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: