Russ Douthat on Critical Race Theory

[Josh]

In 1619, blacks were brought over as indentured servants, just like a very large number of whites were. Were they seen as equal at that time? I doubt it. Were they treated the same as white indentured servants? I have no idea. During the century after that, laws were changed so that blacks brought over as indentured servants did not need to be freed - but only blacks. Whatever attitudes existed towards blacks at the time were probably intensified to justify slavery.

My understanding is that servants/slaves brought over were separated into "white" and "black" categories in order to keep this rather large underclass of labour from uniting, organising, and demanding better working conditions. Instead, both groups were conditioned to see the "other" category as the problem.

But I'm not sure how relevant that is to today, other than to be on alert for the same tactics today. Today, people who are elite and powerful try to convince one category of people that another category of people are "racist", and then to blame all their problems on those "racists". Both groups end up being conditioned to see the "other" category as the problem. The actual powerful elites in either the 1600s or the present day are the only ones who profit from this division. As Douthat points out,

The pro-life and school choice movements, for instance, regularly invoke the impact of past progressive racism on disproportionately high African-American abortion rates and underperforming public schools.

This is why I am sceptical when the left takes the moral high ground on being "anti-racist" and then prescribes the solution for "racism". The left is dead-set against limiting abortion (despite its very racist history) and is dead set against any kind of school choice, despite it being a very obvious cure for bad schools.

[Josh]

If we had really good school systems in poor neighborhoods, our attitudes toward both the schools and the people who live in those neighborhoods would probably be better. And that can bring a virtuous cycle. With bad schools, we have a vicious negative cycle. To justify the fact that the public schools in these neighborhoods are terrible, there's a real tendency to blame the people who go to them, portray them in very unsympathetic terms, etc. And so we are even less likely to support these schools. And the neighborhoods get even worse.

Then support and promote school vouchers which give parents cash, equal to the amount spent on public schools, to send their children to any private school of their choice or to homeschool.

The progressive-left is dead-set against this (something Russ Douthat has spoken about a bit).

[temporal1]

If we had really good school systems in poor neighborhoods, our attitudes toward both the schools and the people who live in those neighborhoods would probably be better. And that can bring a virtuous cycle. With bad schools, we have a vicious negative cycle. To justify the fact that the public schools in these neighborhoods are terrible, there's a real tendency to blame the people who go to them, portray them in very unsympathetic terms, etc. And so we are even less likely to support these schools. And the neighborhoods get even worse.

Then support and promote school vouchers which give parents cash, equal to the amount spent on public schools, to send their children to any private school of their choice or to homeschool.

The progressive-left is dead-set against this (something Russ Douthat has spoken about a bit).

In my county (probably state) MAGNET schools have been around for decades.
In my community, they are/were popular, across the board, students bussed into targeted neighborhoods, for more variety and better quality education.

i’m not aware of neighborhood changes like more affluent folks moving there. Why would they? Bussing takes care of it.

School vouchers, in value of thousands of dollars for each child, were proven problematic because home schools and private schools did not want to be fully regulated by government, which would happen if they accepted gov funds. There is no gain if alternative school choices are in fact turned into public schools.

No easy answers.

i was sorry Dr Ben Carson did not get his wish to lead the DOE, Thomas Sowell could be a resource, too.
In other words, seek input from men who “beat the system” they were born into.

Of course, this happens across the board, even white-looking students can be in high-risk of failure groups, i was. Not that i excelled like Dr Carson or Dr Sowell!! - But i did not fail as statistics probably predicted. Better than expected outcomes happen.

Emphasis should be on why many students do fine - in spite of statistics.

The culture, in families, schools, churches, used to emphasize examples of people “overcoming the odds,” to encourage, give direction and hope. i don’t hear so much about this today. Encouragement seems to be to identify as victims, victims are rewarded.

The victim mentality, rewarded by gov as it has become, is seductive and destructive.
The mentality of “hope exists in the darkest of times,” as Jesus offers, inspires and is constructive. imho.

Having said that, Thomas Sowell speaks to education, charter schools, and their enemies.
(i have not viewed. i’m not sure i agree with him.) i will view.
57minutes

[SJS]

The culture, in families, schools, churches, used to emphasize examples of people “overcoming the odds,” to encourage, give direction and hope. i don’t hear so much about this today. Encouragement seems to be to identify as victims, victims are rewarded.

