Skip to comments.I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48
Posted on 12/22/2002 1:01:33 PM PST by Bad Eagle
By David Yeagley
As an Indian, I believe in segregation. Segregation helps a people preserve themselves and their culture. Modern America should take a lesson from Indians.
Problems in any national culture start with uncontrolled immigration. In the case of white America, it was actually the mass Negro imports that comprised the first such immigration. That led finally to forced integration, and integration results in intermarriage.
When your people are few, like Indians, intermarriage leads to racial annihilation.
But blacks don't have to worry about that, nor do Mexicans (Hispanics), Orientals (Asians), or Arabic people. These are the largest racial/cultural groups in the world.
American black leaders want integration because they see equality as economic parity and sexual acceptance. They don't see either except through racial integration. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had to pass laws to insure integration only demonstrates emphatically that most white people didn't want it, and apparently still don't.
After all, white people globally and historically (especially in parts of the Antebellum South) have always been a minority. Segregation was their natural defense, or their instinct for self-preservation, despite the fact that they brought the Negroes here.
But in America's 19th century 'adolescent' period, the government lost this global perspective of race, and made idealistic decisions based on political theory which it applied within America's own borders. Leaders believed everyone living within America's borders must be equal, economically. America has never really matured beyond this political solipsism.
When Indians became vastly outnumbered by whites however, we were subjugated as a minority race, and truly segregated--by land. We were put on "reservations."
Well, Indians were separate nations from America. Indians didn't seek "equality" within the American system. Though Americans dominated our land, we wanted no part of their society.
The white man did not at first try to make economic use of us. He just wanted us out of the way. Reservations kept the warring Indians together, away from white people. We were promised sustenance, forever, so long as we stayed there, and stopped killing white people.
As a result, we Indians still have our cultures, languages, and religions. Much has eroded, but the core is still there.
Now white men see vast economic opportunity on Indian reservations. This will bring forced integration, and that will destroy us. The critical issue of "Who Is Indian?" already demonstrates the need to preserve our race. Today there is so much at stake in being Indian, one really has to "prove" he's Indian. And Indians are the only "ethnic group" whose members must prove their claim.
Indian culture itself can be mimicked by non-Indians. Theoretical "wannabe's" abound, for obviously economic reasons. The casino industry, for instance, is doing terrible harm to Indians, and it deeply insults our dignity of being. Our race is a marketable fantasy.
But a culture without a race is like a country club with open membership. Soon, everyone joins. There's only an economic prerequisite. If you benefit the club, you're in. If not, you're out. The "casino cultures" will eventually destroy the Indian race.
Is the American culture also without a race?
Those who formed the American colonies, and later created the American government, were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning there was a race, a religion, and a land, (albeit with developing borders). The essential elements of a nation were all there. Never in history did a "nation" exist otherwise.
Today, America has become an ambiguous society. The WASP Weltanshauung still lingers as a cultural drone. However, Americans must today question whether a nation can long exist without definition of race, religion, and land.
National identity itself, at some basic level, requires some kind of segregation.
Otherwise, who's country is it? Is America up for grabs?
As an Indian, I hope not. When I look on America's cultural malaise I can only remind America of its WASP roots. These white people are the ones that fought Indians. I feel a strange, abiding connection to the white man.
I'm not concerned about the other races, cultures, or religions. I would have fought them too, and would have wanted to remain segregated. Yet they couldn't have defeated me, so I feel no special respect for them.
But I'm concerned now that the American roots are dying. Strom Thurmond's historical sentiments on segregation could have been implemented differently, and might have been better for everyone.
I don't begrudge his desire for segregation. And I don't begrudge blacks' desire for it, either. It's hypocritical, however, to demand that whites abide by the universalist rule of human culture while demanding that ethnic identity be preserved among minority cultures.
That is the great double standard at work today. There are one set of universalist principles for whites and another set of particularist principles for everyone else.
True. And one of them was Benjamin Franklin, who was sufficiently interested in the Iroquois Confederation to write a scholarly paper on the subject. I often suspect that more than one modification proposed by Franklin to the Hamilton-Madison document at the 1787 Constitutional Convention had its roots in his study of the Iroquois.
The BIG question is: what did and how did the Creator make this world for us to live, did he not separate the races to start with and IF so there was and is a VERY good reason for that. We integrate to our own hurt, and we will rue the day that we went down this 'modern' road of integration. The author has a good point that they had to make a LAW to make it happen, we as a people did not want it by instinct.
I need to absorb this before I attempt a reply.
Do you believe that the White Man should never have come to the Americas? The laws to that point in the South prevented integration and that is what Srom wanted to prerserve.
Your argument is circular. Because the world is "ever-integrating," segregation has no role. What strength do we derive from the integration? Has it evolved to our advantage? I can cite numerous cases of its deleterious side effects, but am quite at a loss to find corresponding benefits. That it's happening doesn't mean it SHOULD happen.
The so-called 'white culture' IS the universal culture. It has the best many cultures had to offer: Greek, Judaic, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Anglo-Saxon, French, German, Russian and whatever was worth taking from other minor ones. The fact that nothing or not enough of whatever some inferior cultures might have produced it usually because their contribution was just that - inferior.
The multicultural/diversity drive is that of forcing the civilized world to accept the products of inferior cultures as if they were as valuable as the those who found themselves a place within the 'universal' one. The only way 'barbarians' can participate is by first asimilating. There is also the option of them (the barbarians) trying to destroy that which is superior so that only the inferior products are left (see the Talibans bombarding the Buddha statues).
Political segregation -- segregation by force of law -- is intrinsically wrong. The last thing America needs is anyone telling us where we may live, or with whom we may marry. On the other hand, I have no bone to pick with a man of any race who wants to live among his own, provided he concedes all others the same privilege, not to be undone by force of law. It is just as wrong to force people together as it is to force them apart.
Immigration? A more complex subject. I'll get back to it after the New Year.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?
Yes. The heros of history have done just that. Leonidas made a stand at Thermopylae; the "noble 500" rode into the Valley of Death at Sebastopol; the defenders of the Alamo died to a man. Is there a value? Of course. It's in the statement made to the enemy, that victory will always be qualified, never fully theirs as long as the memory of great deeds lives on.
Your concession to "inevitability" is the product of either myopia or something vastly more sinister.
This guy needs a civics lesson.
I could never go for the kind of segregation that this nation engaged in at one time, it needed to be brought down. On the other hand, I don't think we should have allowed the cheese eating French to define our nation via the Statue of Liberty, come one come all, it's up for grabs.
The problem is that the solution to the state-enforced segregation was a state-enforced integration.
If both are repugnant to the principles on which the country is founded, how can one arrive at a constitutionally acceptable solution?
The answer, IMHO, lies in a limited Federal Government, State's-rights oriented interpretation of what the Founder's intended [each State decides on the solution, without interference from the others - you don't countenance state-enforced segregation, so you make sure you live in a state of like-minded individuals]
- but that leads to the usual flame-war so we won't go there...
P.S. He's a Democrat, you know.
As far as I am concerned, it is evil to look down on races other than your own as inferior. By the same token, I believe that it is dishonest to state that any ethnic group of any monetary status can and should be allowed to enter our nation in numbers too vast to assimilate.
There is another verse in the Bible that says "moderation in all things." I believe this is true with immigration, it is true with trade, it is true with liquor, it is true with food, it is true with sex, it is true with most things in life.
Those who advocate exclusively one idea without any possible compromise on it's full potential, are generally afraid of any challenge to their ideals because they can't support them as well as they claim to be able to.
Of course, this tradition has been under attack for well over a hundred years. The latest assault has taken the form of deconstructing the tradition to show that it is, in fact, and oppressive system of control.
The problem, so far as political philosophy is concerned, is to reconcile the natural rights teaching with the demands of modern natural science. Some sort of teleological basis for normative values is what is lacking.
Absolutely! This is an intelligent thread and I hope it isn't pulled as racist by the PC police. It bears discussion.
There's new one. Little help please, I'm still deconstrucing "Farvegneugen".
