Popular New Term: Euro-American

In recent years, a number of commentators* have independently noticed that more and more Americans of European descent (i.e. whites) now call themselves “Euro-Americans” or “European Americans.” This is occurring, I imagine, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the U.S. is becoming a third-world wasteland, and thus the term ‘American’ is becoming non-descriptive and meaningless. The terms ‘Euro-American’ and ‘European American’ are a matter of linguistic precision.

This video, here, illustrates the decline of any shared identity.

* e.g. Skirble, Rosanne. New Voice of America. 2001. September 4, 2006.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

19 thoughts on “Popular New Term: Euro-American

  1. Frank B Lee

    I’ve never met anyone in person who has referred to himself as Euro American, but such a trend can only be a good thing.

  2. Anthony

    And the mere fact that most minorities call themselves “African American,” “Mexican American,” and so on shows that the left-wing proposition nation concept is a complete failure.

    “Euro-American.” I like it.

  3. Doug Huffman

    I disagree that ‘Euro-Americans’ joining the Balkanization of the United States is a ‘good thing.’ Merely the epithet ‘Balkanization’ is enough of a negative to make the result of such obvious.

    ‘Euro’ is itself enough of a bland post-modern term to indicate the end of patriotism with the rise of non-Americans. Rather, lets take back the term ‘American’ from the Second- and Third-world wannabe interlopers.

  4. Bede Post author

    Besides, the term ‘American’ is a rather recent phenomenon. Prior to the 20th century, people would refer to themselves as, e.g., Virginians, Mississippians, and sometimes even as, e.g., Scottish Virginians, Irish Kentuckians, etc. It is only in recent times that nationalists like Teddy Roosevelt have popularized the term ‘American’.

    Modern nationalism is a product of the Left, and was used throughout 19th-century Europe to undermine ancient loyalties to one’s region and landed aristocracy. Leftists replaced these ancient loyalties with worship of the modern, centralized state.

    Anyone who is a conservative in the traditional sense should be very skeptical of modern nationalism.

    One might object that the term ‘Euro-American’ then is a overgeneralization after looking at 19th-century nomenclature. It does, however, have its usefulness. Say, for example, that you wanted to express the idea that 80% of white in all 50 states oppose amnesty, then “80% of Euro-Americans oppose amnesty” would be a more succinct way of expressing it, and thus the use of ‘Euro-American’ would prove to be fecund.

  5. Ron Lewenberg

    It is ironic that this comes out today, when the Queen of England is here on a state visit to recognize the 400th anniversary of the Virginia colony and the founding of Anglo-America.

    Personally, I am not a fan of the term “Euro-American. It is wrong on a few levels. Firstly, it presumes that Europeans all contributed equally to America. The simple fact is taht America was a British invention.
    Secondly, I always assumed that European was the norm for America, even in New York.

  6. Frank B Lee

    America was founded by northern and western Europeans (vast majority Christian as well), but in a multicultural society I think it’s vital for us to learn to identify as European just as other ethnic groups identify with themselves. Others certainly view us (incl Jews) collectively as European Americans, and we seem to reproduce for the most part with other Europeans in general. I’ll always think of myself as British, Southern, South Carolinian, Pee Deeian, etc. I’m of western European stock, but what percentage of America is northern or western European? By the way I was told “west” and “north” are two distinct regions in Europe though I sense the term “west” is sometimes used to include both.

    I don’t look forward to Balkanisation, but if Europeans don’t develop a sense of ethnic identity, I fear we’ll lose politically to those who do. Ideally I’d like to return to being South Carolinian, but such an ideal can’t be reached in a centralised, transient, multicultural society.

    And, yes, with any uprooted identity, Euro-American could lead to demagogues, but it’s the inevitable result of mass immigration. We created this mess out of a perfectly good nation.

  7. Tommy Clark

    Being refered to as an European American feels like a step down.

    Having traveled overseas, with the military, I always felt proud to be recognized as an American.

    The Australians are a proud people, but give much honor to the Queen of England. I felt pity for them, that they had to identified themselves with another nation, as if being an Aussy wasn’t enough.

    The whole concept of someone being a minority American is corrupt, and could be done away with by all Americans understanding and following the Constitution of the Uniters States of America.

  8. Thor H. Asgardson

    It is time to impeach George W. Bush for high treason against the United States of America.

  9. Frank B Lee

    Sorry, how is it newspeak? This should be the near opposite of what the managerial state desires. However, since this is a highly intelligent site, I wouldn’t be surprised if others here see something I don’t.

    First, as America becomes increasingly diverse, its citizenry will increasingly divide along ethnic lines. As a result, those within a powerful group will gain while those without will lose.

    If blacks identify as black, latinos as latino, etc. and whites identify simply with the state as a whole, whom do you think is going to win political battles? The whites will divide along petty issues and a significant majority will fail to view themselves as white and hence to recognise and support legitimate white interests.