The victim mentality, rewarded by gov as it has become, is seductive and destructive.
The mentality of “hope exists in the darkest of times,” as Jesus offers, inspires and is constructive. imho.

Amen and Amen!!

[Bootstrap]

In 1619, blacks were brought over as indentured servants, just like a very large number of whites were. Were they seen as equal at that time? I doubt it. Were they treated the same as white indentured servants? I have no idea. During the century after that, laws were changed so that blacks brought over as indentured servants did not need to be freed - but only blacks. Whatever attitudes existed towards blacks at the time were probably intensified to justify slavery.

My understanding is that servants/slaves brought over were separated into "white" and "black" categories in order to keep this rather large underclass of labour from uniting, organising, and demanding better working conditions. Instead, both groups were conditioned to see the "other" category as the problem.

But I'm not sure how relevant that is to today, other than to be on alert for the same tactics today.

That's a good lesson to learn. These days, "left" and "right" seem to be the two categories used to promote this division.

If we start talking about problems that affect black people or poor people in general in the United States, can we actually focus on thinking out the problem, without grounding everything in those two political categories? After all, Critical Race Theory was designed as a critique of some liberals on the left, and is very much seeking common ground ("convergence"), at least in what many authors write.

Today, people who are elite and powerful try to convince one category of people that another category of people are "racist", and then to blame all their problems on those "racists". Both groups end up being conditioned to see the "other" category as the problem. The actual powerful elites in either the 1600s or the present day are the only ones who profit from this division.

That's the "racial resentment" narrative, and it comes up in most conversations about race. If any conversation on MN starts looking at the causes of problems that black people face, people change it to a conversation about people who are trying to call conservatives racists. It's not about that. But talk show hosts have conditioned a lot of people to where this becomes instinctive. Any conversation about problems black people face is recast as an attack on conservatives. And perhaps that's an example of systemic racism - people feel there is no ground for empathy with black people because that is seen as liberal and anti-conservative, so it becomes very hard for black people to be heard at all if they speak out about these issues.

What if discussions about problems black people face involving schools and police were really about them, not about partisan American politics? When I read CRT authors or listen to their podcasts, that seems to be what they focus on. Their critique is aimed at solving problems, not at taking down conservatives. And Douthat seems to get that.

As Douthat points out,

The pro-life and school choice movements, for instance, regularly invoke the impact of past progressive racism on disproportionately high African-American abortion rates and underperforming public schools.

Sure, that's a valid point.

This is why I am sceptical when the left takes the moral high ground on being "anti-racist" and then prescribes the solution for "racism". The left is dead-set against limiting abortion (despite its very racist history) and is dead set against any kind of school choice, despite it being a very obvious cure for bad schools.

I don't think either "the left" or "the right" has moral high ground, both are rather flawed. But for Christians, I don't think the main question is which political faction we want to award moral high ground to. And from what I can tell, people who consider themselves Critical Race Theorists don't all agree on what the solutions to these problems are. Douthat recognizes that.

[Bootstrap]

If we had really good school systems in poor neighborhoods, our attitudes toward both the schools and the people who live in those neighborhoods would probably be better. And that can bring a virtuous cycle. With bad schools, we have a vicious negative cycle. To justify the fact that the public schools in these neighborhoods are terrible, there's a real tendency to blame the people who go to them, portray them in very unsympathetic terms, etc. And so we are even less likely to support these schools. And the neighborhoods get even worse.

Then support and promote school vouchers which give parents cash, equal to the amount spent on public schools, to send their children to any private school of their choice or to homeschool.

As I have pointed out several times, the very first article on Critical Race Theory was Derrick Bell's Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma, which is all about school choice and proposes looking into things like magnet schools.

I have long been an advocate for educational vouchers, but whether they help or hurt this particular problem depends a lot on how they are structured.

The Congressional Budget Office evaluates proposed spending to decide what impact it will have on the budget. I think it would be good to have a similar office to evaluate the impact of proposals on income inequality and racial inequality. Often, details matter. One voucher program might give real choice to parents who have few good choices for their children, another voucher program might help primarily those who are already well off.

