, that I experienced. Every fucking essay. Spectacular content. In this essay in particular, I remembered a discussion I had with my aunt and uncle from America about the validity of the accusation of someone or something being un-American: I grew up in Germany and had just moved to America, I was 12 years old. The accusation had been used in a political discussion (probably on TV) and I had felt a certain emptiness towards that statement, as in: "So what if something is un-American? That doesn't necessarily make it bad? If it's good, why don't we make it American?". I asked my uncle what importance un-Americanness has or simply what it means. He immediately let me know that communism is un-American (it probably wasn't a coincidence, that that was the first thing he thought of, he is the most stereotypical optimistic American capitalist, mixed with a pinch of idealism haha. Always a pleasure to understand his perspective). "So we don't want un-American things in America", he followed. My aunt had a broader approach and explained that certain values and ideas are American, as she started listing of things like courage, bravery, honesty, hard work, freedom, all people are created equal, always doing your best, never giving up, etc. . In the first moment, I thought she was just listing good character traits in a subliminal effort to tell me how to behave. As I soon discovered, talking to more adults in the country about being American, many had an eerily similar idea of what it means to be a good American/Person (they almost always listed all of the same values). This discussion sprung up more often because much of my family was the first generation to immigrate into the US. Therefore, we occasionally talked about what it means to be American and how life is different here compared to back in the Philippines. After a while, I accepted that there existed, at least to some noticeable extent, the idea of an ideal American. That discovery was great, it provides a compass, a goal to attain. Sometimes, I think of Atticus Finch, who was described as the ideal American by my Literature teacher back in the day, "What would he do right now?". Or the juror in twelve angry men, who was the ideal juror by living up to those values, that my aunt declared intrinsically American just a few months before I read that book in class. At the same time, I realized, that an ideal of this kind, doesn't exist as thoroughly in Germany. If it does and I just happen to live in a circle of people, where I'm not confronted with it, then it is definitely not linked to national identity. Case in point: If you ask a German, what it means to be German, they will probably tell you, that it means that your parents and grandparents were German. Or that you obtained the nationality to live and work in Europe. If they become a little more philosophical, many talk about acknowledging history, to deal and to learn from it (emphasis on WW2 of course). No one ever talks about values to live by (although it might be the case, that you have to be a supporter of democracy to attain the German citizenship. I'm not sure about that). Some people might even answer: "Nothing. What do you mean, it is supposed to mean something? It's a passport. Where you're born is pure chance, there is no meaning there". I realize, I listed some more values like bravery, courage, never giving up or always doing your best, that are not explicitly listed in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. I do that because much of my family listed them. Often, they argued, these were the values, that enabled the founding fathers to gain Independence and Freedom. So although these are more values, than talked about in the video, the people, who believe these values are intrinsically American, do so because they link these values to the creation of America. So the ideal American (at least in the case of my family) is also linked to the founding of the country. Not only is it an interesting phenomenon to believe in a seemingly universally accepted ideal of a person but it is uniquely American to link that ideal of a person to the nationality that strongly. Your history lesson just made me understand how that came to be and explained some of my experience as a young teenager in America. Chapman, I fucking _feel_ your content. Thanks!
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this subject. Hang in there. I've found these ponderings on what it means to be an American can last a lifetime. I hope you can always find a way to balance the necessary criticisms with a good dose of inherent American optimism. We'll need you.
Food for thought. At a personal level I am with the idea that where we are born is down to chance, but where we actively choose to live is - mostly - a conscious decision. So in that sense, better questions to ask a German (or any other nationality) is "what gives Germany its distinctive identity?" , "what are the traits that Germany as a nation is most proud of, and encourages, in its people?"
@@mrD66M I like the question. I'd actually have to take some time to come up with an answer, as I wouldn't be sure about anything on the spot. And it's certainly a reasonable question to ask, when choosing where to live. I'm assuming though, that most of the time, many Germans would be very hesitant to answer anything at all. If they'd give an answer, it'd be a joke criticizing the current political climate, not a serious thought on the German nationality. In Germany, national pride is deemed one of the main causes that allowed nationalism to rise in the 30s. In school they teach us, that there is a reason that pride is a sin as opposed to a virtue in the Bible. If you become so proud, you lose the ability to acknowledge mistakes the entity, that you're proud of, is making, it can lead to a certain blindness that enables atrocities like the holocaust to happen. This aversion to pride and almost the fear of it, leads many Germans to refrain from making any distinctions about Germany and its people compared to the rest of the world. Hitler once made distinctions, that went horribly wrong. The belief is: There is no real benefit (compared to the real risk of nationalism) that arises from differentiating us based on nationality. So because of that, I'm assuming, many Germans would even hesitate to allow themselves to come up with a serious answer to your question. The thought itself actually already feels uncomfortable to me. That's just a cultural difference.
There was a time when Germany was similar. There were German values, German ideals, German national character and pride. Those have been actively and consciously suppressed in light of the horrors of war which they brought, as conquest and military prowess was a massive part of German pride since the early days of prussia. National pride became something dangerous, and the strongman leaders which were once seen as essential in Germany became anathema for obvious reasons.
Germans definitely have a national character and values, it's just that they're not taught directly, but absorbed by living in Germany. Americans talk much more about their values and Americannes, because of the super diverse backgrounds of it's citizens and because talking about those things reinforces the American identity. And that American identity needs to be constantly reinforced in different ways, and this is where the pledge of allegiance comes in, as does the constant displays of American flags and praising the armed forces for example. Those symbols, rites and displays are things that are common to all Americans, who otherwise have not so much in common heritage-wise. In a way being American is just an idea, a set of beliefs, and that idea and those beliefs need to be taught to each new citizen, and they need to be reinforced because if that's not done, then there's no America anymore.
Excellent video! I believe that what makes American identity unique is that, unlike other countries where identity is based on heritage and culture, in America each individual establishes their American identity by making a choice to uphold ideals.
Aaaannnd you establish the problem with american identity. There is no general american identity that unites you all if it's based on ideals, because different people have different ideals. If you try to make american identity about democracy and freedom, the moment someone disagrees with that they become non-american and the moment somebody takes away your democracy and freedom you all become non-american (it's an exageration for the sake of argument, do not take it literally I actually want to say that your nation is in constant identity crisis because the thin veil of ideals shifts everytime). Moreover having people define their own individual identity based on ideals is not very uniting, noone will have your exact set of ideals, you call yourselves americans but there is nothing generally american about you.
@@madalinaanton3253 This is not a bug, it's a feature. The ideals that define an American are not subject to the whims of the individual, they are clearly defined in our foundational document: the Declaration of Independence. This is the basis for a truly free society; if you agree with our ideals, you can become one of us. Conversely, if you disagree with the ideals that define us, you can no longer claim to be an American. It's based on choice, not on heritage. As mentioned in the video, we can disagree on whether certain actions support or defy those ideals, but the ideals themselves are not a shifting thin veil.
@@sambolino44 agreed. The constitution is an amazing document, and our country has created more freedom for more people than any country in history. Our country isn't perfect, but people are still coming here in droves. Must be a reason.
@@madalinaanton3253 aaand American is capitalized. There's so much you're not getting. Inclusivity is hard work. It takes patience and empathy. You have some work ahead of you.
This was a phenomenal essay. Rarely do I end a video and feel the need to sit back and ruminate. With yours, I need to pencil in time at the end. I hope this is a topic you consider diving into more. I would be interested to hear more of your analyses.
I disagree with the point that ancient people didn't have time or space for identity beyond the social hierarchy. Eastern philosophical traditions, especially Indian philosophical traditions have focused especially on the self, to be specific, the Self.
I think they did but reading/writing wasn't very common for your average person, not to mention the internet to post it on for all to see... Ryan is experiencing confirmation bias
I agree! And ancient stoics are always talking about the self and self-mastery, self improvement in spite of hierarchy, etc Also one of the Roman emperors is famous for saying repeatedly that in spite of being treated as a man, he was really a woman
Yeah that statement he made seemed too broad generalized and probably inaccurate. Does he know how many societies throughout human history? I suspect there was at least some self identity seeking going on or some societies that left some room for that.
What'chu talking about, individuality & democracy got invented by the Founding Fathers 300 years ago, when every man, woman & slave got the right to vote! Are you a commie or something? /s
Ryan , you do a wonderful job of clarifying these issues. I've noticed that you have evolved and are so much more confident and professional in your presentation and your delivery is really excellent. TIs a really valuable and enlightening channel. . THAnks
@@The_king567other nations did not conduct slavery BOTH as recently and to the industrial scale that america did. It's going to take time and understanding to move society past it.
They only divide us if we let them. We are much more united than divided, but people in the political, academic, and media world, who benefit from grievance politics, will try to change that constantly.
Individualism under freedom and liberty is the best system. It only becomes a problem when ‘government’ steps in (where it doesn’t belong) and tries to play ‘fairness good’ according to only a portion of the population’s definition of ‘fair’. If government stays out of individual private sector lives almost all polarizations and divisions will disappear. Why? Because then there will be no ‘preferential treatment’ benefit from government to fight to control….
Ryan, another fine presentation on a pressing and timely topic. Your videos consistently offer thoughtful coverage of important subjects with a scholarly and dispassionate approach that is well supported with credible references and citations. Well done! In reflecting on your remarks about America's founding principles serving as a looking glass into our current social tensions, I am reminded of the iconic Latin phrase, "e pluribus unum" --- of many, one. The American experiment is an extraordinary attempt to create a single unified nation from a collection of multi-national people. Our amazingly diverse heritage as individuals offers a richness of differing perspectives --- as well as a set of significant challenges to maintain a single country composed of a multi-ethnic population. Throughout our relatively brief national history, America's best and most cohesive moments are when we focus on where we all came TO, rather than where we came from. Our finest hours are when we acknowledge we are enriched by being Americans --- and not diminished as individuals because we or our family came from somewhere else. The American character shines best when our beliefs and conduct truly cherish and celebrate our national identity.
_“This is the only country in the world," said Wednesday, into the stillness, "that worries about what it is."_ _"What?"_ _"The rest of them know what they are. No one ever needs to go searching for the heart of Norway. Or looks for the soul of Mozambique. They know what they are.”_ - *From Neil Gaiman's **_American Gods._*
You can't become Norwegian or Japanese but you can become American by adopting a philosophy. Other countries are defined by ethnicity, not philosophy, so inevitably Americans need to think about what that philosophy is.
I would argue America isn't the only country that faces this strong identity politic situation. I see most countries in Africa also suffer from this. As most of the borders in the continent don't coincide with the regional groups. South Africa, Congo, and Morroco are great examples of this. The boundaries of these political states encompass and join groups which natural see themselves as different but are still unified under one political name, and in majority identify with the political name. In this factor America is not that unique. It's more honest to say, the situation is only more present on the global stage because of America's influence. If America wasn't as influential as it was, it's identity politics wouldn't be anymore unique then the ones seen prominently in Africa.
The African continent is linguistically and ethnically diverse, with many of them developing for thousands of years in those areas. It’s very different, I would go as far as to say north to South Africa is a bigger difference than Europe and the Indian subcontinent.
He didn't say America is the only country that has strong identity politics problems. He said that the identity politics in the US are _unique_ because American identity is founded on political values rather than language, religion, culture and history. Their identity politics are based on interpreting their founding values. And this is not the case for any other country. Identity politics on much of the African continent (India as well, I believe) are largely a result of post-colonial map drawing being ridiculous and completely ignoring existing cultures. This is an interesting topic, but not relevant to this video at all.
That's completely different. The reason many countries of Africa are so diverse AND combative internally is because of colonial borders. Colonialism is easier when the groups in your colony are bickering among themselves rather than united against you, that's why it's often better to include historically rival ethnic groups in a colony whereas that'd be a terrible idea for a country. Colonial overlords also often inflame existing ethnic tensions to make them even easier to control. I'm pretty sure the Rwanda genocide happened because the Belgians empowered a minority group (that minority group more likely to stay loyal to keep their power against the majority) and when the Belgians left, the majority took revenge for years of injustice. America is a different story. The Native Americans are a separate story in this, but unfortunately as they are like 1% of the US population, they don't really affect these ethnic dynamics that much. Africans were also a different story given they were obviously brought in chains, but the situation improved after a horrifically long time and there's no "we are Africans, we want separate laws, autonomy etc" like within African countries, African-Americans still see their separate identity from white Americans, but their identity is American first, then African-American rather than for example Oromo first, Ethiopian second. The other groups who came to the US, did so because they saw a better life in the New World and many of them adopted parts of the Protestant British descendant traits whilst still retaining many of their roots.
Love your channel, Ryan! Love all of the videos you’ve made so far - they are smart, fair, and entertaining. Just wish you released more of them, more often.
He's one man, and his eloquent breakdowns of complex topics are unparalleled in quality on RUclips. I'd rather him do as he does, than pressure himself to work faster.
It was a complement and not a complaint. I understand how much work must go into making his videos. I’d love to see more of them… because they’re good. No rush, though.
loved the video! im learning that we need to embrace having conversations about identity in america, but so many people label it as political so they dont want to even talk about. identity in america is our culture.
