• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Social Thoughts on "Heritage" Americans/Canadians?

I recently watched a fascinating segment on the concept of "Heritage Americans" - a term used to to describe people who trace their roots to the founding generations or descend from cultures that are predominantly white and Christian (the "original" settlers of the United States).

In a nutshell, if you weren't white and Christian, you could never truly be American (or Canadian). There was a funny section of the video that described social medias response to Kash Patel when he wished people "Happy Diwali". People told him to go back to India and worship his sand gods, despite the fact that Kash was born and raised in the United States.

I have encountered something similar (although not with a racist intent). When people ask me where I am from, it is never good enough to say "Canada". The follow up question is always "Where are you really from (lineage)?", despite the fact that I was born in Toronto. I am also acutely aware that I will always belong as an "Other" in Canada - I used to do a lot of research in rural northern communities, and I was always viewed differently because of my skin color. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it felt like there was a performative aspect to prove that I was "one of the good ones", because I spoke like them and shared similar values/interests.

I was curious to get people's thoughts on how they feel about the concept of "Heritage American". Is a Buddhist Chinese guy from San Francisco as American as a anglo-white church goer from Nebraska?
In a nutshell, I think it's stupid bullshit. The original settlers of North America are indigenous people.

...the new term for white supremacy and the foundation for the desired establishment of a Christian Caliphate.
Spot on.

And then realize Hungarians weren't white in America until 1890s legally speaking.
Race is not real.
Agree 100%. As a person of Irish heritage I can confirm it's made up, and consequently it can change from one generation to the next.
 
Honestly have never heard the term before, I think this is one of those things chronically online people expose themselves to in their echo chambers to get mad about.

Never heard it from a regular person out in the world. Merry Christmas, stay mad about random shit tho.
 
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you posted, I genuinely appreciate your openness and honesty. An honest and respectful dialogue can be had, even when two people don't see eye to eye.

Regarding DEI, I am vehemently opposed and advocate for meritocracy. I don't want a handout, I want a fair shot based on my qualifications and experience.

I do however feel there are structural failures that disadvantage some groups (I have worked extensively in indigenous communities, and the system is broken from top to bottom).

If I was a decision maker, I would pour resources into ensuring every child had access to quality education and resources to support their development. You don't fix something by giving people a handout, you give them equal opportunity and then let the cream rise to the top.
Getting a fair shot is precisely the goal and the point of DEI policies. There is abundant evidence to show that women, the disabled, people with "certain kinds of names" are screened out (pretty much automatically in many cases, and where AI screening tools are employed especially).
 
Honestly have never heard the term before, I think this is one of those things chronically online people expose themselves to in their echo chambers to get mad about.

Never heard it from a regular person out in the world. Merry Christmas, stay mad about random shit tho.

The Vice President of the United States is saying it regularly
 
The Vice President of the United States is saying it regularly

See there is your problem, you're filling your Christmas days thinking about this guy:

president-vance.webp


Merry Christmas political dudes. Try not to rage too hard today.
 
You can play semantics all you want. It wasn't a unified India. It did not exist. we both know it was a giant fucked up series of fiefdoms all randomly killing each other, starving eSch other, enslaving each other with that caste system bullshit at times because of religious arguments made thousands of years before.
The amount nonsense I have heard about China and india that is completely bullshit would stun you.
I like Indian Americans and asian Americans because they were smart enough to leave those bullshit barrels full of crabs.

You seem strangely passionate about this subject.

By your logic, I guess a unified India doesn't exist today since every state (fiefdom) is culturally distinct and there is still religious and caste related conflict.
 
Honestly have never heard the term before, I think this is one of those things chronically online people expose themselves to in their echo chambers to get mad about.

Never heard it from a regular person out in the world. Merry Christmas, stay mad about random shit tho.

I've never actually heard of it either. Someone called this a white man bad thread. It's more like a minority sensitivity thread.

I do think there's a pretty clear concept of belonging to the more longstanding and lineal primary Canadian/American culture a opposed to a minority subculture though. And I do think those from the former deep down almost always consider themselves to be more Canadian/American in the cultural sense.
 
