Are ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Values Really Racist?
The office of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on April 16 that Representative Greene was launching an America First Caucus for Congressional representatives who want to follow the values championed by President Donald Trump. But Greene scrapped these plans after receiving blowback from leaders in her own party. After Punchbowl News leaked a flyer promoting the new caucus, it became public knowledge that Representative Greene believes “America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.” This sparked immediate condemnation from activists, scholars and even other Republican politicians.
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded to Greene’s proposal in an April 16 Twitter post: “America is built on the idea that we are all created equal and success is earned through honest, hard work. It isn’t built on identity, race, or religion. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln and the party of more opportunity for all Americans—not nativist dog whistles.” Republican conference chair Liz Cheney wrote: “Republicans believe in equal opportunity, freedom and justice for all. We teach our children the values of tolerance, decency and moral courage. Racism, nativism, and anti-Semitism are evil. History teaches we all have an obligation to confront and reject such malicious hate.”
Former House Speaker John Boehner told nbc that this “America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I’ve ever seen. … I have no idea how this even showed up. We’ve been the world’s giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot.”
Is stating that America’s political traditions are “uniquely Anglo-Saxon” or stating that mass immigration threatens “the long-term existential future of America as a unique country with a unique culture and a unique identity” worthy of condemnation? Is it “controversial,” “nativist” and “racist” to believe that?
The United States government grants legal permanent residence to about 1 million immigrants a year. The reason for limiting the quantity is to give time for the newcomers to embrace and become part of American culture. Some people think the government should admit fewer immigrants. Some think the government should admit more. But it’s self-evident that the only people arguing in favor of mass immigration are those who want to change America’s unique political traditions, culture and identity.
The mainstream media is piling on Greene. Vanity Fair editors actually titled their reaction “Republicans Are Basically Starting a White Supremacist Caucus.” Washington Post bosses published “In the U.S, Praise for Anglo-Saxon Heritage Has Always Been About White Supremacy.” The Atlantic went with “‘Anglo-Saxon’ Is What You Say When ‘Whites Only’ Is Too Inclusive.” If you want to attract the wrath of liberals, just say something supportive about Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Only about 1 in 5 Americans claim British heritage, and almost none of them believe in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. So why are politicians and commentators swarming this story?
When most conservatives say “Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” they mean the traditions the Anglo-Saxon people developed and spread around the world: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of trade, freedom of religion, rule of law and limited government.
“It may come as a surprise to some American readers to learn that, in the eyes of many Continental European commentators, they and the British and the Australians and others form part of a continuous ‘Anglo-Saxon’ civilization, whose chief characteristic is a commitment to free markets,” Daniel Hannan wrote in Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World. “Anglo-Saxon values … had their genesis in the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlements, in the dark years, violent and unchronicled. From that era came three interrelated concepts that were to transform humankind. First, the idea of personal autonomy, including in contract and property rights; second, the notion that collective decisions ought to be made by representatives who are answerable to the community as a whole; third, the conception of the law as something more than a projection of the wishes of a ruler, as a folkright of inherited freedoms that bound the king just as surely as it bound the meanest subjects.”
Do the liberal attack dogs tearing apart Representative Greene’s America First Caucus believe that your personal freedoms, your right to limit your government, and your belief that there is a higher law are nativist and racist? When you realize what many of them want to replace Anglo-Saxon political traditions with, you realize that the answer is yes.
Today, 55 percent of human beings live in nations that at least claim to follow these principles. We take concepts like personal autonomy, property rights, representative government and the rule of law for granted. But four centuries ago, these concepts were almost exclusive to the British Empire along with Scandinavia. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America documents how these values were first brought into the Western Hemisphere between 1620 and 1640 by 20,000 Puritans who migrated from England to Massachusetts.
But here is what even historians and conservatives do not understand. They love freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the free market, freedom of religion, majority rule with minority protection, rule of law, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, governance through elected representatives, equality of all men, and inviolable individual rights granted by a higher power than human government.
But they admit they do not know where it ultimately came from.
The foundation upon which these principles were established was not built in “the dark years, violent and unchronicled.” It did not originate in the minds of Anglo-Saxon common people and their leaders.
Contrary to Hannan’s belief, the Anglians did not discover these principles during the Dark Ages. Records such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a.d. 890) and the Ynglinga saga (a.d. 1225), although obviously colored with legend, attest that 22 generations prior to the birth of King Alfred the Great, the Angles, Saxons, Danes and other related peoples lived near the city of Tanais on the north shore of the Black Sea (in modern-day Ukraine), then migrated to northwestern Europe during the era of the Roman Empire.
And the late Herbert W. Armstrong traced the Anglo-Saxons back even further.
In The United States and Britain in Prophecy, he proved the Angles and Saxons descended from the ancient Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
“Through the rule of 19 kings and seven successive dynasties, the 10-tribed house of Israel continued in the basic twin sins of Jeroboam: idolatry and Sabbath-breaking,” he wrote. “Several of the kings added other evil and sinful practices. But in 721–718 b.c., God caused the house of Israel to be invaded and conquered by the kingdom of Assyria. These Israelites were removed from their farms and their cities and taken to Assyria on the southern shores of the Caspian Sea as slaves. … The Assyrians—before 604 b.c.—left their land north of Babylon and migrated northwest—through the lands that are now Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and into the land that is called Germany today. Today the descendants of those Assyrians are known to us as the German people. The people of 10-tribed Israel also migrated northwest. Though the Assyrians had taken Israel into captivity, the Israelites did not remain as slaves of the Assyrians in Europe. They continued on a little further—into Western Europe, the Scandinavian peninsula, and the British Isles!”
The history of the United States and Britain is the history of the Angles and Saxons and related peoples. And that history traces back to ancient Israel!
And far from exalting the Anglo-Saxons, this history humbles them. The precious, positive, world-changing values that they have spread across the globe came not because of them but in spite of them. The history of America’s ancient forefathers is the history of repeated rebellion, failure and subjugation. The continued existence of the Israelites—let alone their positive influence on the world—is attributable entirely and exclusively not to Israel but to the God of Israel.
God promised great blessings to the Israelites. But in Leviticus 26, He warned them that if they sinned against Him, He would delay those promises for 2,520 years (see The United States and Britain in Prophecy). Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser iii carried the eastern half of the tribe of Manasseh away captive in 734 b.c. His successor, King Shalmaneser v, carried the other half of the tribe away (along with the tribe of Ephraim) in 718 b.c. Count forward 2,520 years from 734 b.c. and you arrive at a.d. 1787, the year of the development—on biblical principles—and signing of the United States Constitution. Count forward 2,520 years from 718 b.c. and you arrive at a.d. 1803, the year of the history-altering Louisiana Purchase that began America’s rise to becoming the greatest power in world history.
This is not the history of a great or superior people. This is the history of a great and superior God.
When radical leftists try to blot out “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” through vicious political attacks, mass migration and other means, they are not really attacking white supremacy. Nor are they defending equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all. They are attacking the Bible. They are attacking the reality of history.
As America’s traditional political values become more and more a target of attack, it’s time to learn where they ultimately came from. To understand, please read Character in Crisis, by Gerald Flurry. And for more information about why God has used one nation, Israel, please read Chapter 5, “Mystery of Israel,” in Mystery of the Ages, by Herbert W. Armstrong.