Although it was originally published in The Spectator UK, this essay by Jeff Fynn-Paul, I found “The myth of the ‘stolen country'” well worth reading in a more durable PDF form. It’s ten pages long.
Here’s a telling quote:
The real reason to perpetuate such a disastrously one-sided view, it seems, is if one is in a tiny minority of activists who has ‘drunk the kool-aid’ of Cultural Marxism — an ideology bent on bringing maximum embarrassment to Capitalism, Democracy, Western Civilisation and Europeans in general, in the vain hope that this will somehow bring about a sort of… what? Revolution? Really? Let’s not be naive. The only reason to be this consistently, this unreasonably angry about things which happened centuries ago, is if one sees the entirety of experience through the lens of perpetual racism and victimisation, and crucially, if one does not believe in the power of democracy to correct these wrongs.
At base, such people do not believe in the democratic process. Marxists have always believed that a handful of self-appointed intellectuals are better suited to creating a ‘good society’ than the rough-and-tumble of real-world parliamentary debate.
I don’t completely object to de-mythologizing but I do disagree with re-mythologizing in a divisive way that is readily falsifiable. What I mean is that I don’t think you need to believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree or never told a lie but I do think you need to believe that the country he fought to form was worth making and that his act of refusing to be named king was important, unique, and formative.
IMO it’s important to love our country warts and all, for what it is and not just what it might become, refusing to replace a romanticized past with another romanticized past.