There wasn't a unified native American nation either. I am direct descendant of Parker. The native Americans were constantly killing, butchering, enslaving each other. That's why they never evolved technology and could barely build canoes meanwhile in Egypt 3000 years before you had sail ships that could tack.
There was no unified India either. To say the Brits drained something that didn't exist dry is laughable.
The absence of a unified nation state doesn't discount the fact that colonialism was systemic exploitation that pillaged countries, and laid the groundwork for continued exploitation for generations to come.

I have a very personal history with the legacy of colonialism - my parents were born under indentured servitude on sugar plantations in British Guyana. They were barred access to jobs and education if they did not convert to Christianity. Even after the end of colonial rule, the British stoked tensions between Afro and Indo Guyanese that resulted in a civil war that lasted for 20 years.

With that being said, I agree with @gatchaman in the sense that I refuse to be seen as a victim. The world is unfair, but moving to Canada gave my family the opportunity to maximize our opportunities and pursue our goals.
 
I'm saying the Mughal Empire ruled the majority of Indian subcontinent. It was fairly close to a unified India.

So then when the majority of India was under British rule the situation was fairly close to a unified India as well?
 
The absence of a unified nation state doesn't discount the fact that colonialism was systemic exploitation that pillaged countries, and laid the groundwork for continued exploitation for generations to come.

I have a very personal history with the legacy of colonialism - my parents were born under indentured servitude on sugar plantations in British Guyana. They were barred access to jobs and education if they did not convert to Christianity. Even after the end of colonial rule, the British stoked tensions between Afro and Indo Guyanese that resulted in a civil war that lasted for 20 years.

With that being said, I agree with @gatchaman in the sense that I refuse to be seen as a victim. The world is unfair, but moving to Canada gave my family the opportunity to maximize our opportunities and pursue our goals.
And yet

India was not unified. That's my point. I do not know even saying that gets pages back. They brutalized each other for millennia. I'm not pro colonist, but I'm not letting people act like that shit wasn't full of people doing the same exact shit to each other before the british showed up.
 
You seem strangely passionate about this subject.

By your logic, I guess a unified India doesn't exist today since every state (fiefdom) is culturally distinct and there is still religious and caste related conflict.
You are trying to pretend stuff like 60-90 MILLION hindus weren't wiped out during that empire.
The fact I have bring that up means you didn't know or didn't think it was big deal in or you thought I wouldn't know.
Then you pretend it was a unified empire. Come on now.
I'm not pro british colonist but I'm not going to pretend it wasn't a genocidal shithole full of fiefdoms, constant strife, slavery, theft, exploitation.
 
And yet

India was not unified. That's my point. I do not know even saying that gets pages back. They brutalized each other for millennia. I'm not pro colonist, but I'm not letting people act like that shit wasn't full of people doing the same exact shit to each other before the british showed up.

Ironically the Mughal Empire were muslim conquerors that were surpressing the hindu majority in India.

And these people refer it as an example of a unified India lol.
 
Ironically the Mughal Empire were muslim conquerors that were surpressing the hindu majority in India.

And these people refer it as an example of a unified India lol.
Exactly. They literally genocided 60-90 million hindi. And look these responses.
 