It was made political by immediately associating someone to a party depending on their stance on the subject. Not to mention it has also bled into politics itself.
I love how clearly-stated and organized the content in these videos are. Even if you already know all of this stuff, it's helpful to take it in, as it kind of better arranges the relationships of the various factors mentally; like defragging your computer or something.
It is ironic that so much of the rhetoric surrounding "identity politics," which, as you pointed out, is supposed to be concerned with the INNER self, is focused almost exclusively on race - and on skin color in particular, which is an OUTER characteristic. We Americans do try to link physical appearance to ethnic culture, but it's not always as simple as that. People of the same nationality - even if they are "natives" of their land - can look different from each other. For example, Ireland, which is the country to which I can trace both my mother's and my father's ancestries, is home to both pale Irish people and swarthy Irish people, with different skin shadings in between. But identity politics should not be concerned with just race. We also need to examine religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, and attitudes on cultural issues, which divide us just as much.
Intersectionality is a concept that already addresses this issue and has been discussed at length for over a decade. Just because you didn’t put in the work to actually research doesn’t mean no one else has thought of it.
@@Nanajsiuz “Intersectionality” another topic Ryan can raise. But OP still has a real point since not everyone in the world lives like America (especially in history) and me as someone who isn’t “white” and not from there I can hardly relate to the ideology. And also, the human experience is far more nuanced than what this ideology presents. Like this ideology has a lot of holes especially on the race issue because it treats certain people like a monolith. A black person living in the hood in Chicago might not relate to someone like Kanye West (and especially with his mentality ironically on a certain ethnic group), as an example.
It's largely concerned with race because the US, and the Americas in general, during and after settlement by Europeans, were created to be racist, white supremacist countries. This was a big mismatch between the ideals of American liberalism as expressed in the DOI, and the facts of the Constitution and laws, which were explicitly racist and patriarchal. It was this way, at least until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but still continued, requiring additional laws to make racist practices illegal. The nation built up the edifice of racism from even before 1776, and perpetuated it nearly 200 years. That was the main form of "identity politics," backed by state power, by the police and soldiers, by most of the lawmakers, and many of the laws. It was extended to the places the US went to war. So this new identity politics of the late 20th and early 21st century is a response to that. We still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment for women.
@@johnkawakami8395 I try telling people (mostly white people) just that, that identity politics have always existed, and the modern Left is not responsible for creating them. They respond by saying things like "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "Get over it."
@@SeasideDetective2 OMG, that's hilarious. Sad, terrible, and hilarious. Also, many on the Left hate identity politics. They don't want to deal with it. They say stuff like, "race doesn't really exist", and "it's really a class issue." (Yes, they are mostly white people, but some are POC.)
Idk how this video doesn’t have a million views. Recently found your channel and really enjoy your videos! Definitely not casual listening & I love that.
I just breathed! Whew! Thank you SOOO much!!! Now I'm gonna have a good cry and sleeeeep! Can't wait to watch all of your videos! 3 times each!!! Sharing too.💜💜💜
I remember reading an article by a professor in the Guardian where she mentioned that such deep-rooted identity politics is one of the symptoms of a civil war. Abandoning ideology over identity is a bad sign.
Thankyou Ryan! I’ve got in the habit of testing my thinking about this kind of subject by checking out if you’ve made a video about it! Very clear, careful and sophisticated thinking … and you slog through the necessary research which I don’t have the time for right now bravo! Alex ( in the UK)
I think the Canada comparison is super interesting. Something I notice in Canada, despite it ostensibly being similar to the US in terms of a civic, rather than ethnic identity, is that people really do care less. It's sometimes seen as "weird" in Canada to be too invested in politics, and many Canadians just view their country as being "different from America," and that's just the basis of the country's identity. Only in Quebec is national identity truly distinct, and more in line with how identity is thought of in Europe, and this idea makes Canadians really uncomfortable.
Too spread out, too mixed of people, not enough history to merge the peoples together into a unified culture, plus a culture of accepting that everyone has their own ethnic and culture backgrounds, compared to American's "you have to become more Americanized to be a part of America". Also, a small power on the international stage despite huge size, so no need nor power to strongly assert itself in its uniqueness (Am Canadian ;)
@@Blinky.Catttt dunno when I hear the treatment of Chinese immigrants during the gold rush in both countries' Western regions, I do feel their racial attitudes might be a lot similar.
I’m Canadian and in my experience, there isn’t as much of a Canadian cultural identity as there is an American one. I grew up around a fair number of kids whose parents were immigrants and their cultural identity is more tied to the country their family is from rather than being Canadian. It’s very interesting for sure.
@@Blinky.CattttI agree and disagree Canadians may have a hard time with their identity but I think one thing has always prevailed even with the lack of history, is that we will fight for what we believe is right in particular the oppressed.
In elementary school, after the reciting the pledge of allegiance we would also follow it with the two lines froM the Declaration of Independence you mentioned. I totally forgot that I could recite it word for word. In grade school I would recite it blindly and not truly understand the meaning. But now I can truly appreciate the power of these words relating to the identity of America and it’s values.
@@Astuar It's a pledge to the American flag recited every day in every American public school. Texas even has it's own state pledge that is recited after the American pledge. The latter blew my mind when I was a kid and moved to Texas from another state
@@Astuar I was taught the pledge at age 4. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I stopped saying it around 6th grade because it felt too weird.
I watch a lot of RUclips and stumbled on your channel somehow tonight. Ran through at least ten videos this evening. It was truly hard to stop watching. You've somehow managed to produce highly nuanced fair yet explicit synopses on a broad variety of modern social and political theorem. You seem naturally gifted and quite masterful in your calm and moderated distillation of these highly complex and controversial issues. Sub +1 well earned. I look forward to future videos.
I think that much of the division comes from people's reluctance to accept that we don't always get everything exactly the way we'd like. There is no guarantee that we will never be offended. Living in a country with 330 million individuals - each with their own beliefs and preferences - it's a miracle that we manage to keep it together at all...but we do. We exchange value with one another. We move through our lives interacting - or choosing not to interact - but examples of peaceful coexistence far outweigh the conflict. We just focus on the conflict more.
Advocating for one’s needs and preferences even when those needs and preferences are specific to an identity does not need to cause conflict. Conflict only arises when those needs and preferences are explicitly ignored. Building a society where everyone can coexist requires the acknowledgment of people have different needs and working to at least compromise towards them.
@@DevilishDeviBut that’s not how America works, has ever worked, or will ever work. For a society to function like that, people need to be homogeneous. America has always been tremendously diverse, thus will always be divided. People are not going to advocate for something that has nothing to do with them. Causing conflicts based the result of being ignored has only made people more opposed to certain movements from what I can see. They sink themselves because they have no understanding of the diversity of American Culture and lifestyle.
@@DevilishDevi You have a point but you should not ignore that the way this groups are claiming their identity is not the correct one. They can not impose the same rules that were used against them. Here is the point of conflict. Name it C.R.T. OR G.I. There must be another approached than only hate.
@@DevilishDevi Except the problem is that those needs and preferences are often mutually exclusive. For example, Alice thinks that you should use pronouns on the basis of biological sex, and prefers that she isn't forced to talk about people in a particular way, that she views as representing a certain point of view she doesn't think is accurate. Bob is a trans person who prefers a particular set of pronouns. You must either force Alice to talk about Bob a certain way (raising an issue of compelled speech under the 1st Amendment), or Bob must live with someone discussing them in a way that isn't to their preference. These two desires are inherently in tension. There is no need for anyone to be ignoring any need or preference in order for this tension to exist. Alice can acknowledge both Bob's preference and her own. If you just mean that Alice is ignoring Bob's preference by not simply adopting Bob's preference, then you're just choosing to prefer Bob's preferences over Alice's. It is entirely possible for Alice and Bob to continue to coexist without any compromise on the issue. It is possible for Alice to go about her day while referring to Bob in a certain way, and it is possible for Bob to think Alice is a jerk and for them to both exist in the same space.
I recently discovered your channel. I love the research driven impartial logic behind your analyses. Looking forward to more content from you. Keep up the good work!
Im from Spain and here be called antispanish is relatively common, left wing usually dont use country simbols how the flag or the own country name for be considered far right, they said "this country" instead of Spain. In the other hand far right and centralist conservative nacionalist and some liberals call "antispain" to the far left and local nacionalistic separatist groups present in catalonia and vasque country. Also femminist and LGBTIQ+ and pro inmigrants identity groups are VERY prominent in spanish political discourse, in fight against far right populist voices in VOX party. Today political polarization in Spain are very similar to the USA one, talk about a new 1936 Civil War or an antispanish separatist coup is very very habitual.
Hi Ryan, I am your fan from Singapore, all the way from the other side of the globe. I have also been fascinated with all that is going on in the west, and I we Asians often find a lot of things incomprehensible. Your videos have helped me to understand a lot of things, and they are a beacon of light in the midst of radical voices from both the left and the right. Neutral, objective and without political or partisan inclinations, this is how I feel we should all learn to talk about politics. I would watch your videos twice, once to just get a general idea of things, and the second time I would actually take notes. Initially I would just use the transcript function to take notes, but listening to your voice is actually so great that I don't mind watching your videos bit by bit as I take notes.
I'm an American and I feel the same as you. Our loudest voices from US are often our craziest ones and the ones that get exported internationally that you all hear. Most of us are not like that. Ryan captures the sentiment of most Americans in an unbiased and clear way. He definitely accurately portrays what most of us (the sane non-crazy ones) think
You started strong and are improving. Some of the new graphics you're using are great and more approachable. I know it's likely more effort but it might be necessary to reach more people. Love the content!
I absolutely love what you do. Your narrative voice is so powerful yet calm and reasoned. I actually referenced you in one of my videos (The Populist Lie in 3D Printing). Thank you for your work!
So much conflict that exists appears to me to be based upon identity groups. I see value in examining the subject dispassionately as you do. Thank you for sharing.
I agree there is too much hostility around identity. Its pretty gross that racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and various religious fundamentalist based bigotry still exist in modern America. I mean, how many Dylan Roof and Nicholas Cruz attacks on blacks and LGBTQ have to happen before everyday people understand that the difference between leftist identity politics and right wing identity politics are not morally equal? When one side is fighting to suppress the rights of people with particular identities and the other side is fighting to protect those rights, the side trying to suppress rights is the side that needs to be corrected.
Fantastic video essay, i think you hit the nail on the head here, the lack of a national identity is in a sense the root of the problem and what this fighting is all about, establishing a national identity and people have different thoughts and ideas and even feelings towards it. I never once thought about it to be honest, but im a Swede and i consider myself a Swede just as almost everyone else in my country.
The problem with building a national identity now is how do you do that? Most places driven by culture have a thousand years or more in a time before the industrial revolution. I feel like the industrial revolution changed the game entirely because the world is changing at such a dramatic pace we can't keep up with technology and therefore any semblance of commonality is gone between generations and even a few years.
@@JayFlowie There's another component that you forget: immigration. Had America been the land of those initial settlers that rebelled against Great Britain it would be a sufficient foundation myth to constitute a nation akin to those on the old continent. However, the vast majority of people in America today descent from later immigrants that have nothing to do with the rebels. Increasingly they come from cultures thatvare very different to England. To include them in their identity America needs to constantly dilute it making things even more fragile.
Excellent commentary as usual, Ryan! I would add one more element to explain the intensification of identity politics in America today, and that is the demographic shift. In 2020, non-white outnumbered white kindergarteners in America for the first time. Today's 6-21-year-olds are projected to become majority nonwhite in 2026, according to a 2018 Census Bureau projection. I'm a mixed race US citizen born in the 50's, and grew up hearing America described as a "white man's country." Some of my male classmates looked forward to being "free, white and 21." Public education, movies and TV shows all reflected that demographic reality. And while the vast majority of my generation supported civil rights, in those years that meant desegregating schools, lunch counters, public buildings and transportation. Today, those accomplishments are far behind us, and the push is for cultural and epistemic equality (not to say that civil equality is fully realized). That is, minorities that in the aggregate will soon outnumber whites are challenging the American identity itself, including how we understand our own history. This has generated a new energy in woke leftist agitation, and white supremacist retrenchment on the right.
The inherent vagueness in the wording of the Constitution is at the core of many political battles today, but you could argue that vagueness is why the American ideal can still be relevant after 250 years and still be able to afford these political battles. Imagine any other country's "traditions" as a stone beam, which cannot be bent and cannot be broken, it is there as a foundation for the country's culture and it holds it all together. America is instead founded on something like a metaphorical steel beam: it's strong and sturdy, but it bends under pressure because no matter the pressure, it can withstand it all. The United States' political ideal is why so many people can interpret the words of the contitution so wildly different from one another: it's a system made specifically to sustain the changing of the times, for all people to indentify themselves with, 250 years ago or now.
Fantastic work, as usual, calm-headed, reasonable, rational, and that is part of what brought me to your channel. One of the things you touched on but left is the recognition of Marxist-rooted social theories fueling a tremendous amount of identity political discourse that we instinctually recognize as, "un-American." CRT, to lump its adherents into a semi-meaningful monolith, is designed with the purpose of race division -- division -- and we know intuitively that is anti-American. We've fought tor decades for a noble equality that has been bastardized by grifters into equity, while they rely on a psychological game that allows them to curse opponents as racist no matter how pure their intentions and desired outcomes. We have defined what it is to be American, now it is time to deny power to what is not. Thank you again for your wonderful work.