You mean like the inevitable collapse of America into a dictatorship?
like nuclear war or a major nuclear accident?
Since they are inevitable and can't be avoided, why try to prevent them? Sorry. Count me on the side that will continue to struggle and hope, even against the worst of odds.
State-imposed integration was started by the Civil Rights act of 1964. The two steps are quite different, and it was not necessary to proceed from the first step to the second. But that means raising the kinds of objections that Barry Goldwater is now so vilified for raising in 1964.
That reminds me of a decent zinger I threw at my uber-Liberal Property Professor. We were discussing the history of Racial Zoning in America, and she lamented the fact that as blacks were finally getting the opportunity to leave impoverished urban areas (thanks to FHA programs), that whites would often move away making those new areas segregated yet again. I asked her if she was saying that whites should no longer be allowed to move away from areas for racial reasons. She said "no, of course not" but couldn't explain how else to prevent de facto segregation if whites continued to do so.
The lefties are trying to suck Mexican immigrants into the same dysfunctional culture they've ensnared too many black citizens through the lure of easy welfare and unaccountable entitlement. That's evil.
It's not about race. It's embracing a winning game plan leveraging our uniquely American institutions. Black folk who work the program will thrive. A Korean or Sri Lankan girl who has a child as a teenager out of wedlock, shuns any future desire for a man to fill his primal familial role of provider and protector, drops from school, seeks no jobs, provides no vital care and direction for her child and does not PUSH educational achievement is on her way to leading an intergenerational legacy of uselessness and a slot as a societal parasite.
How did you mange to jump from further integration being inevitable to nuclear war or dictatorship being inevitable? The only item on your list that would qualify as inevitable is death and with death the best that you could do is attempt to postpone it. What kind of laws do you propose to use in an attempt to prevent further integration or do you have other ideas to use in your fight?
The bulk of underemployed, undereducated, overdependent and overimprisoned black community's buying cash is OUR tax money, grabbed by liberals who have their patrons, sent through a myriad of government agencies distributing it to a bevy of "community agencies" then give the money left after their "cut" to their graft and patronage dependents and so on and so on. "No problem, have D.J. stop by the office Friday, we'll send him on some delivery errands and we can get him a couple hundred "bone" cash money to fund the lifestyle a young smoothie of his caliber demands. Just Remember who your boy is, that's all the thanks I ask."
Newt Gingrich admitted perhaps the most startling and unacceptable truth in 1995 or 1996. "We looked at reforming HUD, but to be honest, we would not even know where to start. It is that chaotic." He didn't have the time and resources to try to figure out how this agency spends $31 billion dollars a year.
Oooh ... oooh ... call on me please ... call on me please! Yes. That money funds the criminal patronage and "invisible" cash economy that pays urban Black American parasites to do nothing but swear allegience to their second tier bagmen, who swear allegience to first tier black community church, political and nonprofit social service capos who are working with academic grant recipients and racially identified think tanks who control $tens of billions of tax dollar distribution and who move in and out of Federal and State bureaucracies and just log roll the corrupt system and build powerful race-specific careers. Go to a black baptist church in the poorest part of any urban center and try to conjure any article of business clothing you as a fairly prosperous professional that costs ONE HALF the cost of the getup the Preacher, Deacon and Church leaders are sporting. $800 Cole Hahn and Gucci shoes, $2000 Armani tailored suits, $150 silk ties with their $75 matching silk hankies, $150 dress shirts and Oh, those $750 topcoats. BAH!!! Mobsters basically taking OUR money in a Federal protection racket.
HUD spends $31 billion on housing we provide for parasites. Wow, I bet none of that gets in any deadbeats pocket. The Agricultural Department distributes $22 billion each year in food stamps that we provide for parasites. No black market or embezzlement there. The DOE spends $14.5 billion to fund the educational resources we already pay out our backsides in State and Property taxes to provide a really shitty education, but a pretty nice employment racket, for parasites and unionized teachers respectively. Yep, 172 days making about $250 per day average teaching 3 hourly classes - and we're not paying enough. The HHS Department costs $400 billion a year, and $450 billion annually is going to an agency called the Health Care Financing Agency, which I will bet no more than 1% of Freepers have any idea of what it does and how it is run. The Social Security Ponzi scheme/Pyramid con costs $394 billion just to operate so we can pay 14% of every dollar of gross income to give Grammy her 1.3% historical return on her "investments".
