TheBlaze: Dinesh D'Souza's "America" A Movie with the Soul of a Church

Originally published at TheBlaze.

This weekend I saw a movie that reminds me one of President Ronald Reagan’s stirring campaign speeches.

To mark Independence Day, Dinesh D’Souza released the film version of his recent book America: Imagine A World Without Her. It’s a powerful, controversial film which will keep your interest, provoke disputes, and bring you to tears: my eyes were welling up in the first five minutes, and I had to keep wiping them dry.

The film addresses profound moral and historical questions that will send you from the theater straight to Amazon, where you’ll want to order half a dozen books to read more about the issues. How many films accomplish that nowadays?

It is a film with a definite point of view: D’Souza, an immigrant from India and unabashed American patriot, sets out to defend America’s founding principles and her historical record of living up to them. He addresses a series of radical critiques lodged by “progressive” academics and activists – and widely disseminated through textbooks like A People’s History of the United States, which liberal professors assign to students across the U.S. by the hundreds of thousands.

D’Souza interviews radical activists, ranging from a Native American who wants to take back the land that contains Mount Rushmore and a Chicano activist who hopes that Mexico can reclaim the U.S. southwest, to Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill – the professor who compared the victims of Sept. 11, 201 to Nazi officials who died in Allied bombings. But the film doesn’t focus on provocations or outrageous statements.

It examines with as much seriousness as a film this short can manage, the following indictments against the American regime:

  1. It was founded on conquest and genocide aimed at the Indians.
  2. It built its wealth on the backs of African slaves, and is essentially white supremacist.
  3. It expanded by unjustly stealing land from its neighbor Mexico.
  4. It is consistently imperialist and aggressive toward other countries.
  5. It is dominated by an unjust and exploitative capitalist system that harms the poor.

Obviously, a two-hour film cannot dispose of such charges definitively, and D’Souza doesn’t pretend that it can. What he does try to do in the film is to highlight how dominant these five facile assertions have become among younger Americans, creating a comprehensive narrative of unique American evil: a demonic mirror image of the brash American triumphalism pushed by the neo-conservatives in their days of influence.

What D’Souza does effectively is to plant essential doubts about the fairness and accuracy of each of these charges against America – and point out how Americans have been driven by the country’s own founding principles to rectify injustices in a manner that few other nations have felt the need to do. For example: Are there movements among the Turks to give back the land their ancestors stole from the Byzantines?

America is built on an idea. But it rests on much more than that – and if it didn’t, it would have collapsed long ago.

For example, the same ideas that Americans embraced were also adopted by founders of independent countries throughout South America – where liberty did not prosper. Because our founding did not emerge from one king defeating another, or one tribe bathing its hands in its enemies’ blood and brains (a Native American practice), we are prone forever to judge ourselves against the abstract standards laid out in our Declaration of Independence. In much the same way, the concrete, historical Church compares itself constantly to the standards laid out in the Gospels. It was not for nothing that G. K. Chesterton called America “a nation with the soul of a church.”

I have written before, at the height of neo-conservative attempts to remake the world in America’s image, of the dangers involved in loving “America the Abstraction” at the expense of the concrete, historical country.

It is true that the American colonies rebelled against Great Britain by invoking abstract assertions about the rights of human beings – profound, beautiful, worthy assertions that grew out of the Christian vision of the dignity of the person.

But if we treat America’s founding assertions as an ideology, a philosophy in arms that we regard as comprehensive, perfect, and universally true, we will fall into any number of dangerous temptations.

First of all, we may look at every regime that existed before 1776 as somehow stunted and primitive, a botched attempt to achieve the perfected government that would only be attained in America. Such provincialism will alienate us from almost the entire Western heritage, and cause us to miss the many incremental steps toward liberty that took place over the centuries, or the essential role of Christian faith in discovering and fully realizing the idea of human dignity. We will give the Enlightenment credit that the churches really deserve – including ultimate credit for every truth reasserted by John Locke or Thomas Jefferson.

Even worse, we will view every other country as a failed or potential America – and every citizen in the world as an American in waiting. We will rashly intervene in other countries to promote “democracy,” and end up creating regimes that practice “one man, one vote, one time.”

What matters about America is not that it is governed democratically, but that it guarantees our liberties. Those were what our founders cared about, and they worried among themselves whether democracy would effectively protect the rights of minorities – especially those creative minorities that tend to get rich by creating wealth – from the cruelty and intolerance of the masses.

Comparatively few cultures are really ready and willing to protect their minorities, and in such cultures a democratic government might prove even crueler than an inherited monarch would. It took the highly undemocratic step of diktats from the United States Supreme Court to overturn the massively popular segregation laws in America’s South.