New idea: 10/10. It takes a lot of discipline to aim towards the final paradox here (that we only share a creedal identify and that the intensity of our differing creedal interpretations give a sharp edge to our politics). There are so many byways, which you wisely avoided, and literally waved us away when you arrived at the paradox. Kudos! New hair: 10/10. Flaunt it while you got it. New background music: 5/10. Nothing wrong with music for speech per se. It could have been introduced earlier, though, and the tone is disconcertingly ominous.
I should say I am old and find the history of this idea fascinating. The notion of a creedal identify seemed to be articulated first by cold-war liberals. Then after Vietnam and the civil rights movement, the liberals seemed to give up on it, and then the conservatives picked up on it. But those conservatives faded and the new populist/nativists want a thicker identify than any creed can provide. So now you come along and make it almost dialectical in a clever attempt to explain identify politics. The wheel just keeps on turning...
So if you base your national identity on political beliefs, and politics become divided, your national identity disintegrates. Seems politics alone aren't really enough to unite a county in the long run.
As one of the longest running continuous democracies despite being so large and diverse I'd say it shows just how strong ideals can be in uniting people
@@dannylive3000 'one of', yes. Also probably the most resistant to necessary reform, which is Really showing its effects at this point. But i'd aruge that it's less a matter of strong ideals uniting people, and more a matter of scale and inertia (not to mention a political and economic system actively designed to suppress the ability of all but the wealthiest citizens from actually having any meaningful effect not in line with what the wealthy elite already want, at least in any but the most extreme circumstances) making any change, positive or negative, very difficult.
@@laurencefraser I mean to pretend has though American Political economy, Institutional structure, demographic makeup and even wealth distribution haven't undergone radical shifts over the course of it's history is incredibly delusional. And im a leftist, but this tendency to hold on to this belief that nothing has changed and nothing can change is utterly asinine and very far from reality. The pretention under some profound vail of "true critique" falls apart by literally opening a history textbook even one written by a leftist like Howard zinn or Noam Chomsky should he write one. More than inertia hold this country together and it is that very fact of the ideological commitment that serves as the basis for the reformations this country undergoes over and over again.
12:40 I think what a lot of Americans misunderstand today is that statement in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…” is actually a denouncement of monarchy. Remember, the American Revolution was revolting against the tyranny of the British Crown and Parliament which was heavily influenced by the Crown and the Nobility. The whole justification for monarchy at that time was that some families (royals and nobles) were “high-born” and everyone else was “low-born”. That’s why people who talk to the King or Queen refer to them as “Your Highness” and people who talk to Dukes/Duchesses, Lords/Ladies and Counts/Countesses refer to them as “Your Grace”. This was based on the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, meaning that the monarch and his/her family were appointed to rule the country by God himself and if the monarch gave a title of Nobility to someone it automatically put them more into the grace of God than the commoners. That’s why the British Monarch even to this day is the head of the Church of England. The American Revolution as well as the French Revolution were heavily influenced by Enlightenment principles which concluded that it was foolish to think that someone can be born into a position of power and privilege. This is why we believe all men [people] are equal in America, because our leaders have to earn their positions. There are improvements that need to be made of course and the system can be cheated; no system is perfect.
"All men are created equal..." "excuse me teacher, didn't they have slaves in the US back then?" Every single year my lesson about the declaration of independence spans this way. The cognitive dissonance is too great even for Italian teenagers not to be spotted immediately.
I think the takeaway here is that the document was defining an identity to aspire toward. Is it perfect and are there flaws, yes, but one might argue that it is a system many societies aspire toward.
Well okay, with Luther, it certainly wasn't just about ritual performance vs internal identification. At least not without a firm focus on "what must I do to be saved?". But, it's really interesting looking at how this kind of counter-authority can work its way out in culture.
I would say it's a little unjust to single out Luther as the father of "individualism" within Christianity. Free will for example has been part of Church teachings at least since Aquinas. I think the impossibility to force faith was also outlined by one of the early Church scholars, but I can't find that now.
Some very thoughtful questions raised in this video. I wish people would reason through a problem in the calm manner you use instead of “who can shout the loudest wins”.
Thank you. That was an excellent explanation on American identity. I am interested in this topic because I am an American living in Canada. One of the aspects of Canadian identity that I have learned is that Canada thinks of itself as multicultural. Many immigrants to Canada have a hyphenated national identity because of this. Another part of the Canadian identity is that Canadians are not American. This fact, although clearly true, is why Canadians usually display a Canadian flag on their backpacks or their bodies while travelling internationally. I have found that I have become allergic to the tribalism associated with national identity. So much so, that I will probably never become a Canadian citizen. I find this internal contradiction amusing and concerning. However, the values of the Canadian identity make it technically possible, but morally impossible to be an American-Canadian.
Theodore Roosevelt railed against "hyphenated Americans" IIRC saying if one identifies as an Irish-American, German-American, they're not true Americans and a security risk (IIRC this was after he lost the presidency and around WW1). German-American identity got obliterated during and after WW1 where it went from the biggest group in America not from an Anglophone background (about 10 million) to being almost invisible after WW2.
Only progressive Liberals consider Canada to be successfully multi-cultural. In truth is has been an abject disaster and simply doesn't work. One only has to look at Vancouver to see that multi-culturalism is a ruse. The suburbs of Vancouver have become balkanized ethno-cities where Richmond is predominantly Asian, Surrey is predominantly East Asian and North Vancouver is Persian/Iranian.
Thanks this is a excellent analysis. For a while I have been trying to understand the fast rise in identity politics in the UK. Perhaps not as extreme or visible as the states but it is very much effecting politicians social life. You have made it very clear that perhaps the conflict here is that in Britain we do have a distinct cultural identity outside of politics and this is largely the acceptance of democracy alongside the liberal values of fairness and acceptance. The UK is very accepting but also we have a long history across thousands of years, we do seem to know who we are - but identity politics clashes with this in that that ‘knowing who we are’ is attacked by groups who say it is wrong and oppressive. So people may make very reasonable statements about having a legal a fair immigration system - but are then shouted down as being bigots, when really they are showing the values of decency and acceptance whilst knowing this has to live in an organised and fair framework that works for everyone. Hence why immigration is such a hot topic here, very liberal and reasonable people are attacked for having what really are the common understanding of how a fair country should be organised - then sides are polarised and extremism creeps in.
I read your comment and I have always loved England and its history and people I wish someone would stand up to the immigration problem that you are facing. If you come to England you live by its rules and laws you don’t bring sharia law with you you leave it the country you came from. Muslims have RUINED the great country of England. Greetings from Philadelphia and I pray your people will wake up before losing your country
“I m not bound to win, but I am bound to be true, I m not bound to succeed, but I m bound to live up to what light I have.” just this quote hit me and become my guild from my US history class in high school.
This is why I think the US should reinstate the old motto: E Pluribus Unum. It carries so much power and perfectly encapsulates the ideal of America. Great video yet again.
Too bad that was superseded by In God We Trust. Letting us know it's really top-down here, so respect the hierarchies. Then they said money = speech + put theocrats in charge of justice
@@RobinHerzig it is a violation of the establishment clause. It is also similar to Gott mit uns God with Us which was used by The German Empire and the Third Reich. It was used in West Germany then dropped. It is derived from the Bible but undeniably used as an imperialist slogan.
@@matthewkopp2391 Actually it's an Eisenhower era / Joe McCarthy cold war construct In god we trust = we hate commies + we're leaning in on theocracy (Billy Graham / evangelical fundamentalists started burrowing in with deep pockets + deep sway)
That was an excellent and insightful video. America is a work in progress and always will be. Fortunately, this country is dynamic, we tend to make changes quickly.
Ryan, have you ever thought of side-stepping your primary topics for a moment and sharing an adoptable framework for researching, formulating, and presenting ideas so clearly? I’ve heard you say you’re “just a guy who can read and understand what he reads” or something similar, but you have the process down to a science it seems. You’re brilliant. We’d love to learn about your process. But keep the regular stuff coming too. 👏🏼
Bro, I've been perplexed by the idea of American identity for months now. I've been speaking about it to anyone who'll listen, because I'm trying to mull over this reoccuring thought in my head. "What is our identity, and how do we come together?" Then you put out this video. Not to sound corny, but I feel like every time you release a video, you're attempting to answer a question that I'm also, thinking about adamantly. What's curious, is how do we keep coming to the same conclusions? I really love your content. I look forward to watching your videos several times over as they drop. I'm also, really glad to hear a kindred mind. Rarely, do I hear my own thoughts spoken back to me, by another person. Your content is so rare. Please, keep doing what you're doing.
It seems complex, but it can be simple: ethnic Diversity leads to conflict. This conflict serves as a divide and conquer method for the powers that be.
My first thought when I hear someone say what I am thinking is, "what do others have to say about it?" I am aware of the problem of confirmation bias, and trying to find opposing ideas can help me understand if I should be accepting of this confirmation or re-examining my ideas.
I truly believe that our species could still thrive if we apply compassion and rationality relentlessly. America is not the world. The world is not America. It seems to me that every nation props up broken structures based on prehistoric behavior. May it be well with us all. ✌️😎❤️
8:16 The rather obvious point that nationalism is merely another form of tribalism is illustrated by Woodrow Wilson’s quote. Wilson asks individuals to leave some group identities aside in order to be a part of another group identity. Every single person consciously or unconsciously is part of a myriad of groups all the time. Most often our family is our first group. Tribal/group behavior is seemingly such ancient human instinct that feels intuitively so correct that it often goes unnoticed.
I appreciate your optimism at the end. Some days it does feel like things are falling apart, but you're right in that it may just be the underlying American values at work amongst our citizens.
This video is pretty moving to watch, honestly. The highlight is when you say "America is coming alive." I prefer that interpretation. It's hopeful instead of spewing more negativity. On the other hand, I think we'll always be trapped by the premise of "freedom" and "equality." While I can't define equality in a way that I would feel comfortable with, I don't believe that freedom even exists. Every bit of reality right now seems like conditioning rather than a choice. Every voice seems to be saying "do what I tell you to do, feel how I tell you to feel." Everything has an agenda. It's exhausting.
I'm a Swede spending a lot of time on the internet, in discussion groups, making American friends, etc, and something I've noticed is that although Swedish culture is not extremely different from American culture (it's both "western cultures"), we aren't as divided over such a huge land mass. Because basically I see a lot of division among Americans that I don't see in my own country. First off it's the division between states. A Texan can be extremely different in culture from an Alaskan, for example. Even the climate (weather, seasons, etc) can be extremely different from one state to another, and I'm sure this too affects culture. I don't see America as just one culture, but a lot of cultures trying but failing to get along. Then there's the political stuff as you say, a lot of black and white thinking, republican vs democrat, and very little solidarity between the two sides. Sure, leftist and right wing Swedes love to hate each other too, but often times, away from the debates, we get along, and there's recognized nuance in-between, with several, ever-changing political parties. Then there's also the relationship to nationalism being more complicated in America, those proud of their country vs those hating the very idea of nationalism because of the arguably very bloody history America has with conquering, slavery, which may question whether to be proud or ashamed. I think a lot of this... eh, identity crisis, that America has probably comes from that their country and national identity is so much newer than basically any other nation in the world. You don't have thousands of years of history to build an identity from. Only really the natives, which we all know haven't been given much of that liberty America is supposedly built on, until recently. Of course I don't blame modern Americans for what their great grandfathers did (so I'll stop hinting at the bloodshed now) but the point is that modern Americans who are not natives have no ancestry connected to their land. Modern America didn't exist before it was conquered back in the 1500's or when was it (it was a completely different nation prior to that) while Sweden as a nation has existed for probably thousands of years. There's history dating back to ancient times here, rune stones, cave paintings, bronze age jewellery, etc, all connecting to modern day Swedes. We have ancestors connected to this land. Thousand years old buildings still standing to this day. I'm not great at history, I don't actually know when the first settlers came to what then later became Sweden, but I think it was sometime shortly after the ice age. So basically we've had thousands of years to build a nationality organically, which many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and I think also South America, also did, while (North) Americans instead had to essentially create a nationality just a few hundred years ago. And I bet that would logically cause a national identity crisis at some point or another. Although I think there are other factors too, because America is not the only nation obsessed with identity politics. For that, I would honestly blame the industrialization, making people less focused on pure survival and having more time to get anxious about who we are internally, while robots are doing all the work for us.
Identity politics is pushed into the vacuum left by all meaningfull issues being off the table. Policy is decided amongst the 0.1% & the masses have to be given something else to engage with.
We fight over culture because its easier to do than trusting each other, banding together and building a better world by taking on Big Powers. In a sense our modern capitalistic failures reflect our laziness, addiction and slave mentalities.