And I think that's one of the things I like about some CRT proponents - the emphasis on understanding the real causes of problems and evaluating the impact of programs on people's lives.

[Josh]

That's a good lesson to learn. These days, "left" and "right" seem to be the two categories used to promote this division.

If we start talking about problems that affect black people or poor people in general in the United States, can we actually focus on thinking out the problem, without grounding everything in those two political categories? After all, Critical Race Theory was designed as a critique of some liberals on the left, and is very much seeking common ground ("convergence"), at least in what many authors write.

That's exactly what I'm doing in the "defund the police" thread; for some reason, that thread is decaying into discussing MC USA politics instead.

By the way, we should call it "Critical Theory", because that's what it is; intersectionalism is a critical part of Critical Theory, as the curriculum over in the other thread makes clear in the very first thing we're supposed to watch as part of the pre-work.

That's the "racial resentment" narrative, and it comes up in most conversations about race. If any conversation on MN starts looking at the causes of problems that black people face, people change it to a conversation about people who are trying to call conservatives racists. It's not about that. But talk show hosts have conditioned a lot of people to where this becomes instinctive. Any conversation about problems black people face is recast as an attack on conservatives.

Since calling someone a "racist" is about the worst accusation anyone can weather these days - worse than being caller a murderer - it seems fair to first establish the ground rules that conservatives will not yield to accepting being called "racists" simply for being conservative. That's something the left and liberals simply aren't willing to do.

And perhaps that's an example of systemic racism - people feel there is no ground for empathy with black people because that is seen as liberal and anti-conservative, so it becomes very hard for black people to be heard at all if they speak out about these issues.

I don't feel that way, but I don't see people as inherently liberal or conservative just because of what their skin colour is. I think it's fair, though, to ask someone what their politics are. If they say "liberal", then I have a reason to expect them to promote liberal politics. I don't accept liberalism when "white" people promote it, so why should I accept liberalism if "black" people promote it?

I don't think either "the left" or "the right" has moral high ground, both are rather flawed. But for Christians, I don't think the main question is which political faction we want to award moral high ground to. And from what I can tell, people who consider themselves Critical Race Theorists don't all agree on what the solutions to these problems are. Douthat recognizes that.

I don't choose left or right, but I think it's worth critiquing either of these. jbg seems to have made it his personal duty to constantly critique anyone who might be getting anywhere close at all to being conservative or right-wing, so I feel it's worthwhile for me to criqitue the influence of leftism and progressivism I see around here. And, whether you like it or not, Critical (Race) Theory is the domain of the progressive left. It belongs to them. It's their invention, and they're the ones promoting. Conservatives and right-wing people are not.

If you want anyone who is conservative or right leaning to listen to you, you need to find non-partisan, non-political ways to engage. Talking about how to improve schools with ideas other than leftist-progressive-liberal ideas would be a great starting place. Helping your church start a school, supporting it, and encouraging enrolment from the community would be a great way to do this, if you think some schools are doing a very bad job. That's something I do and that I strongly support. No politics needed.

[Bootstrap]

Racism was sociologically defined as an attitude, i.e. a personal attribute which can be explored by questionnaires et alii. An attitude cannot be ascribed to a "system" or a "structure" whatever this may be.

I like this.

While they may or may not accurately describe something, and the words may or may not have been invented with innocent motives, the terms “Structural Racism” and “Systemic Racism” have become a dog whistle for liberals, liberals who may not necessarily understand them any more than the typical conservative. And in the process, liberals seem to really enjoy that the words “racism” are in there, because they pretty much believe conservatives are racist people anyway. And they occasionally get to play the intellectual when conservatives take offense at being called racist. It’s a twofer, call conservatives racist and dumb at the same time! Jolly good fun.

I really don't think that is where the terms came from, and when I listen to these people speak, they really don't seem to be trying to "own the conservatives" the way some people try to "own the libs".

Remember that the first article on CRT was Derrick Bell's Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Here's a problem that civil rights lawyers like Bell faced: If someone is being denied access to the better schools because of their race, the inner attitudes of the people saying "no" are impossible to prove one way or another, and probably irrelevant to the problem at hand. And beyond that, almost nobody thinks they are racist. Even Grand Wizards of the KKK say they are not racist. So what's the point of focusing on that?

