In school, it used to be taught that no matter where someone came from, if they had U.S. citizenship, they were American. To say otherwise was generally understood to be "against American values." There was also this thing called "being Unamerican." Neither term has legal force - or even a legal definition - but most of us have come in contact with it outside of the classroom. In more recent times, the media sphere has made ample use of the word:
So what does "Unamerican" really mean?
Perhaps history can give us some insight....
With a focus on investigating organizations linked to fascism and communism, the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" (HUAC) was established in 1938. The organization gained notoriety for its involvement in the McCarthyist hoax and, in 1959, former U.S. President Harry S. Truman called it "the most un-American thing in the country today" (It was renamed in 1969 and later restructured).
To the impartial observer, it would seem that - in the context of 1938 - endorsing ideas potentially linked to fascism or communism was once the definition of "Un-Americanness" and, over time, probing into people's words and work, while destroying their lives to try to determine if they are Un-American, came to be seen as "Un-American". In short...
What is Un-American? (as determined in 1959)
As far as this assertion goes, it checks out with how I myself have seen the term "Unamerican" used - and by that, I don't mean like in the examples given earlier, where "Unamerican" is a highly-emotional slur for journalists to throw around because it sounds powerful and makes for good propaganda. What I mean is how "that's Unamerican" is a tool to criticize the use of power and authority to trample on Americans in ways that the Constitution indicates at least the government cannot. Unlike the examples in the media sphere, this parallel of reference makes sense, because it alludes to an indifference to the spirit behind the guarantees available for U.S. citizens in the Constitution which, historically, set the U.S. apart from other countries in the world, making those guarantees characteristic of and unique to America - and, arguably, therefore quintessentially American. Indeed, through the Constitution, the U.S. began a unique experiment in individual agency and private property ownership. That included, among the right to private own weapons and vote, the right to share and publish opinions. This contrasted the situation left behind in Europe, where no freedom was guaranteed if it came into conflict with the power ambitions and political interests of government rulers - specifically, monarchists. Thus, if anything should be considered "Unamerican", it is that which cuts against the spirit of what made U.S. citizenship different, and cuts against certain civilian liberties that the (historically) strongest authority in the state, the U.S. Government, cannot even take away.
Confirming that we are on the right path, the HUAC's investigations, which came under fire for being "Unamerican", targeted individuals for their words and writing, which certainly violates the spirit of freedom of speech and the press, two key Constitutional principles. But there is another point to consider: unless the concepts of "Unamerican" and "against American values" are to be understood independently, the idea that it is "against American values" to a U.S. citizen is not American is completely invalidated if we have to evaluate what one is saying and writing first. In other words, the idea that a person with U.S. citizenship is automatically an American depends upon first accepting that the person's words or writing cannot change that fact. Accordingly, because everything flows from the idea that one can say or write whatever critique they want and not lose their American citizenship, this principle, once unique to our country and part of our Constitution, is part of American identity.
Add in that an uncountable number of quotes from the Founding Fathers express the virtue and necessity of the freedom of speech and that, having written the Constitution, the Founders included speech freedom in the Constitution, the argument that the freedom of speech is at the foundation of American-ness grows even stronger. Note that the Founders included this principle in the permanent part of the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - and determined that it should the first entry - the First Amendment - no less. What else could the Founders have done to indicate the importance of what they wanted to endorse? All of these points are consistent with the theory that American speech freedom is a hallmark of Americanness.
Fast forward to the present, where the American tech companies Duck Duck Go and Yahoo erased the direct link to us their search results, the American social media company Facebook no longer allows posts to link to us and the American social media company Twitter deleted our account. The American social media company YouTube has shut down our channel. And, much to my surprise, the American alternative media company Vimeo terminated our small presence there as well. These events happened in concert, which is quite suspicious. As previously noted, we were only able to find a friendly hand when we left the west and went to the former Soviet Union. But that is just the beginning.
I have already written about what YouTube recently did with regards to its Terms of Service. But stumbling upon the free speech dumpster fire at Vimeo I saw something so outrageous, I could hardly believe my own eyes.
What is happening right now in the U.S. concerning speech on the internet is a disgrace to the free exchange of ideas this country has, for so long, stood for.
Nobody in their right mind can say, with a straight face, that the Founders intended for the rights we enjoy to be swallowed up by corporations that buy out other corporations and purchase every inch of high-value cyberspace. That is like Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller purchasing land across the country to turn into private property just so nobody has anywhere to picket against them without stepping onto private land and being restricted by Carnegie or Rockefeller. The idea is completely Unamerican, if ever such a concept existed. It is time this madness ends.