That's a powerful statement, "The values that unite us, also divide us.". It's extremely profound and I'll be contemplating that for awhile. Good stuff. 17:21
I believe this analysis could be spot on, if it weren't for one single, odious philosophy that seeks to undermine even the "American values" you say are inalienable in our society, and that is Critical Theory. Critical Theory subverts every American (and Western) value, such as individualism, rationalism, and even logic! I would love to see you do a video exploring the rabbit hole tracing Critical Race Theory to Critical Theory to Conflict Theory, all the way back to Marxism and it's class warfare, eventually refurbished as what we today call identity politics. It's a fascinating journey, which helps put a lot of our political struggles today into perspective.
Great timing for this video as I am listening to Benjamin Franklin- An American Life on audible, and now trying to understand what makes us American (USA), and how much of that developed during those years leading up to the Declaration of Independence, and although so much has changed in 250 years, those essential values about individuality, equality and liberty remain.
Uhh, China is certainly *NOT* Communist, or even Socialist. They can give themself such a name, but it doesn't change the reality that they are just as Capitalist as North Korea, USA, Japan, and other countries. First rule of politics: Political bias is never avoidable.
Thanks for pointing this out, this also bothered me because he said it so straight-forwardly that the "Chinese are united by a political belief in Communism" which in my experience (as someone who lived in the country for ten years) is not true at all. Chinese are way more united by a shared and ancient history and traditions that have exited throughout all shifts in political regimes, and they are far more market-based and capitalist in mentality, than Communist. To me, it's as absurd as saying "Russians are united by Communism" because they had the Soviet Union for some decades.
I'm curious how you would consider North Korea to be capitalist? As to China, they are socialist who use fascistic capitalism to create wealth. Socialist any way you slice it.
I was listening to a similar conversation on a podcast called the Thomas Jefferson Hour recently (do you know it?), and the guest, Joseph Ellis, identified an interesting feature of our current cultural conflict. He said that, on both sides of the debate, groups have given into a kind of pre-Enlightenment medieval thinking that attempts to use some sort of force in lieu of rhetorical persuasion to achieve its political goals. You can see this with a particular type of overzealous intersectionality on the cultural Left and an embracing of strong-man demagoguery and anti-democratic sentiment on the reactionary Right. As someone who leans Left, I see the threat on the Right as more dangerous, and I do think there's an objective case to be made for that given its violent nature and increasing hostility towards democracy itself. But, both are dangerous in the sense that they're both a divergence from the Liberal tradition of pluralism and individuality that you mention.
The two party system probably doesn’t help either. News organisations are increasingly catering to only “their” side of the conversation. It feels like the world around us is constantly asking what side are you on.
During the pandemic I heard the term "cult of individualism". Even though it's an obvious oxymoron, they said it seriously. Not everyone believes in individuality. They believe individualality is a social construct, an illusion.
Or at the least they believe that individualism should be subservient to a group or collective to an extent. It's like yes of course we believe in individual rights...up to a point. Then we don't. And usually that is justified on the basis of "harm". Which is now extremely subjective
@@AshPooh frankly, if you let society become overly individualistic, it ceases to function meaningfully and you lose the benefits of having a society and government. The USA and to a lesser extent much of the English speaking west, is running into this issue to a degree. There is no ability to just tell the malicious idiots to go jump in a lake and stop ruining everything for the rest of us (and, often enough, for themselves in the long term), just to start with, which rappidly leads to the undermining and destruction of infrastructure and institutions necessary for the common good. Which is to say, it actively gets in the way of the ideals of liberalism. On the other hand, if you permit (or force) society become overly collectivist, if the society as a whole, and it's structures, don't account for and act on behalf of the individuals that make up that society... well, history is rife with examples of That failure state and its consequences. Necessary reform becomes impossible, for one. Fundamentally, trying to push for one to the exclusion of the other will lead to failure. One must balance them against each other in every instance of every matter that arrises. A single inflexible rule will always lead to forced bad decisions. Mind you, I'm not sure a perfect balance is ever possible. Things change constantly, after all.
Instead of a "melting pot," I've heard it said that the popular strategy up here in Canada is the "quilt." Basically, modern Canadian identity is built primarily around being welcoming of all, and accepting people's cultural differences (ironic considering our founders' desires). This is primarily due to the nation's relatively tiny population compared to its landmass and wealth, making it ideal for immigration. And since economically Canada relies heavily on immigrants to bolster its workforce, those in power are more then happy to ensure such a cultural identity of tolerance and hospitality is maintained. Interestingly enough, this identity of polite acceptance leads to Canadians being quite intolerant of those who behave in impolite, unaccepting ways. When the "freedom convoy" barged in and disrupted the nation by locking down important roads, the majority of Canadians were reportedly in favour of using the military to remove them. This has been the case for previous crises as well. The desire to maintain a veneer of polite acceptance through any means necessary has lead some to worry that, should Canada's values of open-mindedness change, the country could get very fascist very fast.
Found Mr Ryan today at work...no, not i n the desk, on RUclips. Excellent content, good voice, great content, awesome background music. I am a RUclips user de facto, its so nice when creators like this just drop down onto once desk👍
Interesting analysis, as usual. I thought you did a good job of making a contrast between two aspects of being or experiencing human life - - idealism and tribalism. The ability to form ideas and ideals is clearly a capacity that humans have, and seemed to have developed and improved over the centuries, with input from many individuals. Tribalism and bondedness to those around us is also a natural tendency for many/most of us. Which of those are "me"? We have motivations toward our ideals AND our tribes, and sometimes the commitment to our (ideal) tribe is an ideal in itself. As well as just being what seems to me a common primate tendency. It need not be either/or, however. With better understanding, there can be BOTH idealism and innate tribal tendencies. Which seems realistic, and thus pragmatic to me, to accept and build on.
"Another solution to the problem would be to say that these ideals don't work and that we need a new society with new ideals" that may not be a popular solution, but it's the correct one and I think we are going to be forced to create a new society, one way or another, whether we like it or not.
I had never considered this topic in quite this way before, but you make a good case for it. Having also just seen your essay on Jefferson and his hypocrisy with respect to slavery, and how there was an internal struggle on that matter, and a larger national struggle, I see the origins of politicizing identity going back to those same political battles. And then even further back to the arguments between Whigs and Tories. I think today's apparent shrillness on the issues of identity comes in part from the technological world in which we live. And no, it is not as simple as, "Social media ruins everything." But what communication, and in particular anonymous communication through the internet does foster is an exaggerated tribalism. We and our algorithm guided lives, now exist in a world in which our associations are a) mostly with people who think like us and b) not with people we actually know. Which means a host of things. The people with whom we agree, we imagine being in agreement with us to a far greater extent than they are, because we do not actually know those people, and fill in the gaps of our familiarity. The people with whom we disagree, we imagine being opposed to us to a far greater extent than they are for exactly the same reasons. So, in reality, we probably agree with each other to a greater or lesser extent, but more than 50% of the time. But in our imaginations, we agree with our "allies" 100% of the time, until proven otherwise, then 0% of the time along with everyone else. Those traitorous bastards!
Wow. I have had many of the same thoughts you mentioned in the video, but was unable to coalesce them into your conclusion: "In some other senses, it means that America is coming alive. We all want to live in a society based on the principles of freedom and equality. We want to live in a society with individualism, democracy, and rule of law of under a constitution. We all want to live in a society where all are indeed created equal. What we disagree on are what exactly those words mean and whether or not they've been obtained. In short, the values that unite us also divide us." While I sadly can't agree with the "all" in your statement, definitely it is the greatest majority. Thank you for your perspective and your source list. Both give me hope. :)
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman.
I'll probably add video notes as the piece ages and feedback comes in, but as of now I don't have anything to add here besides saying that I gave a simple overview of the emergence of the inner self in the first section of the piece. More factors contributed to it that I didn't think were appropriate to get into here, namely the emergence of technology like the printing press, which allowed people to circulate their thoughts, get educated, think for themselves. That section on the whole was mostly taken from 'The Rise And Triumph And The Modern Self' by Carl Trueman and 'Identity' by Francis Fukuyama. Of the two, Trueman goes into more depth if you're interested in learning more, but his book also approaches the subject from a decidedly Christian standpoint if that's a dealbreaker for you.
- Ryan
Will you be going into more nuance in future?
As its a pretty notable feature of societies and power structures in most of hisotry that identity is often used to divide and distract the people from class struggle. In recent times, we can look at neo-liberalism for the very intentional and conspicuous effort to make everyone into "individuals" and breakdown all forms of solidarity.
In other words, the rich and powerful keep their money and power because the people are too busy fighting over social and cultural issues to really take it from them, ya know? I would have hoped you'd mention this, its well documented.
Exactly. Its a strategy called divide and rule. Has been around for a Millennium. Also, it a inherent feature of liberal politics which is simply a free market where groups and tribes battle for political resources and power. Its called competitive pluralism. Its designed to prevent a majoritarian political system.
After such a long time, but great to see your video.
This is a bit too simplistic and ignores how Power corrupts. It is more powerful than any group identity other than itself becoming a new group (the elite class) with the power to create divisions among lower classes to keep attention off themselves for generations till the entitled elites jump the shark and the people rebel.
America is unique because it’s founding is new and made of a melting pot. America was founded and grew because its pioneering spirit that drew people from around the world to leave their homeland to create opportunities for themselves once called the American Dream that is currently being destroyed by the greedy elite class who’s bloated egos cause them to become so out of touch they develop god complexes thinking they know better than the People. This breeds corruption and as generations go by their corruption becomes more blatant and destructive.
I just backed your patreon, your videos are excellent and you are one of the best teachers I've ever had. I hope to see you continue making videos long into the future.
I’m from Eastern Europe, and consume American content daily, the thing which really stands out to me, and so did my friend noticed is the amount of word “community” used in American speech, and the enthusiasm to separate everyone in “communities” on different lvl. Im my daily speech in my country, we use the word community only to talk about countryside people, that a village is its own community of people separate from the main town or city. Or in other case when you talk about jobs as a synonym to “association” or “union” like “artists community/union ect”
Interesting take
You seem more understanding of america than some of us in the u.s.
I am an American. Born and lived throughout the Midwest. The connotation of the term "community" has changed some over years. It used to refer to people of particular districts, towns, villages and the various organizations they would maintain. The participants in the governments and civic groups; such as chambers of commerce, parent-teacher associations, home owner associations, etc., were effectively understood to be the community. There was a measure of pride that folks carried with connection to these institutions, but there wasn't overt animosity or hostility to those who were outside of these loosely defined communities.
Today the term is often caboosed on a group identity adjective. Race, gender, socioeconomic "community". There is now a more separatist association. It is more "this is our group" and "you are not". I think this is more of symptom or indicator of a larger change in our society and culture; where these immutable aspects of our individual conditions have became paramount individual identity. It is not quite clear to me when and how this occurred. I suspect it has been an organic result of our instinct to find and associate ourselves with ingroups and the political expediency of galvanizing voting blocks. The rate of demographic change is also a factor. Cultural assimilation takes time. If the rate of demographic change outstrips cultural assimilation, the push on society will outmatch its pull on the individual.
Hope this helps to shine some light on the use and meaning of term "community" in the US.
you are so dam lucky to live mono ethnic state. It sucks to live America. It so expensive to live here. America is house poor. It just kept get worst as immigration continues.
@@spark300c what?
I think it has to a lot to do with American individualism. Nowadays everyone wants to be different more than anything while at the same time desperately wants to belong to a group of similar individuals. A paradox. Identity politics today is most of the time alienating one group from the others.
That does not sound like individualism to me. That sounds like tribalism to me. Individualism means that you respect other individuals' liberties.
@@ssssssstssssssss ,this ism itself some kind of devilish..
It's because of the radical neo marxist that infiltrated every western institution that the west have become saturated with identity politics
How can you not ? Human wealthy never being more rich throughout history. Survival is so easy on first world country to the point it seems pointless to think "how can i survival", thus raise another question "why i need to survival".
But don't worry, a few economy down turn will crumble the wealthy and subvert all the ego thought thus once again create a new generation focus more to "build" than to "talk"
Individualism does not mean being greedy. Spiritual individualism is key.
Everyone wants a dragon to slay. In this, someone has to be the dragon, and someone has to be the slayer. Their identity defines this. The problem is that, all too often, dragons are not real.
Likely because most Americans are atomized reinforced by egotistical solipsism, thinking they are supposed to consume cultures as a commodity and define themselves based on the commodities they consume including those cultures.
I think they are just anthropologically, ethnographically confused.
Typical Jordan Peterson fan bullshit. This is word salad it doesn’t mean anything stop trying to act smart g
Competition and comparison are negatives of life.
Lotta people just want a dragon they can blame for what afflicts them personally. Too many people are easily manipulated + feel a need to identify with a group dynamic
@@RobinHerzigexactly! it’s why so many conservatives blame “radical leftists” for all the problems in this country. If they can identify a scapegoat outside of themselves then they don’t have to look inward.
I didn't click on this video for a long time, since I'm not too interested in identity politics. Considering I pretty much watched all of your other essays already, I gave this one a try. It started out pretty top notch as usual, where we discover what identity politics is. That was already good content and definitely made clicking on the video worth it. In the last five minutes, you demonstrate with concrete evidence like historical text passages and examples through comparisons (I love how you do both of those), what makes American culture so unique around the world. That was other worldly incredible.
