While I don't agree with every bit of that document, I also don't agree with what this man is saying.
Rugged individualism is an interesting point. First of all, "rugged individualism" as a phrase wasn't used by coincidence in this document. It is a phrase coined by Hoover during the Great Depression to speak about, essentially, governmental power. To quote Hoover:
"We were challenged with a... choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines doctrines of paternalism and state socialism."
"The Republican Party [in the years after the war] resolutely turned its face away from these ideas and war practices.... When the Republican Party came into full power it went at once resolutely back to our fundamental conception of the state and the rights and responsibility of the individual."
As such, I personally wouldn't classify this idea of "Rugged Individualism" as white, but instead American as white European countries are "diametrically opposed" to this idea.
Why does this matter?
Well, Rugged Individualism as a concept is interesting because it is essentially a system which structurally supports the status quo. The imposition of "rugged individualism" in American policy is heavily felt on poor communities, because it is a system which opposes welfare and tells people to do it themselves, and that their hard work is all that stands between them and success. As such, this concept is partially at the root of harmful stereotypes for African Americans being "lazy" and not working hard enough to succeed and "welfare queens" and all that. Rugged individual states simply: If you are poor, you are to blame. It then follows that if poverty is more common within a certain racial group, that racial group is to blame, or perhaps there is something inherent...
So then, what system of positive values opposes this concept of "rugged individualism"? Collectivism, and community and working not just for yourself but for your fellow man. By imposing this ideal of "rugged individualism", we devalue other positive values and create a system which does not provide racial justice and enables the trap of poverty.
Again, this isn't to say that self-reliance is strictly "white" or even strictly "American", but instead a means of examining how this value can be harmful, and how it can push back against other positive values. I believe that the man in your video is seeking outrage and those who seek outrage will find it, and he seems to be doing so by reading this admittedly poorly written document in the most uncharitable way, and refusing to honestly engage with it.
EDIT: I'll also add briefly that his outrage is interesting, as it shows that he has internalized these values. If we ask "why do we consider these values positive in the first place" you are led to some interesting answers. Many of these "positive" qualities aren't inherently good, such as basically the entire family section. What makes these "good" qualities is that we have imposed this ideal, not an inherent quality. It is important to understand this fact when condemning other things as "bad". We should understand that some of these "negative" traits are not negative, but simply traits that our culture has labeled as negative, sometimes due to xenophobia or racism. A large part of our culture's history with colonialism can be boiled down to us labeling those who are different from us as "savages" and seeking to impose our culture as a means of salvation. We should acknowledge our own biases in this regard and acknowledge how this mindset and these actions are harmful.
EDIT2: I also find it very interesting how he skips over this family point. He doesn't acknowledge that the document has a point, he just says "How is that whiteness" and moves on. That said, I feel that is a pretty easy question to answer. The traditional European family structure (Father, Mother, two kids, Male breadwinner, Female homemaker) isn't something that is seen universally around the globe. In Asia, it is common to live with multiple adult generations in the same house, which puts a larger emphasis on collective responsibility. This is similar in Africa, where extended families with multiple generations live together. The phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" is actually an African phrase, which speaks to the collective nature of family. In a lot of ways, this idea is interwoven within the idea of "individualism" vs "collectivism" mentioned above.
Last edited by sundin13 - on 17 July 2020