    Who identifies with and is most loyal to the American state at present? Those who identify with the American founders, esp. as a result of descent or similar appearance and background. However, this same group seems to be the least ethnocentric.

    Expanded nationalism is the result of conflict. Americans are united by Mexicans moving in, by foreign terrorist attacks, by foreign wars because it gives the American “nation” something to identify against, etc. Hence part the desire of the managerial state for perpetual war is it creates unity within the state and loyalty to the state (in my mind, the other desire for perpetual war being to circumvent new traditions, i.e. war as a form of perpetual revolution).

    If immigration is drastically reduced, then we don’t get balkanisation. But if it is not drastically reduced, we get balkanisation or whites get overrun by the other ethnic groups who do organise. There’s just no other option as I see it: balkanise or lose strongly.

  10. Filmer

    “Firstly, it presumes that Europeans all contributed equally to America. The simple fact is that America was a British invention.”

    Ron, you are correct.

    I also agree that Euro-American is problematic.

    It is a continental scale designation the same as African-American so PC folks who object to it are not on firm ground. But I suspect it probably irks Americans of Russian heritage since they are not technically Euros.

    But, as one of the liberal PC enforcers pointed out, most African Americans don’t know where in Africa they come from. (Liberals can occasionally make good points.) Most come from West Africa for sure. But most White (Euro) Americans do? They know if they are German or Irish or English or Italian or a mix, etc. I think the designation Euro and the concept of White as well is an attempt to create a false unity. Historically, the Irish couldn’t stand the English. Most North Western Europeans looked down on the Mediterranean Italians when they first got here.

    The problem with Euro-American is the same as the problem with White nationalism. It attempts to create a false consciousness that does not reflect historical reality. That part of the Jones speech I actually concur with. It still matters whether one is Catholic or Protestant for example. It matters whether one is a Northern Protestant or a Southern Protestant. That is why we should focus on regionalism and decentralization. Let the Italians be Italians and Irish be Irish. Let Southerners be Southerners and Northerners be Northerners.

    I submit that the designation of Southerner for me carries more meaning than does White or Euro-American.

  11. Bede Post author


    I agree with what you say. I think that when they can be used more specific terms are preferable. And I am not arguing for white nationalism. In many cases, for example, it would be preferable to call someone an “Anglo-American,” or “Southerner,” or “Anglo Kentuckian,” or “Irish Kentuckian,” etc.

    But say that you want to say that “white people in Georgia, California and Maine believe x.” You obviously can’t say “southerners,” or use a regionalistic term in this instance. You could just use “white,” but this term has its problems as well. I think the term “Euro-American” is most precise and the most conservative because it invokes genealogy, albeit in a generalist way.

    I think, when discussing race, conservatives are best to avoid some of the scientific notions of race and rather return to a more Biblical / Greco-Roman understanding of ancestry and genealogy. You get the same results, but in a more traditionalist way.

  12. Frank B Lee

    Unless the South manages to secede or unless states rights is renewed along with a reduction in our transience, I’m increasingly coming to view white nationalism as the inevitable best defense against mass immigration.

    My previous post had a few errors in it:

    When I said “Expanded nationalism is the result of conflict.” I was additionally meaning that whites would expand their nationalism from more natural, local (and more particular ethnic like Irish) identities to a generic white Christian sense in response to the diversity. That point got lost in one of my edits.

    –> If we want to restore natural ties, then we need to end this immigration (as well as decentralise and reduce transience). Otherwise, we get the mass ties.

    I certainly don’t mean I wish to submerge my personal heritage in a generic white heritage with no roots, but I do believe such a generic ethnic movement is or at least will be needed. Though at the same time, America seems to have become, especially in certain regions like the Northeast, a transient melting pot of whites for better or worse. Anyway, didn’t Scallon say something about how politics is about building alliances?

    Most of Russia (population) is in Europe by the way. I haven’t met many Russians so I’m unaware as to what they consider themselves at present. However, I do know of someone I could ask. I was taught they are considered European.

    This is an excellent topic; a much needed discussion.

    One additional point I’d like to make: An Irishman living in Ireland might have identified strongly with a clan, but upon moving to America he dropped the clan tie and melted into an Irish identity. Upon living in a diverse city of many ethnic groups he might have lost his Irish identity and replaced it with a Western or even simply a white identity, albeit while treasuring his unique heritage. Or if not he then his children would come to view themselves as generically white. Nationalism defines itself against the different, and it also requires some critical mass of people (solitary Irishman is going to be pressured into dropping Irishness) or an especially strong ethnic tie (e.g. a religious tie like Judaism). As well, similar groups are going to amalgamate over time especially if drawn together by an opposing group.