Kevin Williamson’s brief take at The Dispatch

Heritage Americans” is a funny expression. I mean, literally funny.
One of the comical aspects of our current political moment is that every other anti-immigration activist and ethno-nationalist in the United States has a surname that is Irish, Armenian, Hungarian, Indian, Spanish—anything except Anglo-Saxon. Kash Patel is the son of Ugandan Gujaratis. Donald Trump is the grandson of a German immigrant who dealt in whores and horsemeat. The chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation is an Israeli national. There was not one Ungar-Sargon or Krikorian on the Mayflower or among the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The kind of white supremacy that includes people called Fuentes is pretty newfangled. Not a Cooper or a Standish or a Bradford in the bunch. But I suppose that is the way of the world: White people, even white supremacists, just ain’t what they used to be.
WASP life is in a strange chapter. I remember when some Main Line social club rejected a local entertainment-industry billionaire’s bid for membership, there were whispers—familiar and not entirely unjustified—that he had been rejected because he was Jewish. But the story I heard and believe is that he was rejected for a different reason: because he was famous, and, for the old Main Line WASPs, that was the wrong kind of rich guy to be.
Over the years, the Main Line became less Anglo-Saxon and much more Jewish and Italian, as well as home to a great many more good old-fashioned American mutts. But the old WASP culture was transmitted, at least for a generation or two, to the newcomers. It is now much attenuated, and where the snootiness notions of class had once prevailed there is now only the worship of money.
An elderly friend of mine who had arrived as a Jewish child refugee from Germany and who had observed the Main Line’s social evolution for the better part of a century used to do a little bit over lunch at the Union League. “You know, this club is going to hell,” he would say, switching to a very, very audible stage whisper. “I hear they even let … Jews join now.” He and his people had not always been made to feel entirely welcome. Making a lot of money and rising to a high position at a socially important, locally based business, as well as rising to high positions at socially important local cultural institutions, had opened some doors and made some difference for him. WASP ethnic clannishness had also declined over the years, while antisemitism was increasingly regarded as declassé. But he had not forgotten. He never did. And he wanted me to know that. But my friend had a way of putting things in their place:
“It’s always a special occasion when I get to see you, Kevin,” he would say with a smile. “I’m wearing my second-best toupée.”
 
Last edited:
It definitely didn't have anything to do with 200 years of imperialism.

Prior to the British takeover, India had one of the largest economies in the world. It accounted for a quarter of the global economy. Of course, the British bled it dry for its own enrichment. That's how "white Christians built up" Western countries...by pillaging others. I guess there are some benefits to having an ultra violent culture where state violence and theft is viewed as acceptable.
Could you list off the "cultures where state violence and theft" were not viewed as acceptable?
 
The absence of a unified nation state doesn't discount the fact that colonialism was systemic exploitation that pillaged countries, and laid the groundwork for continued exploitation for generations to come.

I have a very personal history with the legacy of colonialism - my parents were born under indentured servitude on sugar plantations in British Guyana. They were barred access to jobs and education if they did not convert to Christianity. Even after the end of colonial rule, the British stoked tensions between Afro and Indo Guyanese that resulted in a civil war that lasted for 20 years.

With that being said, I agree with @gatchaman in the sense that I refuse to be seen as a victim. The world is unfair, but moving to Canada gave my family the opportunity to maximize our opportunities and pursue our goals.

You have more opportuntities to an extent. But the US and Canada were designed in their inception to assure that only certain groups could acquire the power of change, and even that change is slow, clunky, and oft-ignored.
 
You are trying to pretend stuff like 60-90 MILLION hindus weren't wiped out during that empire.
The fact I have bring that up means you didn't know or didn't think it was big deal in or you thought I wouldn't know.
Then you pretend it was a unified empire. Come on now.
I'm not pro british colonist but I'm not going to pretend it wasn't a genocidal shithole full of fiefdoms, constant strife, slavery, theft, exploitation.

Do you have a source on 60-90 million Hindus being killed? Only thing I could find is a figure by K.S. Lal which is controversial and not widely accepted by historians.

From what I've read in the past, the Mughal were fairly tolerant of the Hindu majority, allowed the Hindu Rapjut kings to maintain power and integrated themselves into Indian society. Thats not to say that they were angels but there is a big gap between that and literally committing genocide. It sounds closer to the Norman king William the Conqueror's rule over England than that of British imperial rule over India (which was parasitic) -- you know like how William the Conqueror didn't bleed England dry and send all of its wealth to France.

But it appears I've stumbled upon a hot button topic for modern day Hindu nationalists and from my perspective it seems to be driven more by modern Hindu Muslim relations/politics than real history. You seem to be coming at it from that angle.
 
No GIFs of Bill the Butcher? I’m disappointed.

That’s stupid. Believe in the constitution? Love freedom? Assimilate into our country legally? AMERICAN
When was the last time you read our Constitution without your adoration of this joke? You do know the rest of the world considers us an enemy?
 
Back
Top