We need to see the American system the way our founders did: As a fruit of Western civilization, an outgrowth of Christian Europe, a technique of preserving for our own people the maximum freedom possible without destroying the common good. We view the person, the citizen, not through the narrowed, jaundiced eye of a utopian who wishes to remake human nature, but with the same realistic awareness of human sinfulness that St. Augustine passed along to the churchgoing Christians who made up most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

I think that D’Souza understands all of this. That is why he has produced this powerful document defending the concrete, historical fact that is the United States of America against the angriest charges lodged by those who somehow expect that a country with hundreds of millions of people can purely and perfectly incarnate a set of abstract ideas.

But we can try, and millions of us have nobly tried for more than 200 years, and the very effort ought to inspire our love and loyalty. This film is an act of loyalty, even piety, directed towards our country and our forefathers. It’s a film that every American ought to see, then go home and argue about. There’s nothing more American than that.

Read more at TheBlaze.


Available now, Dinesh D’Souza’s new book United States of Socialism reveals modern-day socialism as a “identity socialism.” Who is behind it, why is it evil, and how can we stop it?

United States of Socialism

Click here to get your copy today!

Keep reading:

WND: "America" Filmmaker Claims Victory
TheBlaze: D’Souza Takes on Entire Panel of Leftists in Debate on Slavery, Obama
Hollywood Reporter: Google Says It Will Take 'Some Time' to Fix "America" Search Results
VIDEO: D'Souza Talks Costco, Cinemascore with Rick Amato
Hannity: D'Souza on Costco's "Political Decision" to Pull Book
Fox News Insider: Costco Reverses Decision to Pull D'Souza's Book
Glenn Beck: Why Is Costco Removing D'Souza's Books?
TIME: Google Says "America" Search Results Being Fixed

Through D'Souza's trademark incisiveness, wit, and originality, United States of Socialism reveals how the Left uses the Venezuelan formula for socialism, decisively refutes this new face of socialism, chillingly documents the full range of the Left’s gangster tendencies, and provocatively exposes the tactics of the socialist Left.

Sign up to be notified about new releases! Enter your email below and we'll send you more information.

By filling out the form above, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


  • Cheryl Michel says:

    July 14, 2014 at 4:33 PM

    A very compelling movie, should be shown in schools to eighth graders. I am going to read the book and probably buy several for friends.

  • Jason Clark says:

    July 16, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Dinesh is a failure, at history.

    Dinesh: “You say, ‘Give us back the Black Hills,’ You point out that there is uranium and other minerals in those hills, and now that land is worth a fortune. Once again, no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it. Other Americans have added value to the Black Hills by figuring out how to tap its resources, and now the Indians want the land back so they can take advantage of what others have figured out how to do.”


    According to the government archives:
    “The Black Hills of Dakota are sacred to the Sioux Indians. In the 1868 treaty, signed at Fort Laramie and other military posts in Sioux country, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. However, after the discovery of gold there in 1874, the United States confiscated the land in 1877. To this day, ownership of the Black Hills remains the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux.”


    “‘Give us back the Black Hills,’” … Was said before the discovery of uranium there.

    “no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it” … Neither did any white guy, at the time.

    “and now the Indians want the land back” … They always did want it back.

    Not to mention that the first court case was in 1920, before the discovery of uranium in 1956. Dinesh can’t even get 20th century history right.

  • Mary Bunn says:

    July 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

    At varying intervals, other groups of Indians drifted west across the Dakotas. Among these were the Cheyennes, an agricultural tribe during their early Dakota residence. Later, after many years in which they were attacked and pursued by the Chippewas and the Sioux, the Cheyennes adopted a horse-and-buffalo way of life, becoming one of the most fierce and warlike of Northern Plains tribes. For a time, Arapaho Indians also lived in the Black Hills of South Dakota, their migration being similar to that of the Cheyennes. Kiowa, Ponca, Omaha, and Assiniboine Tribes also stopped briefly in the Dakotas, only to be driven out by the Sioux.

  • Jason Clark says:

    July 16, 2014 at 11:50 PM

    Mary, none of that has anything to do with Dinesh’s statement being totally devoid of reality. The US government decided to make a treaty with a specific tribe. It dishonoured that treaty, stole the land, and forced them out. The Natives never wanted to leave in the first place, always wanted their land back, and no white man knew how to mine uranium or knew what to do with uranium if they had it, in 1877, either.

    The argument that everyone else was doing it, is like when I catch one of my kids doing something wrong, and they say well … their siblings were did it too. It’s just deflection and misdirection, and doesn’t change the fact that they did something wrong themselves.