Douthat's articles are mostly about how we teach history. I think the 1619 Project is extreme in some of its views, but I also think that the American Exceptionalism telling of history and the Lost Cause telling of history are extreme. So how do we tell a more complicated version of history that is true and also makes a place for all Americans? Remember that American democracy did not include allowing black people to go to the same schools, vote, and eat in any restaurant until my lifetime.

In general, I am probably closer to Douthat than to the 1619 Project or Ta-Nehisi Coates, but I think parts of their critique of American exceptionalism is important, we are human beings, our government is not perfect, even really important people like Washington and Jefferson had their dark side. I listened to this interview while exercising this morning.

But 1619 goes right to the root, you see. It goes right, right to the root of who we are. I always tell people when you’re talking about Thomas Jefferson, he was brilliant, certainly had attributes that we would describe as good, et cetera, George Washington having attributes that we would describe as good, courageous, gave up the presidency, didn’t declare himself king, et cetera. But what does it mean to know that without enslavement, without the destruction of Black families, without the exploitation of Black labor, without labor guaranteed through torture, these men would not exist as we know them today.

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t moonlighting as a slaveholder, George Washington wasn’t moonlighting as a slave holder. That was their career. That was how they garnered the resources to go off and do these other great things that we so admire and we praise. What does it mean to know your founder’s occupation was slave holding? What does it mean to have to accept the fact that the deadliest war in this country’s history for Americans was launched to preserve enslavement? How can you understand those facts and then go off and invade another country and talk about how you’re going to install Jeffersonian democracy with a straight face?

It’s difficult. It changes the story. It decentralizes the individual; your individual goodness is irrelevant. There is a system at work here. There’s something larger than you, bigger than you. It doesn’t matter how good of a person George Washington was, no one cares. No one cares. No one cares about Thomas Jefferson, they don’t matter. This is how it happened. This is the root of it, and if you had been there, you would have done the same thing.

This is like really, really, really I think disturbing because it removes America and the American project from the place that we’ve traditionally held it. City on the Hill, act of divinity, act of Providence, and puts it down here in the valley of normal everyday human beings. And who are you when you’re down there? Like what are you — what is special now, what is your identity? What are you then if not the first in the world’s oldest democracy?

For Kingdom Christians, our identity is based in another kingdom anyway, we understand that this world is sinful and that even good people are complicated and sinful.

In the same interview, I think Jones may well be right about the opposition to a more accurate telling of history:

If you look at the laws that are being passed, the argument isn’t that we can’t teach this because these are not factually accurate. What they’re saying is that if we teach these to kids, our kids might think we are a racist nation. So think about what that is saying. That if we teach the true history of our country, if we teach these facts, then the logical conclusion that our children will come to is that we are fundamentally a racist nation. And so we cannot teach those facts.

But she goes on to say this:

What I’ve been telling to people who are concerned about these 1619 bans and how do we talk about this history is that it’s complex. And that even at the darkest moments in this country, there was also always a biracial, sometimes a multiracial group of citizens, who are pushing for it to be better. Who were fighting for this country to live up to its highest ideals. And so it’s not simply saying, as those who oppose a more accurate, a more well-rounded understanding of our history say, that they’re teaching kids to hate whiteness or to hate all white people. We don’t get the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendment passed without white people who believed in this as well because Black people could not serve in Congress to pass those laws.

So we have to have a balance. And I think we can withstand that, and what I’m saying is we can teach our children what George Washington did that was great, and we can also teach our children what George Washington did that was terrible. Because as I told my own daughter, who doesn’t do this anymore but she used to ask me all the time when she was some younger, particularly she went from being born into a country with the first Black president to witnessing Donald Trump, and she would ask me all the time, is that person good or bad momma? Are they good or bad? And I’d say most people are both.

You can’t just put a person in a category as being good or bad, but that’s how we’ve wanted to teach the history of this country, and we have to be more honest. No one is responsible for what our ancestors did before us. We’re not responsible for the good things, so you don’t want to own up to slavery then also you can’t claim the Declaration because you also didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence. None of us are responsible for what our ancestors did. But we are responsible for what we do now.

There's plenty I disagree with in things that Jones and Coates say or write, but I agree with the kinds of things that I am quoting here.