I'm a German American, who lived in both countries and France and regularly visits family in both countries. Every time you contrast America to the world or to itself, you put into words concepts, ideas or opinions about the American society that definitely increase my understanding. Most importantly though, I can directly link your content to certain experiences or phenomena like culture shocks in my own life.
You say: "America is like this because of this historical development". And I remember a situation, where that exact fact about America probably influenced an experience I had and in all likelihood was responsible for at least part of the culture shock or mindset change, that I experienced. Every fucking essay. Spectacular content.
In this essay in particular, I remembered a discussion I had with my aunt and uncle from America about the validity of the accusation of someone or something being un-American:
I grew up in Germany and had just moved to America, I was 12 years old. The accusation had been used in a political discussion (probably on TV) and I had felt a certain emptiness towards that statement, as in: "So what if something is un-American? That doesn't necessarily make it bad? If it's good, why don't we make it American?".
I asked my uncle what importance un-Americanness has or simply what it means. He immediately let me know that communism is un-American (it probably wasn't a coincidence, that that was the first thing he thought of, he is the most stereotypical optimistic American capitalist, mixed with a pinch of idealism haha. Always a pleasure to understand his perspective). "So we don't want un-American things in America", he followed.
My aunt had a broader approach and explained that certain values and ideas are American, as she started listing of things like courage, bravery, honesty, hard work, freedom, all people are created equal, always doing your best, never giving up, etc. .
In the first moment, I thought she was just listing good character traits in a subliminal effort to tell me how to behave. As I soon discovered, talking to more adults in the country about being American, many had an eerily similar idea of what it means to be a good American/Person (they almost always listed all of the same values). This discussion sprung up more often because much of my family was the first generation to immigrate into the US. Therefore, we occasionally talked about what it means to be American and how life is different here compared to back in the Philippines.
After a while, I accepted that there existed, at least to some noticeable extent, the idea of an ideal American. That discovery was great, it provides a compass, a goal to attain. Sometimes, I think of Atticus Finch, who was described as the ideal American by my Literature teacher back in the day, "What would he do right now?". Or the juror in twelve angry men, who was the ideal juror by living up to those values, that my aunt declared intrinsically American just a few months before I read that book in class.
At the same time, I realized, that an ideal of this kind, doesn't exist as thoroughly in Germany. If it does and I just happen to live in a circle of people, where I'm not confronted with it, then it is definitely not linked to national identity.
Case in point: If you ask a German, what it means to be German, they will probably tell you, that it means that your parents and grandparents were German. Or that you obtained the nationality to live and work in Europe. If they become a little more philosophical, many talk about acknowledging history, to deal and to learn from it (emphasis on WW2 of course). No one ever talks about values to live by (although it might be the case, that you have to be a supporter of democracy to attain the German citizenship. I'm not sure about that). Some people might even answer: "Nothing. What do you mean, it is supposed to mean something? It's a passport. Where you're born is pure chance, there is no meaning there".
I realize, I listed some more values like bravery, courage, never giving up or always doing your best, that are not explicitly listed in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. I do that because much of my family listed them. Often, they argued, these were the values, that enabled the founding fathers to gain Independence and Freedom. So although these are more values, than talked about in the video, the people, who believe these values are intrinsically American, do so because they link these values to the creation of America. So the ideal American (at least in the case of my family) is also linked to the founding of the country.
Not only is it an interesting phenomenon to believe in a seemingly universally accepted ideal of a person but it is uniquely American to link that ideal of a person to the nationality that strongly. Your history lesson just made me understand how that came to be and explained some of my experience as a young teenager in America.
Chapman, I fucking _feel_ your content. Thanks!
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this subject. Hang in there. I've found these ponderings on what it means to be an American can last a lifetime. I hope you can always find a way to balance the necessary criticisms with a good dose of inherent American optimism. We'll need you.
Food for thought. At a personal level I am with the idea that where we are born is down to chance, but where we actively choose to live is - mostly - a conscious decision.
So in that sense, better questions to ask a German (or any other nationality) is "what gives Germany its distinctive identity?" , "what are the traits that Germany as a nation is most proud of, and encourages, in its people?"
@@mrD66M I like the question. I'd actually have to take some time to come up with an answer, as I wouldn't be sure about anything on the spot. And it's certainly a reasonable question to ask, when choosing where to live.
I'm assuming though, that most of the time, many Germans would be very hesitant to answer anything at all. If they'd give an answer, it'd be a joke criticizing the current political climate, not a serious thought on the German nationality.
In Germany, national pride is deemed one of the main causes that allowed nationalism to rise in the 30s. In school they teach us, that there is a reason that pride is a sin as opposed to a virtue in the Bible. If you become so proud, you lose the ability to acknowledge mistakes the entity, that you're proud of, is making, it can lead to a certain blindness that enables atrocities like the holocaust to happen.
This aversion to pride and almost the fear of it, leads many Germans to refrain from making any distinctions about Germany and its people compared to the rest of the world. Hitler once made distinctions, that went horribly wrong. The belief is: There is no real benefit (compared to the real risk of nationalism) that arises from differentiating us based on nationality.
So because of that, I'm assuming, many Germans would even hesitate to allow themselves to come up with a serious answer to your question. The thought itself actually already feels uncomfortable to me. That's just a cultural difference.
There was a time when Germany was similar. There were German values, German ideals, German national character and pride. Those have been actively and consciously suppressed in light of the horrors of war which they brought, as conquest and military prowess was a massive part of German pride since the early days of prussia. National pride became something dangerous, and the strongman leaders which were once seen as essential in Germany became anathema for obvious reasons.
Germans definitely have a national character and values, it's just that they're not taught directly, but absorbed by living in Germany.
Americans talk much more about their values and Americannes, because of the super diverse backgrounds of it's citizens and because talking about those things reinforces the American identity. And that American identity needs to be constantly reinforced in different ways, and this is where the pledge of allegiance comes in, as does the constant displays of American flags and praising the armed forces for example. Those symbols, rites and displays are things that are common to all Americans, who otherwise have not so much in common heritage-wise.
In a way being American is just an idea, a set of beliefs, and that idea and those beliefs need to be taught to each new citizen, and they need to be reinforced because if that's not done, then there's no America anymore.
Excellent video! I believe that what makes American identity unique is that, unlike other countries where identity is based on heritage and culture, in America each individual establishes their American identity by making a choice to uphold ideals.
Aaaannnd you establish the problem with american identity. There is no general american identity that unites you all if it's based on ideals, because different people have different ideals. If you try to make american identity about democracy and freedom, the moment someone disagrees with that they become non-american and the moment somebody takes away your democracy and freedom you all become non-american (it's an exageration for the sake of argument, do not take it literally I actually want to say that your nation is in constant identity crisis because the thin veil of ideals shifts everytime). Moreover having people define their own individual identity based on ideals is not very uniting, noone will have your exact set of ideals, you call yourselves americans but there is nothing generally american about you.
@@madalinaanton3253 This is not a bug, it's a feature. The ideals that define an American are not subject to the whims of the individual, they are clearly defined in our foundational document: the Declaration of Independence. This is the basis for a truly free society; if you agree with our ideals, you can become one of us. Conversely, if you disagree with the ideals that define us, you can no longer claim to be an American. It's based on choice, not on heritage. As mentioned in the video, we can disagree on whether certain actions support or defy those ideals, but the ideals themselves are not a shifting thin veil.
@@sambolino44 agreed. The constitution is an amazing document, and our country has created more freedom for more people than any country in history. Our country isn't perfect, but people are still coming here in droves. Must be a reason.
@@madalinaanton3253 aaand American is capitalized. There's so much you're not getting. Inclusivity is hard work. It takes patience and empathy. You have some work ahead of you.
@@nodruj8681 So from where, pray tell , do you emanate. C'mon, spill the beans. Let's hear about culture. Europe? *cough ,choke*
Really interesting and thoughtful vid. Nice job Ryan.
I like your channel bro
Nice to see you here!
ㄹㅇ
JJ! 🎉
When you see a wild JJ in the RUclips comments 👀😂
This was a phenomenal essay. Rarely do I end a video and feel the need to sit back and ruminate. With yours, I need to pencil in time at the end. I hope this is a topic you consider diving into more. I would be interested to hear more of your analyses.
I agree!! Video ended too fast! And so much to think abt.
I disagree with the point that ancient people didn't have time or space for identity beyond the social hierarchy. Eastern philosophical traditions, especially Indian philosophical traditions have focused especially on the self, to be specific, the Self.
Exactly, Ty 🙌🏻🙌🏻
I think they did but reading/writing wasn't very common for your average person, not to mention the internet to post it on for all to see... Ryan is experiencing confirmation bias
I agree! And ancient stoics are always talking about the self and self-mastery, self improvement in spite of hierarchy, etc
Also one of the Roman emperors is famous for saying repeatedly that in spite of being treated as a man, he was really a woman
Yeah that statement he made seemed too broad generalized and probably inaccurate. Does he know how many societies throughout human history? I suspect there was at least some self identity seeking going on or some societies that left some room for that.
What'chu talking about, individuality & democracy got invented by the Founding Fathers 300 years ago, when every man, woman & slave got the right to vote! Are you a commie or something? /s
Ryan , you do a wonderful job of clarifying these issues. I've noticed that you have evolved and are so much more confident and professional in your presentation and your delivery is really excellent. TIs a really valuable and enlightening channel. . THAnks
"All men are created equal" but "a slave is 3/5 of a person." There was a massive fly in the ointment right from the start.
Not exactly, a person who owns 1 slave is 8/5 of a person. Or 11/5 for 2 slaves and so on...
You can say that about other nations to and they don’t have these problems so you are wrong
@@The_king567other nations did not conduct slavery BOTH as recently and to the industrial scale that america did. It's going to take time and understanding to move society past it.
@@BorkomoraBrazilian slavery lasted over 20 years past US slavery. Not sure how the racial strife is there
@@christopherjordan9707 and brazil still has these exact problems with systemic racism, so your point is moot.
"the values that unite us, also divide us"
what a mic drop moment dude
They only divide us if we let them. We are much more united than divided, but people in the political, academic, and media world, who benefit from grievance politics, will try to change that constantly.
Individualism under freedom and liberty is the best system. It only becomes a problem when ‘government’ steps in (where it doesn’t belong) and tries to play ‘fairness good’ according to only a portion of the population’s definition of ‘fair’. If government stays out of individual private sector lives almost all polarizations and divisions will disappear. Why? Because then there will be no ‘preferential treatment’ benefit from government to fight to control….
Fairness ‘god’ that is…
I love your channel. This is the kind of content society needs. The good you do is incalculable.
Ryan, another fine presentation on a pressing and timely topic. Your videos consistently offer thoughtful coverage of important subjects with a scholarly and dispassionate approach that is well supported with credible references and citations. Well done!
In reflecting on your remarks about America's founding principles serving as a looking glass into our current social tensions, I am reminded of the iconic Latin phrase, "e pluribus unum" --- of many, one. The American experiment is an extraordinary attempt to create a single unified nation from a collection of multi-national people. Our amazingly diverse heritage as individuals offers a richness of differing perspectives --- as well as a set of significant challenges to maintain a single country composed of a multi-ethnic population.
Throughout our relatively brief national history, America's best and most cohesive moments are when we focus on where we all came TO, rather than where we came from. Our finest hours are when we acknowledge we are enriched by being Americans --- and not diminished as individuals because we or our family came from somewhere else. The American character shines best when our beliefs and conduct truly cherish and celebrate our national identity.
_“This is the only country in the world," said Wednesday, into the stillness, "that worries about what it is."_
_"What?"_
_"The rest of them know what they are. No one ever needs to go searching for the heart of Norway. Or looks for the soul of Mozambique. They know what they are.”_
- *From Neil Gaiman's **_American Gods._*
Sounds like those places need more diversity
@@joriankell1983 LOL, on point.
all of africa is tribal
Ignorant about the rest of the world.
You can't become Norwegian or Japanese but you can become American by adopting a philosophy. Other countries are defined by ethnicity, not philosophy, so inevitably Americans need to think about what that philosophy is.
I would argue America isn't the only country that faces this strong identity politic situation. I see most countries in Africa also suffer from this. As most of the borders in the continent don't coincide with the regional groups. South Africa, Congo, and Morroco are great examples of this. The boundaries of these political states encompass and join groups which natural see themselves as different but are still unified under one political name, and in majority identify with the political name. In this factor America is not that unique. It's more honest to say, the situation is only more present on the global stage because of America's influence. If America wasn't as influential as it was, it's identity politics wouldn't be anymore unique then the ones seen prominently in Africa.
The African continent is linguistically and ethnically diverse, with many of them developing for thousands of years in those areas. It’s very different, I would go as far as to say north to South Africa is a bigger difference than Europe and the Indian subcontinent.
He didn't say America is the only country that has strong identity politics problems. He said that the identity politics in the US are _unique_ because American identity is founded on political values rather than language, religion, culture and history. Their identity politics are based on interpreting their founding values. And this is not the case for any other country.
