Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

Asking and answering the question: ‘Who are we as a people?’

When it comes to matters such as celebrating (or not celebrating) holidays in elementary schools, or seeing a need to take out full-page ads about treating everyone with dignity regardless of their faith, I ask myself questions such as: “Who are we as a people?” And then voicing assertions such as: “This is what we are as a nation.”

Mitch Pearlstein
Center of the American ExperimentMitch Pearlstein

Regarding the question about who we may be, I would suggest that rarely have 300-million-plus people been as fair-minded and hospitable as Americans are and have been for a long time.

And as for the assertion, I would argue that American history and practice are significantly different from histories and practices almost anywhere else in the world. And that with few but glaring exceptions, slavery and Jim Crow being the worst and most obvious, this has been virtuously and successfully so, making it not rash or hubristic to say things such as: “Ideas and policies that might fit elsewhere don’t fit in the United States.” But even if they could be shoehorned, “That wouldn’t be who we are.”  

We’re not Scandinavia

Think, for instance, how it’s not a dodge but a philosophical fact of life to argue how we’re not Scandinavia when proposals are made to further enlarge the role of government on these shores. With affection and all due respect for Swedes and Norwegians, this is true because our DNA is more individualistic and capitalistic than Sweden or Norway’s.

Or picking a local and comparatively trivial event, when a principal of an elementary school in St. Paul sought to cancel celebrations of “dominant holidays” (including Thanksgiving, for heaven’s sake), as such festivities, he alleged, would threaten “a culture of tolerance and respect for all,” it’s entirely kosher to say: This is one area in which abstinence is not a good idea and where multiculturalism has run amok. And that such attempts to deny who we fundamentally are – among other good things, a “nation with the soul of a church” as a Brit once put it – is educationally and civically unsound. Never mind also dismissive of centuries of animating values and disrespectful of majorities who believe in them.      

A few days after the Arbor Day manifesto, a group of political, business, educational and other Minnesota leaders felt compelled to take out a full-page newspaper ad about how it is “un-Minnesotan” to be bigoted against Muslims, as it absolutely is. And that, “We must lead people to a place of tolerance and understanding.”  Right again, they were.

In the main, Americans have acted decently

But as noble and necessary as these imperatives are, I would have added a few sentences at the bottom of the piece about how Minnesotans and Americans, in the overwhelming main, have conducted themselves since 9/11 and before in decent, even gracious ways. In fact, rarely in the history of the planet, I’m reasonably certain, has a nation at war been so respectful of the co-nationalists and co-religionists of the very forces trying to maim and kill them – doing so, not incidentally, in the perverted name of that faith. 

Let me be clear and not misread here. I’m very pleased we have put our best soul forward. We are morally obliged to be fair. And Muslim Americans are just that: Americans.

But recall, if you will, how vastly different things were during another war, when slurs commonly were used to describe Germans and Japanese, even in good company, including movies. And the ugly names used in referring to Vietnamese and other Asians, albeit less frequently and less publicly, in a subsequent war, not all that long ago. At least in terms of not giving needless offense, we may never have been a better people than we are now.  

(For a really massive contrast, imagine some of the names those who live to kill us, and frequently do, call us at the drop of a fuse.)  

I recognize, as well as I can, the pain suffered by a consequential number of Muslims in Minnesota because of what other Minnesotans have said and sometimes what they physically have done. But I also recognize that the decency with which an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans and other Americans interact with Muslims, if not always in ways as warm and personal as one might hope, is nonetheless salutary. It is also much closer to who and what we are, most essentially, as a state and nation and people.

Mitch Pearlstein is the founder and senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment.  His most recent publication is “Can America’s Religious Traditions Strengthen Marriage? Minnesota Leaders Say ‘Yes’ and Propose How.”


If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Tom Cytron-Hysom on 02/05/2016 - 01:41 pm.


    The facts that our country expanded through the theft of land from and genocide towards Native Americans, and that our economy was built on the backs of Black slaves, beg the question whether slavery and Jim Crow were ‘glaring exceptions’ to tolerance. Rather, they seem to me to be built into the very DNA of our country.

  2. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/05/2016 - 02:06 pm.

    I Hate Myself for Reading This

    I should have known that a Mitch Pearlstein article would be full of glib generalizations and facile, yet sweeping statements, that do nothing than restate the blandest of conservative talking points. The layer of smarmy self-congratulation overlaying some understated bigotry should not have surprised me.

    Why, isn’t it cute that a newspaper ad decrying anti-Muslim bigotry was published! I would have added a few lines to say how nice we are around here! We need to pretend that things like the recent anti-Muslim event in St. Cloud didn’t happen, or that a school board member in Columbia Heights felt free to make anti-Muslim comments and resisted mightily the pressure to resign. Heck, let’;s gloss over the fact that not only was HF 2489 introduced, but that four members of the House have signed on as co-sponsors of the anti-Shariah law bill. No, we’re ever so much better than those who want to kill us (Of course, not all Muslims think that way. But we’re still so much nicer than the BAD ones). Yes, let’s just remember how GOOD we are.

    Mr. Pearlstein also seems lacking in historical judgment. The labor of slaves, and the trade in slaves themselves. was an important part of building the American economy and not just a southern aberration confined to a few years. As Mr. Cytron-Hysom notes, our national expansion was made possible by the theft of land and lives from Native Americans. Add in things like the Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 Immigration Act (limiting immigration largely to northern Europeans), and things like Jim Crow and slavery don’t look so aberrational after all.

  3. Submitted by Joe Musich on 02/05/2016 - 08:17 pm.

    Interesting choice for …

    an accompanying graphic. Considering conservative corporate forces did everything they could including smearing the messenger Rachel Carson author of Silent Spring in an attempt to prevent the banning of DDT. But they survived and are now fighting against the shutting down other dangerous to life chemicals. Yea it is correct to say most Americans are decent. Those are not who worry me it is those who have the power to poison the water supply of an entire city. One can walk that event to the very free market no regulation thinking espoused by these bought and paid for puesudo academic foundations.

Leave a Reply