[Josh]

I really don't think that is where the terms came from, and when I listen to these people speak, they really don't seem to be trying to "own the conservatives" the way some people try to "own the libs".

Calling anyone a "racist" is trying to "own them". Calling anyone that has absolutely no place in civil discourse in polite society, and I refuse to engage with people who start the discussion with, "Josh, you're a racist, even if you think you aren't" and "If you won't admit you're a racist, this just proves how bad of a racist you are".

Remember that the first article on CRT was Derrick Bell's Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Here's a problem that civil rights lawyers like Bell faced: If someone is being denied access to the better schools because of their race, the inner attitudes of the people saying "no" are impossible to prove one way or another, and probably irrelevant to the problem at hand. And beyond that, almost nobody thinks they are racist. Even Grand Wizards of the KKK say they are not racist. So what's the point of focusing on that?

I have never denied access to someone to a better school because of their race. So why should this be my concern?

I am very eager to see good schools get established and be open to helping all kinds of children get a good education. I am especially interested in Christian education.

I do not, however, have much room to hear theories about things like "disparate impact" which claim that a certain political agenda must be enacted, or else schools are somehow "racist". I think it's very reasonable to let people choose to set up the schools they think are best for their children. If you d on't like the schools those people have set up, go and set up your own.

Douthat's articles are mostly about how we teach history. I think the 1619 Project is extreme in some of its views, but I also think that the American Exceptionalism telling of history and the Lost Cause telling of history are extreme. So how do we tell a more complicated version of history that is true and also makes a place for all Americans? Remember that American democracy did not include allowing black people to go to the same schools, vote, and eat in any restaurant until my lifetime.

Who is this "we"? I don't write history curriculum. If we look at conservative Mennonite history or social studies texts, they don't have a positive view of the state of warfare that has been true for much of America's existence. (But they also aren't anti-American.) I studied from such a book and gained a valuable perspective that World War II was very cruel in how it treated Japanese civilians by dropping atom bombs on them. It had a picture of the person with permanent burns all over their arms. That picture made a real impression on me.

In general, I am probably closer to Douthat than to the 1619 Project or Ta-Nehisi Coates, but I think parts of their critique of American exceptionalism is important, we are human beings, our government is not perfect, even really important people like Washington and Jefferson had their dark side. I listened to this interview while exercising this morning.

(snip Coates quote)

I'm not an American exceptionalist, but I'm also not anti-American. That's part of the problem with things like Coates' analysis: he wants us to adopt a worldview that Washington and Jefferson were somehow incredibly wicked, evil people, and then creates a narrative that, somehow, a different group of people is entirely responsible for everything good and positive in America (which is conveniently his own ethnic group) and that another group is responsible for everything bad and negative in America (which is conveniently not his own ethnic group). I reject that kind of thinking.

For Kingdom Christians, our identity is based in another kingdom anyway, we understand that this world is sinful and that even good people are complicated and sinful.

That would be correct. But rejecting American exceptionalism also means rejecting "exceptionalism" about, really, any ethnic group or nation of people.

What I’ve been telling to people who are concerned about these 1619 bans and how do we talk about this history is that it’s complex. And that even at the darkest moments in this country, there was also always a biracial, sometimes a multiracial group of citizens, who are pushing for it to be better. Who were fighting for this country to live up to its highest ideals.

So, in Hannah-Jones' view, only biracial or multiracial people ever do anything good. I think there's a serious problem with that worldview. In effect, it continues the worldview I see people like Coates proposing, that "whiteness" is inherently something that wicked people are, and "not-whiteness" is inherently virtuous.

I also reject the view that anti-racism is the only form of societal progress. When abortion rates are high, and particularly really, really high amongst black Americans, people who worry about justice and social progress have completely missed the boat. They are busy worrying about irrelevant things like teaching history and cannot see the atrocities being committed today, every day, and immerse themselves in a political system and worldview that excuses them from ever needing to speak up against it.

[Bootstrap]

Remember that the first article on CRT was Derrick Bell's Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Here's a problem that civil rights lawyers like Bell faced: If someone is being denied access to the better schools because of their race, the inner attitudes of the people saying "no" are impossible to prove one way or another, and probably irrelevant to the problem at hand. And beyond that, almost nobody thinks they are racist. Even Grand Wizards of the KKK say they are not racist. So what's the point of focusing on that?