Identity politics on much of the African continent (India as well, I believe) are largely a result of post-colonial map drawing being ridiculous and completely ignoring existing cultures. This is an interesting topic, but not relevant to this video at all.
@@slicedtoad great observations
I strongly disagree with this identity politics is mainly individual in america in Africa it's called tribal politics which is much more violent
That's completely different. The reason many countries of Africa are so diverse AND combative internally is because of colonial borders. Colonialism is easier when the groups in your colony are bickering among themselves rather than united against you, that's why it's often better to include historically rival ethnic groups in a colony whereas that'd be a terrible idea for a country. Colonial overlords also often inflame existing ethnic tensions to make them even easier to control. I'm pretty sure the Rwanda genocide happened because the Belgians empowered a minority group (that minority group more likely to stay loyal to keep their power against the majority) and when the Belgians left, the majority took revenge for years of injustice.
America is a different story. The Native Americans are a separate story in this, but unfortunately as they are like 1% of the US population, they don't really affect these ethnic dynamics that much. Africans were also a different story given they were obviously brought in chains, but the situation improved after a horrifically long time and there's no "we are Africans, we want separate laws, autonomy etc" like within African countries, African-Americans still see their separate identity from white Americans, but their identity is American first, then African-American rather than for example Oromo first, Ethiopian second. The other groups who came to the US, did so because they saw a better life in the New World and many of them adopted parts of the Protestant British descendant traits whilst still retaining many of their roots.
Love your channel, Ryan! Love all of the videos you’ve made so far - they are smart, fair, and entertaining. Just wish you released more of them, more often.
He's one man, and his eloquent breakdowns of complex topics are unparalleled in quality on RUclips. I'd rather him do as he does, than pressure himself to work faster.
It was a complement and not a complaint. I understand how much work must go into making his videos. I’d love to see more of them… because they’re good. No rush, though.
loved the video! im learning that we need to embrace having conversations about identity in america, but so many people label it as political so they dont want to even talk about. identity in america is our culture.
It was made political by immediately associating someone to a party depending on their stance on the subject. Not to mention it has also bled into politics itself.
I love how clearly-stated and organized the content in these videos are. Even if you already know all of this stuff, it's helpful to take it in, as it kind of better arranges the relationships of the various factors mentally; like defragging your computer or something.
It is ironic that so much of the rhetoric surrounding "identity politics," which, as you pointed out, is supposed to be concerned with the INNER self, is focused almost exclusively on race - and on skin color in particular, which is an OUTER characteristic. We Americans do try to link physical appearance to ethnic culture, but it's not always as simple as that. People of the same nationality - even if they are "natives" of their land - can look different from each other. For example, Ireland, which is the country to which I can trace both my mother's and my father's ancestries, is home to both pale Irish people and swarthy Irish people, with different skin shadings in between.
But identity politics should not be concerned with just race. We also need to examine religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, and attitudes on cultural issues, which divide us just as much.
Intersectionality is a concept that already addresses this issue and has been discussed at length for over a decade. Just because you didn’t put in the work to actually research doesn’t mean no one else has thought of it.
@@Nanajsiuz “Intersectionality” another topic Ryan can raise. But OP still has a real point since not everyone in the world lives like America (especially in history) and me as someone who isn’t “white” and not from there I can hardly relate to the ideology. And also, the human experience is far more nuanced than what this ideology presents. Like this ideology has a lot of holes especially on the race issue because it treats certain people like a monolith. A black person living in the hood in Chicago might not relate to someone like Kanye West (and especially with his mentality ironically on a certain ethnic group), as an example.
It's largely concerned with race because the US, and the Americas in general, during and after settlement by Europeans, were created to be racist, white supremacist countries. This was a big mismatch between the ideals of American liberalism as expressed in the DOI, and the facts of the Constitution and laws, which were explicitly racist and patriarchal.
It was this way, at least until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but still continued, requiring additional laws to make racist practices illegal.
The nation built up the edifice of racism from even before 1776, and perpetuated it nearly 200 years. That was the main form of "identity politics," backed by state power, by the police and soldiers, by most of the lawmakers, and many of the laws. It was extended to the places the US went to war.
So this new identity politics of the late 20th and early 21st century is a response to that.
We still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment for women.
@@johnkawakami8395 I try telling people (mostly white people) just that, that identity politics have always existed, and the modern Left is not responsible for creating them. They respond by saying things like "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "Get over it."
@@SeasideDetective2 OMG, that's hilarious. Sad, terrible, and hilarious.
Also, many on the Left hate identity politics. They don't want to deal with it. They say stuff like, "race doesn't really exist", and "it's really a class issue." (Yes, they are mostly white people, but some are POC.)
Idk how this video doesn’t have a million views. Recently found your channel and really enjoy your videos! Definitely not casual listening & I love that.
It will get there. This is TOP QUALITY content.
I just breathed! Whew! Thank you SOOO much!!! Now I'm gonna have a good cry and sleeeeep! Can't wait to watch all of your videos! 3 times each!!! Sharing too.💜💜💜
You are so well studied and so impartial that it feels like I am watching De Tocqueville brought forward in time. Well done, good sir.
I remember reading an article by a professor in the Guardian where she mentioned that such deep-rooted identity politics is one of the symptoms of a civil war. Abandoning ideology over identity is a bad sign.
Or worse: making identity into ideology...
Thankyou Ryan! I’ve got in the habit of testing my thinking about this kind of subject by checking out if you’ve made a video about it! Very clear, careful and sophisticated thinking … and you slog through the necessary research which I don’t have the time for right now bravo! Alex ( in the UK)
I think the Canada comparison is super interesting. Something I notice in Canada, despite it ostensibly being similar to the US in terms of a civic, rather than ethnic identity, is that people really do care less. It's sometimes seen as "weird" in Canada to be too invested in politics, and many Canadians just view their country as being "different from America," and that's just the basis of the country's identity.
Only in Quebec is national identity truly distinct, and more in line with how identity is thought of in Europe, and this idea makes Canadians really uncomfortable.
Too spread out, too mixed of people, not enough history to merge the peoples together into a unified culture, plus a culture of accepting that everyone has their own ethnic and culture backgrounds, compared to American's "you have to become more Americanized to be a part of America". Also, a small power on the international stage despite huge size, so no need nor power to strongly assert itself in its uniqueness (Am Canadian ;)
@@Blinky.Catttt dunno when I hear the treatment of Chinese immigrants during the gold rush in both countries' Western regions, I do feel their racial attitudes might be a lot similar.
I’m Canadian and in my experience, there isn’t as much of a Canadian cultural identity as there is an American one. I grew up around a fair number of kids whose parents were immigrants and their cultural identity is more tied to the country their family is from rather than being Canadian. It’s very interesting for sure.
@@Blinky.CattttI agree and disagree Canadians may have a hard time with their identity but I think one thing has always prevailed even with the lack of history, is that we will fight for what we believe is right in particular the oppressed.
Your videos have quickly become my favorite. Amazing work man.
In elementary school, after the reciting the pledge of allegiance we would also follow it with the two lines froM the Declaration of Independence you mentioned. I totally forgot that I could recite it word for word. In grade school I would recite it blindly and not truly understand the meaning. But now I can truly appreciate the power of these words relating to the identity of America and it’s values.
Wait, a "pledge of allegiance"? In the elementary school? What? What is this? I guess I should go and google it.
@@Astuar It's a pledge to the American flag recited every day in every American public school. Texas even has it's own state pledge that is recited after the American pledge. The latter blew my mind when I was a kid and moved to Texas from another state
@@SeanFord2015 wow, everyday? That just sounds so wild to me:) a bit fashy even.
@@Astuar I was taught the pledge at age 4. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I stopped saying it around 6th grade because it felt too weird.
@@Astuar Yea not our greatest look ill tell you that.
I watch a lot of RUclips and stumbled on your channel somehow tonight. Ran through at least ten videos this evening. It was truly hard to stop watching. You've somehow managed to produce highly nuanced fair yet explicit synopses on a broad variety of modern social and political theorem. You seem naturally gifted and quite masterful in your calm and moderated distillation of these highly complex and controversial issues. Sub +1 well earned. I look forward to future videos.
I think that much of the division comes from people's reluctance to accept that we don't always get everything exactly the way we'd like. There is no guarantee that we will never be offended.
Living in a country with 330 million individuals - each with their own beliefs and preferences - it's a miracle that we manage to keep it together at all...but we do. We exchange value with one another. We move through our lives interacting - or choosing not to interact - but examples of peaceful coexistence far outweigh the conflict. We just focus on the conflict more.
Advocating for one’s needs and preferences even when those needs and preferences are specific to an identity does not need to cause conflict. Conflict only arises when those needs and preferences are explicitly ignored. Building a society where everyone can coexist requires the acknowledgment of people have different needs and working to at least compromise towards them.
Bad, sensational scandalous type news sell.
@@DevilishDeviBut that’s not how America works, has ever worked, or will ever work. For a society to function like that, people need to be homogeneous. America has always been tremendously diverse, thus will always be divided. People are not going to advocate for something that has nothing to do with them. Causing conflicts based the result of being ignored has only made people more opposed to certain movements from what I can see. They sink themselves because they have no understanding of the diversity of American Culture and lifestyle.
@@DevilishDevi You have a point but you should not ignore that the way this groups are claiming their identity is not the correct one. They can not impose the same rules that were used against them. Here is the point of conflict. Name it C.R.T. OR G.I. There must be another approached than only hate.
@@DevilishDevi Except the problem is that those needs and preferences are often mutually exclusive.
For example, Alice thinks that you should use pronouns on the basis of biological sex, and prefers that she isn't forced to talk about people in a particular way, that she views as representing a certain point of view she doesn't think is accurate. Bob is a trans person who prefers a particular set of pronouns. You must either force Alice to talk about Bob a certain way (raising an issue of compelled speech under the 1st Amendment), or Bob must live with someone discussing them in a way that isn't to their preference.
These two desires are inherently in tension. There is no need for anyone to be ignoring any need or preference in order for this tension to exist. Alice can acknowledge both Bob's preference and her own. If you just mean that Alice is ignoring Bob's preference by not simply adopting Bob's preference, then you're just choosing to prefer Bob's preferences over Alice's.
It is entirely possible for Alice and Bob to continue to coexist without any compromise on the issue. It is possible for Alice to go about her day while referring to Bob in a certain way, and it is possible for Bob to think Alice is a jerk and for them to both exist in the same space.
Well done, Ryan. Thank you again!!
I recently discovered your channel. I love the research driven impartial logic behind your analyses. Looking forward to more content from you. Keep up the good work!
Im from Spain and here be called antispanish is relatively common, left wing usually dont use country simbols how the flag or the own country name for be considered far right, they said "this country" instead of Spain. In the other hand far right and centralist conservative nacionalist and some liberals call "antispain" to the far left and local nacionalistic separatist groups present in catalonia and vasque country. Also femminist and LGBTIQ+ and pro inmigrants identity groups are VERY prominent in spanish political discourse, in fight against far right populist voices in VOX party. Today political polarization in Spain are very similar to the USA one, talk about a new 1936 Civil War or an antispanish separatist coup is very very habitual.
You give us all so much to think about here. So very well done!
I wasnt expecting to this to be one of the best vids I've seen from you, but it is! Very well organized and thoughtfully explained.
Your work really stands out on RUclips.
Thank you
Very thought out, well planned, and enlightening. Great spotlight Ryan!
Hi Ryan, I am your fan from Singapore, all the way from the other side of the globe. I have also been fascinated with all that is going on in the west, and I we Asians often find a lot of things incomprehensible. Your videos have helped me to understand a lot of things, and they are a beacon of light in the midst of radical voices from both the left and the right. Neutral, objective and without political or partisan inclinations, this is how I feel we should all learn to talk about politics. I would watch your videos twice, once to just get a general idea of things, and the second time I would actually take notes. Initially I would just use the transcript function to take notes, but listening to your voice is actually so great that I don't mind watching your videos bit by bit as I take notes.
I'm an American and I feel the same as you. Our loudest voices from US are often our craziest ones and the ones that get exported internationally that you all hear. Most of us are not like that. Ryan captures the sentiment of most Americans in an unbiased and clear way. He definitely accurately portrays what most of us (the sane non-crazy ones) think
You started strong and are improving. Some of the new graphics you're using are great and more approachable. I know it's likely more effort but it might be necessary to reach more people. Love the content!
Great understanding, great communication, excellent production. You make everyone at least a little smarter. Thanks Ryan.
I absolutely love this channel. Thank you so much for your great hard work! So educational and entertaining!
Another enjoyable, informative talk. Thanks, Ryan.
I absolutely love what you do. Your narrative voice is so powerful yet calm and reasoned. I actually referenced you in one of my videos (The Populist Lie in 3D Printing). Thank you for your work!
This video finished way too fast! Thank you. I needed a breakdown like this. Made me smile
what a great piece of context to add to one’s lens when evaluating issues related to things like this. thanks as usual!
So much conflict that exists appears to me to be based upon identity groups. I see value in examining the subject dispassionately as you do. Thank you for sharing.
