Candace Owens, #ADOS, and the question nationalism (op-ed)

Recently, two controversies made headlines, one included Candace Owens, a black woman and director of communications for Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group, and the other involved the creators of hashtag ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves). 

           

Video surfaced of a December 2018 Turning Point USA event in London.  A questioner asked Owens why the term nationalism was so problematic.  Owens replied: The definition gets poisoned by elitist that want globalization.  Whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about is Hitler.  He was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, ok, fine.  The problem is Hitler had dreams outside of Germany.  He wanted to globalize.  He wanted everyone to be German and speak German.  To me, that’s not nationalism.

           

Of course, Owens was ridiculed by her detractors for being “fine with Hitler making Germany great”.   Owens attempted to divorce the concept of “nationalism” from Hitler, because   President Trump was accused of endorsing “white nationalism” when he declared himself a “nationalist” at a rally for Senator Ted Cruz in October of 2018.

For Owens, nationalism is interchangeable with Trump’s slogan “Make America Great”, that’s fine, but it doesn’t apply to World War II.  Instead of promoting a conspiracy that globalists are poisoning the definition of nationalism, she should have been prepared to define the term.

Here’s two definitions: 1). Exalting one’s nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on the promotion of its culture and interest as opposed to other nations and global interest.  2). A belief that ethnic groups should rule themselves and each group should have their own nation to avoid oppression.  

Owens could have explained the contemporary and historical distinctions of the term.  Then left the questioner to ponder the words of former President Bill Clinton, “Everybody is a nationalist.  The question is are you an inclusive nationalist or a tribal nationalist.”

The second controversy started when the mainstream media discovered there was a host of criticism directed at Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Corey Booker from a group called American Descendants of Slaves or #ADOS.  In response a CNN commentator, Angela Rye, claimed some ADOS arguments were not organic, but were paid for by Russia, and a guest on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show argued the ADOS hashtag was a way to identify foreign influence.

Naturally, the creators of the #ADOS, attorney Antonio Moore, and political commentator Yvette Carnell, demanded an apology.  Carnell told Intercept magazine the hashtag ADOS was started two years ago, because “we thought there wasn’t enough policy … For Americans who descended from slavery and had ancestors who lived through Jim Crow, reconstruction, all of that, so we came up with this hashtag.”

Moore told Intercept the first ADOS conference will be held in October, and they will invite Harris and Booker to “talk to black America about their black agenda.”

Intercept also wrote: For years, identifying as a black American “descendant” of slaves or ADOS has been a way for black Americans to advocate for the specific needs and interests of those brought to the United States via the Transatlantic slave trade hundreds of years ago, as distinct from the more recent African and Caribbean immigrants.  Some critics using the ADOS hashtag have focused on Harris’s race, pointing to Kamala’s India and Jamaican heritage as a possible explanation for why, as a prosecutor, she supported policies that disproportionately harmed black Americans.  The ADOS movement does have some nativist elements.

Here’s a definition of the term nativist: Protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

Clinton was right, everyone is a nationalist, even the creators of #ADOS, but they're not inclusive they’re tribal.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 2/20/19