- "The threat to sanctuary cities is Unamerican"
- "Trumps patriotism is Unamerican"
- "The NRA is Unamerican"
- "School choice is Unamerican"
So what does "Unamerican" really mean?
Perhaps history can give us some insight....
With a focus on investigating organizations linked to fascism and communism, the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" (HUAC) was established in 1938. The organization gained notoriety for its involvement in the McCarthyist hoax and, in 1959, former U.S. President Harry S. Truman called it "the most un-American thing in the country today" (It was renamed in 1969 and later restructured).
To the impartial observer, it would seem that - in the context of 1938 - endorsing ideas potentially linked to fascism or communism was once the definition of "Un-Americanness" and, over time, probing into people's words and work, while destroying their lives to try to determine if they are Un-American, came to be seen as "Un-American". In short...
What is Un-American? (as determined in 1959)
supporting ideas possibly linked to communismsupporting ideas possibly linked to fascism- witch hunts ruining personal livelihood to determine if somebody's ideas are Un-American
As far as this assertion goes, it checks out with how I myself have seen the term "Unamerican" used - and by that, I don't mean like in the examples given earlier, where "Unamerican" is a highly-emotional slur for journalists to throw around because it sounds powerful and makes for good propaganda. What I mean is how "that's Unamerican" is a tool to criticize the use of power and authority to trample on Americans in ways that the Constitution indicates at least the government cannot. Unlike the examples in the media sphere, this parallel of reference makes sense, because it alludes to an indifference to the spirit behind the guarantees available for U.S. citizens in the Constitution which, historically, set the U.S. apart from other countries in the world, making those guarantees characteristic of and unique to America - and, arguably, therefore quintessentially American. Indeed, through the Constitution, the U.S. began a unique experiment in individual agency and private property ownership. That included, among the right to private own weapons and vote, the right to share and publish opinions. This contrasted the situation left behind in Europe, where no freedom was guaranteed if it came into conflict with the power ambitions and political interests of government rulers - specifically, monarchists. Thus, if anything should be considered "Unamerican", it is that which cuts against the spirit of what made U.S. citizenship different, and cuts against certain civilian liberties that the (historically) strongest authority in the state, the U.S. Government, cannot even take away.
Confirming that we are on the right path, the HUAC's investigations, which came under fire for being "Unamerican", targeted individuals for their words and writing, which certainly violates the spirit of freedom of speech and the press, two key Constitutional principles. But there is another point to consider: unless the concepts of "Unamerican" and "against American values" are to be understood independently, the idea that it is "against American values" to a U.S. citizen is not American is completely invalidated if we have to evaluate what one is saying and writing first. In other words, the idea that a person with U.S. citizenship is automatically an American depends upon first accepting that the person's words or writing cannot change that fact. Accordingly, because everything flows from the idea that one can say or write whatever critique they want and not lose their American citizenship, this principle, once unique to our country and part of our Constitution, is part of American identity.
Add in that an uncountable number of quotes from the Founding Fathers express the virtue and necessity of the freedom of speech and that, having written the Constitution, the Founders included speech freedom in the Constitution, the argument that the freedom of speech is at the foundation of American-ness grows even stronger. Note that the Founders included this principle in the permanent part of the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - and determined that it should the first entry - the First Amendment - no less. What else could the Founders have done to indicate the importance of what they wanted to endorse? All of these points are consistent with the theory that American speech freedom is a hallmark of Americanness.
Fast forward to the present, where the American tech companies Duck Duck Go and Yahoo erased the direct link to us their search results, the American social media company Facebook no longer allows posts to link to us and the American social media company Twitter deleted our account. The American social media company YouTube has shut down our channel. And, much to my surprise, the American alternative media company Vimeo terminated our small presence there as well. These events happened in concert, which is quite suspicious. As previously noted, we were only able to find a friendly hand when we left the west and went to the former Soviet Union. But that is just the beginning.
I have already written about what YouTube recently did with regards to its Terms of Service. But stumbling upon the free speech dumpster fire at Vimeo I saw something so outrageous, I could hardly believe my own eyes.
What is happening right now in the U.S. concerning speech on the internet is a disgrace to the free exchange of ideas this country has, for so long, stood for.
Nobody in their right mind can say, with a straight face, that the Founders intended for the rights we enjoy to be swallowed up by corporations that buy out other corporations and purchase every inch of high-value cyberspace. That is like Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller purchasing land across the country to turn into private property just so nobody has anywhere to picket against them without stepping onto private land and being restricted by Carnegie or Rockefeller. The idea is completely Unamerican, if ever such a concept existed. It is time this madness ends.