I agree there is too much hostility around identity. Its pretty gross that racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and various religious fundamentalist based bigotry still exist in modern America. I mean, how many Dylan Roof and Nicholas Cruz attacks on blacks and LGBTQ have to happen before everyday people understand that the difference between leftist identity politics and right wing identity politics are not morally equal? When one side is fighting to suppress the rights of people with particular identities and the other side is fighting to protect those rights, the side trying to suppress rights is the side that needs to be corrected.
Fantastic video essay, i think you hit the nail on the head here, the lack of a national identity is in a sense the root of the problem and what this fighting is all about, establishing a national identity and people have different thoughts and ideas and even feelings towards it.
I never once thought about it to be honest, but im a Swede and i consider myself a Swede just as almost everyone else in my country.
The problem with building a national identity now is how do you do that? Most places driven by culture have a thousand years or more in a time before the industrial revolution. I feel like the industrial revolution changed the game entirely because the world is changing at such a dramatic pace we can't keep up with technology and therefore any semblance of commonality is gone between generations and even a few years.
@@abdullahdaniyal114 Youre quoting in English so I know for a fact that aint sacred.
Indeed. Chapman should run for POTUS. He might not be able to fix the world, but at least he knows whats going on.
@@JayFlowie There's another component that you forget: immigration. Had America been the land of those initial settlers that rebelled against Great Britain it would be a sufficient foundation myth to constitute a nation akin to those on the old continent.
However, the vast majority of people in America today descent from later immigrants that have nothing to do with the rebels. Increasingly they come from cultures thatvare very different to England. To include them in their identity America needs to constantly dilute it making things even more fragile.
Right, you live In what is essentially an ethnostate, why would you need to think about it? Lmao
Excellent commentary as usual, Ryan! I would add one more element to explain the intensification of identity politics in America today, and that is the demographic shift. In 2020, non-white outnumbered white kindergarteners in America for the first time. Today's 6-21-year-olds are projected to become majority nonwhite in 2026, according to a 2018 Census Bureau projection. I'm a mixed race US citizen born in the 50's, and grew up hearing America described as a "white man's country." Some of my male classmates looked forward to being "free, white and 21." Public education, movies and TV shows all reflected that demographic reality. And while the vast majority of my generation supported civil rights, in those years that meant desegregating schools, lunch counters, public buildings and transportation. Today, those accomplishments are far behind us, and the push is for cultural and epistemic equality (not to say that civil equality is fully realized). That is, minorities that in the aggregate will soon outnumber whites are challenging the American identity itself, including how we understand our own history. This has generated a new energy in woke leftist agitation, and white supremacist retrenchment on the right.
The inherent vagueness in the wording of the Constitution is at the core of many political battles today, but you could argue that vagueness is why the American ideal can still be relevant after 250 years and still be able to afford these political battles. Imagine any other country's "traditions" as a stone beam, which cannot be bent and cannot be broken, it is there as a foundation for the country's culture and it holds it all together. America is instead founded on something like a metaphorical steel beam: it's strong and sturdy, but it bends under pressure because no matter the pressure, it can withstand it all. The United States' political ideal is why so many people can interpret the words of the contitution so wildly different from one another: it's a system made specifically to sustain the changing of the times, for all people to indentify themselves with, 250 years ago or now.
Fantastic work, as usual, calm-headed, reasonable, rational, and that is part of what brought me to your channel. One of the things you touched on but left is the recognition of Marxist-rooted social theories fueling a tremendous amount of identity political discourse that we instinctually recognize as, "un-American." CRT, to lump its adherents into a semi-meaningful monolith, is designed with the purpose of race division -- division -- and we know intuitively that is anti-American. We've fought tor decades for a noble equality that has been bastardized by grifters into equity, while they rely on a psychological game that allows them to curse opponents as racist no matter how pure their intentions and desired outcomes. We have defined what it is to be American, now it is time to deny power to what is not.
Thank you again for your wonderful work.
Balanced and amazing. Fully felt and understood both sides of the battlefield. Great work as always, Ryan. Thank you.
New idea: 10/10. It takes a lot of discipline to aim towards the final paradox here (that we only share a creedal identify and that the intensity of our differing creedal interpretations give a sharp edge to our politics). There are so many byways, which you wisely avoided, and literally waved us away when you arrived at the paradox. Kudos!
New hair: 10/10. Flaunt it while you got it.
New background music: 5/10. Nothing wrong with music for speech per se. It could have been introduced earlier, though, and the tone is disconcertingly ominous.
I should say I am old and find the history of this idea fascinating. The notion of a creedal identify seemed to be articulated first by cold-war liberals. Then after Vietnam and the civil rights movement, the liberals seemed to give up on it, and then the conservatives picked up on it. But those conservatives faded and the new populist/nativists want a thicker identify than any creed can provide. So now you come along and make it almost dialectical in a clever attempt to explain identify politics. The wheel just keeps on turning...
So if you base your national identity on political beliefs, and politics become divided, your national identity disintegrates. Seems politics alone aren't really enough to unite a county in the long run.
As one of the longest running continuous democracies despite being so large and diverse I'd say it shows just how strong ideals can be in uniting people
@@dannylive3000 'one of', yes. Also probably the most resistant to necessary reform, which is Really showing its effects at this point. But i'd aruge that it's less a matter of strong ideals uniting people, and more a matter of scale and inertia (not to mention a political and economic system actively designed to suppress the ability of all but the wealthiest citizens from actually having any meaningful effect not in line with what the wealthy elite already want, at least in any but the most extreme circumstances) making any change, positive or negative, very difficult.
@@laurencefraser I mean to pretend has though American Political economy, Institutional structure, demographic makeup and even wealth distribution haven't undergone radical shifts over the course of it's history is incredibly delusional. And im a leftist, but this tendency to hold on to this belief that nothing has changed and nothing can change is utterly asinine and very far from reality.
The pretention under some profound vail of "true critique" falls apart by literally opening a history textbook even one written by a leftist like Howard zinn or Noam Chomsky should he write one.
More than inertia hold this country together and it is that very fact of the ideological commitment that serves as the basis for the reformations this country undergoes over and over again.
Because the US use to be untied on more than just poltical idelogy
@@laurencefraser bugger off Kiwi goon.
12:40 I think what a lot of Americans misunderstand today is that statement in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…” is actually a denouncement of monarchy. Remember, the American Revolution was revolting against the tyranny of the British Crown and Parliament which was heavily influenced by the Crown and the Nobility. The whole justification for monarchy at that time was that some families (royals and nobles) were “high-born” and everyone else was “low-born”. That’s why people who talk to the King or Queen refer to them as “Your Highness” and people who talk to Dukes/Duchesses, Lords/Ladies and Counts/Countesses refer to them as “Your Grace”. This was based on the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, meaning that the monarch and his/her family were appointed to rule the country by God himself and if the monarch gave a title of Nobility to someone it automatically put them more into the grace of God than the commoners. That’s why the British Monarch even to this day is the head of the Church of England.
The American Revolution as well as the French Revolution were heavily influenced by Enlightenment principles which concluded that it was foolish to think that someone can be born into a position of power and privilege. This is why we believe all men [people] are equal in America, because our leaders have to earn their positions. There are improvements that need to be made of course and the system can be cheated; no system is perfect.
"All men are created equal..." "excuse me teacher, didn't they have slaves in the US back then?" Every single year my lesson about the declaration of independence spans this way. The cognitive dissonance is too great even for Italian teenagers not to be spotted immediately.
Yeah we all noticed that here too.
Could you please explain your comment further?
I think the takeaway here is that the document was defining an identity to aspire toward. Is it perfect and are there flaws, yes, but one might argue that it is a system many societies aspire toward.
@MrRjsnowden who doesn't aspire to freedom. However probability is it was meant in the same way Kim Jon Un means it when he says it to his people
Being born equal *in nature* =/= born with equal rights
Your videos are great because they're not divisive like everything else is nowadays. I really enjoy them
Thank you! I love this episode!!
Well okay, with Luther, it certainly wasn't just about ritual performance vs internal identification. At least not without a firm focus on "what must I do to be saved?". But, it's really interesting looking at how this kind of counter-authority can work its way out in culture.
Luther was problematic in a lotta ways but he did successfully challenge the hierarchies + dictates of the church + church/state dynamics of his time
@@RobinHerzig depending on who you ask, even Jesus Christ was problematic, and he was without a sin!
I would say it's a little unjust to single out Luther as the father of "individualism" within Christianity. Free will for example has been part of Church teachings at least since Aquinas. I think the impossibility to force faith was also outlined by one of the early Church scholars, but I can't find that now.
Some very thoughtful questions raised in this video. I wish people would reason through a problem in the calm manner you use instead of “who can shout the loudest wins”.
You've got it man. Thank you for your time and work in delivering truth.
Thank you. That was an excellent explanation on American identity. I am interested in this topic because I am an American living in Canada. One of the aspects of Canadian identity that I have learned is that Canada thinks of itself as multicultural. Many immigrants to Canada have a hyphenated national identity because of this. Another part of the Canadian identity is that Canadians are not American. This fact, although clearly true, is why Canadians usually display a Canadian flag on their backpacks or their bodies while travelling internationally. I have found that I have become allergic to the tribalism associated with national identity. So much so, that I will probably never become a Canadian citizen. I find this internal contradiction amusing and concerning. However, the values of the Canadian identity make it technically possible, but morally impossible to be an American-Canadian.
If Canada is multi cultural, then it doesn't mean anything to be Canadian
Theodore Roosevelt railed against "hyphenated Americans" IIRC saying if one identifies as an Irish-American, German-American, they're not true Americans and a security risk (IIRC this was after he lost the presidency and around WW1). German-American identity got obliterated during and after WW1 where it went from the biggest group in America not from an Anglophone background (about 10 million) to being almost invisible after WW2.
Only progressive Liberals consider Canada to be successfully multi-cultural. In truth is has been an abject disaster and simply doesn't work.
One only has to look at Vancouver to see that multi-culturalism is a ruse. The suburbs of Vancouver have become balkanized ethno-cities where Richmond is predominantly Asian, Surrey is predominantly East Asian and North Vancouver is Persian/Iranian.
@@joriankell1983 The whole video was about Americans not having a single ethnic cultural identity. Does it then mean nothing to be American?
@@masong8332 we have a racial identity
Thanks this is a excellent analysis. For a while I have been trying to understand the fast rise in identity politics in the UK. Perhaps not as extreme or visible as the states but it is very much effecting politicians social life. You have made it very clear that perhaps the conflict here is that in Britain we do have a distinct cultural identity outside of politics and this is largely the acceptance of democracy alongside the liberal values of fairness and acceptance. The UK is very accepting but also we have a long history across thousands of years, we do seem to know who we are - but identity politics clashes with this in that that ‘knowing who we are’ is attacked by groups who say it is wrong and oppressive. So people may make very reasonable statements about having a legal a fair immigration system - but are then shouted down as being bigots, when really they are showing the values of decency and acceptance whilst knowing this has to live in an organised and fair framework that works for everyone. Hence why immigration is such a hot topic here, very liberal and reasonable people are attacked for having what really are the common understanding of how a fair country should be organised - then sides are polarised and extremism creeps in.
hmm. I'm British and disagree with lots of this
@@wkt2506 care to explain why?
I read your comment and I have always loved England and its history and people I wish someone would stand up to the immigration problem that you are facing. If you come to England you live by its rules and laws you don’t bring sharia law with you you leave it the country you came from. Muslims have RUINED the great country of England. Greetings from Philadelphia and I pray your people will wake up before losing your country
Love your work! Intelligent, thoughtful, and succinct.
"While we hold the same values, we might be living in different realities and that can lead to fighting." That about sums it up!
“I m not bound to win, but I am bound to be true, I m not bound to succeed, but I m bound to live up to what light I have.” just this quote hit me and become my guild from my US history class in high school.
This is why I think the US should reinstate the old motto: E Pluribus Unum. It carries so much power and perfectly encapsulates the ideal of America. Great video yet again.
Too bad that was superseded by In God We Trust. Letting us know it's really top-down here, so respect the hierarchies. Then they said money = speech + put theocrats in charge of justice
@@RobinHerzig ... it wouldn't be so bad a motto if it wasn't so blatantly a lie.
Same here man. E Pluribus Unum is such a beautiful ideal
@@RobinHerzig it is a violation of the establishment clause. It is also similar to Gott mit uns God with Us which was used by The German Empire and the Third Reich. It was used in West Germany then dropped.
It is derived from the Bible but undeniably used as an imperialist slogan.
@@matthewkopp2391 Actually it's an Eisenhower era / Joe McCarthy cold war construct
In god we trust = we hate commies + we're leaning in on theocracy (Billy Graham / evangelical fundamentalists started burrowing in with deep pockets + deep sway)
Thank you Ryan. Another good lecture. It reminds me of my college years. My major is group social science, so I connect well with your video lectures.
That was an excellent and insightful video. America is a work in progress and always will be. Fortunately, this country is dynamic, we tend to make changes quickly.
Amazing video essay, keep em coming.
