Response to Globalist Historical Analysisby J. Parnell McCarter


Date: 08/06/16


Globalism argues for essentially open borders and the moral right for the free migration of people across the world.In the view of globalists, race and ethnicity are simply social constructs anyway, so why have nations with immigration controls, since all that really matters is that we are citizens of the world?


In contrast, nationalism asserts national rights, supports national immigration controls, and rejects that race and ethnicity are simply social constructs. While it is the case that all people descend from Adam and Noah, and in that sense are one, it is also the case that God has providentially distributed the descendants of Noah into people groups, each with its own characteristics.This is not negated simply because there is some level of inter-marriage among the people groups.


A typical argument of globalists in their refutation of Anglo American nationalism is that Anglo Americans would have no right to be in North America save on globalist grounds.This globalist argument asserts non-whites were in North America first, so on nationalist grounds Anglos had no right to come and settle in North America.Such globalists then go on to assert that only on globalist principles do any European whites, including Anglo Americans, have any right to settle and form nations in North America.


This globalist argument is based upon a flawed analysis of history.I will for purposes here set aside questions of European exploration and colonization of North America before 1492, such as treated in the article at .Even setting this aside, it is simply not the case that every square inch of territory in North America was clearly the rightful property of some Indian tribe when Anglo Americans came.Jamestown Island is a case in point.It was an uninhabited island, and wars among various Indian tribes had left its ownership very much in doubt in 1607 when it was settled by the Virginia Company.If some Indian tribe had moved 300 miles away and settled on Jamestown Island in 1606, such a move and settlement would not have been an 'invasion' of Jamestown Island by such tribe, because Jamestown Island was no tribe's property at that time.For the same reason it is erroneous to classify the settlement of Jamestown Island in 1607 by Anglo people as an 'invasion'. What became Plymouth too was uninhabited, and the Pilgrims made a mutually binding treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe (see ). ††In the case of Manhattan island, the Dutch actually paid Indians for it twice, and such purchase of tribal land was common among Indian tribes (see ).


From such beginnings as described above, territory was typically acquired from Indian tribes in one of 4 ways:


1. Purchase of territory from Indian tribes

2. Retribution as a result of war loss by an Indian tribe following an attack by an Indian tribe on a white settlement.The attack would then lead to a war, which in most cases ended in white victory.As in many wars, the victor gains territory from the losing party.(This was how in modern times Israel got control of the West Bank following a failed Arab invasion of Israel.)

3. Settlement of territory which whites considered to be no tribe's clear property, but which a given Indian tribe considered its property

4. Offensive conquest by whites of territory clearly the possession of a given Indian tribe, followed by displacement of the Indian people


The fourth method of territorial acquisition is clearly morally wrong, and the second is morally questionable.But globalists do a disservice to the truth when they argue as if all territorial acquisition by Anglo Americans in North America can be reduced to the fourth way.In reality, especially in colonial America, and even more especially in the North during the colonial era, the first two methods were the most common methods of territorial acquisition.Anglo American residence in North America can be morally defended on nationalist grounds.