This is a secondary, insidious and market-free economy in our nation. Trillions of tax dollars are in play. Black Americans are knee deep in it, liberal creeps are trying to bribe Mexican arrivals to join the gang. Trial lawyers are there with bells on, the academics are ridiculously fat and arrogant, the Civil service unions are there and so are the biggest Investment houses, non-profit agencies and Farming entities. That's your Democrat voting base, and it is a solid 45%. A group of our neighbors and countrymates are voting to enable a mobster like Tom Harkin to grab money from my hands so that he can give it to some farmer or farming interest in his state that has voted for him so he can steal my money next year too.
When I go out in my business, I create value. Someone pays me a price, that I earn a profit on and which is subsequently taxed and burdened by regulatory demands. The other economy produces nothing but alleged services for American citizens. There is no value created, no profit fought for, no economies of scale, no drive for efficiencies and innovative offerings and there is NO RETURN on investment in useless, careless and frivilous programs and people. Who has fiduciary responsibility and accountability here?
End of rant.
They're good one word packages symbolizing somewhat complex concepts. That must be a German language quirk.
Popular French phrases are two words and usually can be translated in two English words but it shows one to be insufferably urbane and to be avoided in social settings.
That just isn't true. American immigration was "out of control" from the beginning.
It would also be a sign of a very crazy world if we had to choose between integration at home and immigration control. There's no inherent inconsistency between the two. Indeed, it was probably the reaction against segregation that knocked our immigration policies out of control. If we'd gotten rid of segregation earlier the guilt factor would have been less and we wouldn't have gone overboard.
Many conservative voters in the South did support Thurmond -- though it's important to note that his candidacy was a regional one, without much support in other parts of the country. The thing about the 1948 election is that there was no candidate who reflected today's conservative economic views. They were all more or less New Dealers, including Thurmond. They were also all -- including Henry Wallace and Norman Thomas -- socially more conservative than today's Americans since today's decadent options weren't accepted then.
A lot of us might have voted for Thurmond if we'd been voters in 1948 and were people of that era. But few would have voted for him knowing and feeling what we do now.
To: BCrago66 It appears from David Yeagley's website that he is Bad Eagle, so this may be a slightly dishonest vanity. As far as the post's contents go, it's about as sensible as a Bantu pining for apartheit (which means 'separate development', incidentally). 8 posted on 12/22/2002 1:21 PM PST by Grut
Strictly for the sake of Charity, it should be noted that Bad Eagle has previously identified himself as Dr. Yeagley on Free Republic in the recent past:
I just wanted to congratulate FR for this HomeSchooler Forum. Interestingly, I created one myself, on BadEagle.com about the same time. It's called "The New Patriots."
As you may know I am from Oklahoma, the state with the worst educational system in these United States. However, we also have some of the most talents homeschoolers in the country. A perfect irony.
In any case, no homeschoolers as yet are interested in expressing themselves too openly. At least, not on BadEagle.com. I know a few of these students personally, and cannot understand their reluctance to participate.
Any explanation from FR? Are they just ashamed to be associate with an American Indian forum? Perhaps. In any case, I want to extend my invitation to FR homeschoolers, too.
Dr. David A. Yeagley firstname.lastname@example.org
Welcome to Free Republic, Dr. Yeagley, "The toughest -- and smartest -- political website on the Net" (Since DonMorgan is no longer around to give his traditional "newbie welcome", I guess I'll hafta sub in).
Incidentally, though, as a product of Oklahoma Publik Edumbukashun, I do have to take issue with your unfair characterization of Oklahoma as "the state with the worst educational system in these United States."
Respectfully, suh, there's always Arkansas...
...AKA "Oklahoma with (much) more inbreeding".
Given the current climate around here I have to ask if you forgot your "/sarcasm" tag?