Can we acknowledge the fact that Ryan is f**** shredded? Like look at those arms omg good work
Ryan, have you ever thought of side-stepping your primary topics for a moment and sharing an adoptable framework for researching, formulating, and presenting ideas so clearly? I’ve heard you say you’re “just a guy who can read and understand what he reads” or something similar, but you have the process down to a science it seems. You’re brilliant. We’d love to learn about your process. But keep the regular stuff coming too. 👏🏼
Bro, I've been perplexed by the idea of American identity for months now. I've been speaking about it to anyone who'll listen, because I'm trying to mull over this reoccuring thought in my head. "What is our identity, and how do we come together?" Then you put out this video. Not to sound corny, but I feel like every time you release a video, you're attempting to answer a question that I'm also, thinking about adamantly. What's curious, is how do we keep coming to the same conclusions? I really love your content. I look forward to watching your videos several times over as they drop. I'm also, really glad to hear a kindred mind. Rarely, do I hear my own thoughts spoken back to me, by another person. Your content is so rare. Please, keep doing what you're doing.
It seems complex, but it can be simple: ethnic Diversity leads to conflict. This conflict serves as a divide and conquer method for the powers that be.
My first thought when I hear someone say what I am thinking is, "what do others have to say about it?"
I am aware of the problem of confirmation bias, and trying to find opposing ideas can help me understand if I should be accepting of this confirmation or re-examining my ideas.
Your videos are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you for making analysis great again.
absolutely love your takes!!
I truly believe that our species could still thrive if we apply compassion and rationality relentlessly. America is not the world. The world is not America. It seems to me that every nation props up broken structures based on prehistoric behavior. May it be well with us all.
✌️😎❤️
8:16 The rather obvious point that nationalism is merely another form of tribalism is illustrated by Woodrow Wilson’s quote. Wilson asks individuals to leave some group identities aside in order to be a part of another group identity. Every single person consciously or unconsciously is part of a myriad of groups all the time. Most often our family is our first group. Tribal/group behavior is seemingly such ancient human instinct that feels intuitively so correct that it often goes unnoticed.
Excellent analysis, congratulations. Please keep up your great work!
I appreciate your optimism at the end. Some days it does feel like things are falling apart, but you're right in that it may just be the underlying American values at work amongst our citizens.
This video is pretty moving to watch, honestly. The highlight is when you say "America is coming alive." I prefer that interpretation. It's hopeful instead of spewing more negativity. On the other hand, I think we'll always be trapped by the premise of "freedom" and "equality." While I can't define equality in a way that I would feel comfortable with, I don't believe that freedom even exists. Every bit of reality right now seems like conditioning rather than a choice. Every voice seems to be saying "do what I tell you to do, feel how I tell you to feel." Everything has an agenda. It's exhausting.
I'm a Swede spending a lot of time on the internet, in discussion groups, making American friends, etc, and something I've noticed is that although Swedish culture is not extremely different from American culture (it's both "western cultures"), we aren't as divided over such a huge land mass. Because basically I see a lot of division among Americans that I don't see in my own country.
First off it's the division between states. A Texan can be extremely different in culture from an Alaskan, for example. Even the climate (weather, seasons, etc) can be extremely different from one state to another, and I'm sure this too affects culture. I don't see America as just one culture, but a lot of cultures trying but failing to get along. Then there's the political stuff as you say, a lot of black and white thinking, republican vs democrat, and very little solidarity between the two sides. Sure, leftist and right wing Swedes love to hate each other too, but often times, away from the debates, we get along, and there's recognized nuance in-between, with several, ever-changing political parties.
Then there's also the relationship to nationalism being more complicated in America, those proud of their country vs those hating the very idea of nationalism because of the arguably very bloody history America has with conquering, slavery, which may question whether to be proud or ashamed.
I think a lot of this... eh, identity crisis, that America has probably comes from that their country and national identity is so much newer than basically any other nation in the world. You don't have thousands of years of history to build an identity from. Only really the natives, which we all know haven't been given much of that liberty America is supposedly built on, until recently. Of course I don't blame modern Americans for what their great grandfathers did (so I'll stop hinting at the bloodshed now) but the point is that modern Americans who are not natives have no ancestry connected to their land.
Modern America didn't exist before it was conquered back in the 1500's or when was it (it was a completely different nation prior to that) while Sweden as a nation has existed for probably thousands of years. There's history dating back to ancient times here, rune stones, cave paintings, bronze age jewellery, etc, all connecting to modern day Swedes. We have ancestors connected to this land. Thousand years old buildings still standing to this day. I'm not great at history, I don't actually know when the first settlers came to what then later became Sweden, but I think it was sometime shortly after the ice age.
So basically we've had thousands of years to build a nationality organically, which many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and I think also South America, also did, while (North) Americans instead had to essentially create a nationality just a few hundred years ago. And I bet that would logically cause a national identity crisis at some point or another.
Although I think there are other factors too, because America is not the only nation obsessed with identity politics. For that, I would honestly blame the industrialization, making people less focused on pure survival and having more time to get anxious about who we are internally, while robots are doing all the work for us.
Identity politics is pushed into the vacuum left by all meaningfull issues being off the table. Policy is decided amongst the 0.1% & the masses have to be given something else to engage with.
The issues just aren’t meaningful to you
We fight over culture because its easier to do than trusting each other, banding together and building a better world by taking on Big Powers. In a sense our modern capitalistic failures reflect our laziness, addiction and slave mentalities.
New follower, this is one of the most lucid channels out here. Such succinct clear explanations, thank you!
That's a powerful statement, "The values that unite us, also divide us.". It's extremely profound and I'll be contemplating that for awhile. Good stuff. 17:21
I believe this analysis could be spot on, if it weren't for one single, odious philosophy that seeks to undermine even the "American values" you say are inalienable in our society, and that is Critical Theory. Critical Theory subverts every American (and Western) value, such as individualism, rationalism, and even logic! I would love to see you do a video exploring the rabbit hole tracing Critical Race Theory to Critical Theory to Conflict Theory, all the way back to Marxism and it's class warfare, eventually refurbished as what we today call identity politics.
It's a fascinating journey, which helps put a lot of our political struggles today into perspective.
Great timing for this video as I am listening to Benjamin Franklin- An American Life on audible, and now trying to understand what makes us American (USA), and how much of that developed during those years leading up to the Declaration of Independence, and although so much has changed in 250 years, those essential values about individuality, equality and liberty remain.
Uhh, China is certainly *NOT* Communist, or even Socialist. They can give themself such a name, but it doesn't change the reality that they are just as Capitalist as North Korea, USA, Japan, and other countries.
First rule of politics: Political bias is never avoidable.
Thanks for pointing this out, this also bothered me because he said it so straight-forwardly that the "Chinese are united by a political belief in Communism" which in my experience (as someone who lived in the country for ten years) is not true at all. Chinese are way more united by a shared and ancient history and traditions that have exited throughout all shifts in political regimes, and they are far more market-based and capitalist in mentality, than Communist. To me, it's as absurd as saying "Russians are united by Communism" because they had the Soviet Union for some decades.
I'm curious how you would consider North Korea to be capitalist?
As to China, they are socialist who use fascistic capitalism to create wealth. Socialist any way you slice it.
I see the Chinese bots have infected this channel.
I was listening to a similar conversation on a podcast called the Thomas Jefferson Hour recently (do you know it?), and the guest, Joseph Ellis, identified an interesting feature of our current cultural conflict.
He said that, on both sides of the debate, groups have given into a kind of pre-Enlightenment medieval thinking that attempts to use some sort of force in lieu of rhetorical persuasion to achieve its political goals.
You can see this with a particular type of overzealous intersectionality on the cultural Left and an embracing of strong-man demagoguery and anti-democratic sentiment on the reactionary Right.
As someone who leans Left, I see the threat on the Right as more dangerous, and I do think there's an objective case to be made for that given its violent nature and increasing hostility towards democracy itself. But, both are dangerous in the sense that they're both a divergence from the Liberal tradition of pluralism and individuality that you mention.
Most excellent analysis! May the RUclips algorithm be with ye!
The two party system probably doesn’t help either. News organisations are increasingly catering to only “their” side of the conversation. It feels like the world around us is constantly asking what side are you on.
During the pandemic I heard the term "cult of individualism".
Even though it's an obvious oxymoron, they said it seriously.
Not everyone believes in individuality.
They believe individualality is a social construct, an illusion.
Or at the least they believe that individualism should be subservient to a group or collective to an extent. It's like yes of course we believe in individual rights...up to a point. Then we don't. And usually that is justified on the basis of "harm". Which is now extremely subjective
@@AshPooh frankly, if you let society become overly individualistic, it ceases to function meaningfully and you lose the benefits of having a society and government. The USA and to a lesser extent much of the English speaking west, is running into this issue to a degree. There is no ability to just tell the malicious idiots to go jump in a lake and stop ruining everything for the rest of us (and, often enough, for themselves in the long term), just to start with, which rappidly leads to the undermining and destruction of infrastructure and institutions necessary for the common good. Which is to say, it actively gets in the way of the ideals of liberalism.
On the other hand, if you permit (or force) society become overly collectivist, if the society as a whole, and it's structures, don't account for and act on behalf of the individuals that make up that society... well, history is rife with examples of That failure state and its consequences. Necessary reform becomes impossible, for one.
Fundamentally, trying to push for one to the exclusion of the other will lead to failure. One must balance them against each other in every instance of every matter that arrises. A single inflexible rule will always lead to forced bad decisions.
Mind you, I'm not sure a perfect balance is ever possible. Things change constantly, after all.
Instead of a "melting pot," I've heard it said that the popular strategy up here in Canada is the "quilt."
Basically, modern Canadian identity is built primarily around being welcoming of all, and accepting people's cultural differences (ironic considering our founders' desires). This is primarily due to the nation's relatively tiny population compared to its landmass and wealth, making it ideal for immigration. And since economically Canada relies heavily on immigrants to bolster its workforce, those in power are more then happy to ensure such a cultural identity of tolerance and hospitality is maintained.
Interestingly enough, this identity of polite acceptance leads to Canadians being quite intolerant of those who behave in impolite, unaccepting ways. When the "freedom convoy" barged in and disrupted the nation by locking down important roads, the majority of Canadians were reportedly in favour of using the military to remove them. This has been the case for previous crises as well.
The desire to maintain a veneer of polite acceptance through any means necessary has lead some to worry that, should Canada's values of open-mindedness change, the country could get very fascist very fast.
Found Mr Ryan today at work...no, not i n the desk, on RUclips. Excellent content, good voice, great content, awesome background music. I am a RUclips user de facto, its so nice when creators like this just drop down onto once desk👍
Another great informative video!! I love the style and delivery of your content!
Interesting analysis, as usual.
I thought you did a good job of making a contrast between two aspects of being or experiencing human life - - idealism and tribalism. The ability to form ideas and ideals is clearly a capacity that humans have, and seemed to have developed and improved over the centuries, with input from many individuals. Tribalism and bondedness to those around us is also a natural tendency for many/most of us. Which of those are "me"?
We have motivations toward our ideals AND our tribes, and sometimes the commitment to our (ideal) tribe is an ideal in itself. As well as just being what seems to me a common primate tendency.
It need not be either/or, however. With better understanding, there can be BOTH idealism and innate tribal tendencies. Which seems realistic, and thus pragmatic to me, to accept and build on.
"Another solution to the problem would be to say that these ideals don't work and that we need a new society with new ideals" that may not be a popular solution, but it's the correct one and I think we are going to be forced to create a new society, one way or another, whether we like it or not.
I do like your videos on US, it helps me understand US in a more subjective way. It is quite difficult to find in this media era.
I had never considered this topic in quite this way before, but you make a good case for it. Having also just seen your essay on Jefferson and his hypocrisy with respect to slavery, and how there was an internal struggle on that matter, and a larger national struggle, I see the origins of politicizing identity going back to those same political battles. And then even further back to the arguments between Whigs and Tories. I think today's apparent shrillness on the issues of identity comes in part from the technological world in which we live. And no, it is not as simple as, "Social media ruins everything." But what communication, and in particular anonymous communication through the internet does foster is an exaggerated tribalism. We and our algorithm guided lives, now exist in a world in which our associations are a) mostly with people who think like us and b) not with people we actually know. Which means a host of things. The people with whom we agree, we imagine being in agreement with us to a far greater extent than they are, because we do not actually know those people, and fill in the gaps of our familiarity. The people with whom we disagree, we imagine being opposed to us to a far greater extent than they are for exactly the same reasons. So, in reality, we probably agree with each other to a greater or lesser extent, but more than 50% of the time. But in our imaginations, we agree with our "allies" 100% of the time, until proven otherwise, then 0% of the time along with everyone else. Those traitorous bastards!
Wow. I have had many of the same thoughts you mentioned in the video, but was unable to coalesce them into your conclusion: "In some other senses, it means that America is coming alive. We all want to live in a society based on the principles of freedom and equality. We want to live in a society with individualism, democracy, and rule of law of under a constitution. We all want to live in a society where all are indeed created equal. What we disagree on are what exactly those words mean and whether or not they've been obtained. In short, the values that unite us also divide us." While I sadly can't agree with the "all" in your statement, definitely it is the greatest majority. Thank you for your perspective and your source list. Both give me hope. :)