I have never denied access to someone to a better school because of their race. So why should this be my concern?

I am very eager to see good schools get established and be open to helping all kinds of children get a good education. I am especially interested in Christian education.

I do not, however, have much room to hear theories about things like "disparate impact" which claim that a certain political agenda must be enacted, or else schools are somehow "racist". I think it's very reasonable to let people choose to set up the schools they think are best for their children. If you don't like the schools those people have set up, go and set up your own.

You seem to be saying that it would not bother you if black people had terrible public schools and white people had much better. You also seem to be saying that kind of system should not be considered racist, and black people should create their own schools instead of expecting the country to provide good schools for everyone. Do you really mean that? I suspect you don't, you might want to clarify what you do mean.

To me, if the public school system is a cause of racial disparity, that's a problem that needs fixing. And I think there's good evidence that it is.

Douthat's articles are mostly about how we teach history. I think the 1619 Project is extreme in some of its views, but I also think that the American Exceptionalism telling of history and the Lost Cause telling of history are extreme. So how do we tell a more complicated version of history that is true and also makes a place for all Americans? Remember that American democracy did not include allowing black people to go to the same schools, vote, and eat in any restaurant until my lifetime.

Who is this "we"? I don't write history curriculum. If we look at conservative Mennonite history or social studies texts, they don't have a positive view of the state of warfare that has been true for much of America's existence. (But they also aren't anti-American.) I studied from such a book and gained a valuable perspective that World War II was very cruel in how it treated Japanese civilians by dropping atom bombs on them. It had a picture of the person with permanent burns all over their arms. That picture made a real impression on me.

To me, that's not far from what Nikoke Hannah-Jones and Ta-Nehisi Coates is saying about how we should teach American history. They are not anti-American, but they do want the racial history of America to be taught honestly. And that includes teaching not only what was great about Washington and Jefferson, but also the fact that had large estates and could afford to because they had slave labor, that Jefferson slept with at least one adolescent slave and had children with her. If we can teach the cruelty of atomic bombs, surely we can teach that too.

What I’ve been telling to people who are concerned about these 1619 bans and how do we talk about this history is that it’s complex. And that even at the darkest moments in this country, there was also always a biracial, sometimes a multiracial group of citizens, who are pushing for it to be better. Who were fighting for this country to live up to its highest ideals.

So, in Hannah-Jones' view, only biracial or multiracial people ever do anything good.

I think you are misreading her. In context, she is saying that the groups working against racism were biracial or multiracial, not that each member of the groups was biracial or multiracial. And she specifically says that white people were

What I’ve been telling to people who are concerned about these 1619 bans and how do we talk about this history is that it’s complex. And that even at the darkest moments in this country, there was also always a biracial, sometimes a multiracial group of citizens, who are pushing for it to be better. Who were fighting for this country to live up to its highest ideals. And so it’s not simply saying, as those who oppose a more accurate, a more well-rounded understanding of our history say, that they’re teaching kids to hate whiteness or to hate all white people. We don’t get the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendment passed without white people who believed in this as well because Black people could not serve in Congress to pass those laws.

So we have to have a balance. And I think we can withstand that, and what I’m saying is we can teach our children what George Washington did that was great, and we can also teach our children what George Washington did that was terrible. Because as I told my own daughter, who doesn’t do this anymore but she used to ask me all the time when she was some younger, particularly she went from being born into a country with the first Black president to witnessing Donald Trump, and she would ask me all the time, is that person good or bad momma? Are they good or bad? And I’d say most people are both.

You can’t just put a person in a category as being good or bad, but that’s how we’ve wanted to teach the history of this country, and we have to be more honest. No one is responsible for what our ancestors did before us. We’re not responsible for the good things, so you don’t want to own up to slavery then also you can’t claim the Declaration because you also didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence. None of us are responsible for what our ancestors did. But we are responsible for what we do now.

To me, that's a positive view of our country as an imperfect group of people, with some always trying to do better, across racial lines. None of them were perfect, none of us are perfect. There's no American Exceptionalism there. There's no attempt to make whites responsible for what whites have done to blacks in the past. But there is a fight to ask this country to live up to its highest ideals. That's not anti-American.