    We need to redevelop our lost particular ties. That Irishman and his descendants need to become New Yorkers and Manhattanites etc. That won’t happen unless we correct certain problems (mentioned in the paragraph with the arrow) which I don’t foresee having any hope of being fixed in the near future. If a Southern movement can be created, I’m all for it. If not, I’m stuck with white nationalism. Saying such isn’t popular, but Jared Taylor and Sam Francis (that such would be the future of the western right) are right.

  13. Bede Post author

    Every Russian I’ve known would consider himself European. They are, after all, white. The pre-1917 aristocrats and peasants thought of themselves as part of Europe. I am not an expert, but I think it is largely the Marxists, champions of proposition nations, who argued that Russia was not “European.”

  14. C.J. Johnson

    Pretty sad day when we are totally dividing throughout our country. I knew the European-American term was going to pop up eventually with all the discrimination going on in our country today.

    Why can’t we all just be “Americans”? Now that’s a novel idea. It’s too bad that we cannot unify in this country anymore. There is so much hatred and anger throughout this country among the ethnic lines, gender lines and political lines.

    The way everything is going, the United States will cease to exist in our lifetime. We already have the North American Union with Canada and Mexico on our front porch and all of our political leaders are lining up to climb on board. This once great nation will be nothing but a thing of the past with open borders to the north and south.

    As I close, I am proud to say that I am an American and an American only! I will never lower myself to put a hyphen in my introduction and feel bad for all those ethnic groups that are so insecure as to feel they need to be called a Native-, Mexican-, Asian- or African- American instead of just being an AMERICAN!

  15. Prescott

    There are several problems with the appellation European to designate race.

    1. Connecting race to geography has no cultural purpose. Many Aryan people have never been to Europe and never will be. None of us can say with absolute certainty whether the Aryan race even evolved in Europe to begin with.
    2. The appellation European doesn’t serve to unify the Aryan race. In Europe, the appellation European was never popular amongst conservatives, and it has rapidly lost affiliation since Unification. Conservatives in Europe very affirmatively say “I am not European, I am [Finnish, British, etc]. How odd that American conservatives adopt the appellation as Europeans reject it.
    3. The appellation European-American was probably born from African-American as much as any other source. It is not a name of Aryan birth or choosing, but rather an appellation applied in a multicultural morass. Like many other aspects of American culture, it’s born from Blacks and promoted by liberals.
    4. Although the appellation European has more cultural significance than White, it still doesn’t give us the gut reaction that Aryan gives us.
    5. I could go on.

    The appellation we give ourselves should be uniquely bestowed upon us by members of our own race. It should serve to definitively distinguish us. Any objections to the appellation from outside the race only helps to solidify the bonds of kinship. If the appellation is powerful enough to evoke strong emotions, it’s for the better. That’s why I’m an Aryan, and I always will be.

  16. Frank B Lee

    Old discussion I know… but I’ve been busy.


    Conservative Europeans reject the term European because they wish to secede from the EU, no? Also, they are not as centralised and transient as America is yet. They are still dividing against each other though they do unite against foreign threats such as the Muslims.

    There is much wisdom in the idea that nationalism defines itself against the other. “If the appellation is powerful enough to evoke strong emotions, it’s for the better.” Actually, I’d prefer that we sealed off our borders and focused on fighting, with little violence, amongst ourselves. Eliminate the greater external threat, and the alliance can break apart into smaller, more natural communities once again.

    It doesn’t matter where the term originated…

    The word Aryan like the Swastika has been run through the dirt with WWII. Aryan also refers to nordic Europeans whereas American white nationalism, e.g. American Renaissance, seems to tend to include more amalgamated Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as even Jews.

    While blood is important to nationalism, there is another part you are omitting: soil. “European” identifies the roots of Euro-Americans.

    I certainly view myself as Southern, British, and white and believe it important to ally against common threats, but it is vital to retain or to build ties to a local, real community. I like how the BNP emphasises local ties. It is nationalist, but it is also a defender of its traditions and a promoter of local ties. Additionally, it wishes for Scotland and other nations to remain within the UK while retaining a great deal of autonomy. An overly divided Britain will tend to rely upon the EU more. It looks like divide and conquer.

    Strength comes from numbers, but it’s vital to retain and rebuild communities and to never confuse a stranger for a friend.

  17. Michael Vilkin

    Affirmative Action laws have a stated goal to help minorities, and are based on racial preferences. For example, African-Americans are 12% of the general population, but about 35% in prisons. It’s about 3 times more than their “fair” share.
    White liberal Jews are about 3% of the population, but about 10% in law schools. It’s also about 3 times more than their “fair” share.
    Of course, we need to classify people based on race, religion and ethnic group. Otherwise, how can you admit more blacks to law schools, and more liberal Jews to jails?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>