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.
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 badeagle@badeagle.com
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?
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.
Good points, but the Civil Rights act came about partly as a response to the continued resistance in the South (and the North but rarely is this acknowledged) to the Brown decision as well as in part in recognition that individuals were still attempting to segregate their private lives as much as possible. The logic used by SCOTUS to rule against private individuals was tenuous at best.
Second, it isn't integration that I'm struggling and hoping against. I'm far more bothered by the internal collapse of America due to idiotic policies that cater to certain groups, and further rupture the idea of individual rights. See my anecdote in post #36. I'm not against blacks moving wherever they want. I'm against government forcing people together "for their own good." I'm against it for many reasons... overreaching their bounds, government as nanny, forcing one group to do things to help another group, etc. Here's another anecdote from that Property Class of mine to back it up. The Lib-Prof was telling us that a racial discrimination case (either Heart of Atlanta Motel v US or Jones v Mayer, I forget which and my notes are at school) was decided explicitly using the 13th Amendment, since discrimination was a vestige of slavery days. I pointed out that if the 13th was the basis for the decision, it should have been decided the exact opposite way... the only pertinent language in the (very short) 13th was "involuntary servitude" and that forcing a white man who doesn't want to voluntarily serve a black man to do so is by its very plain nature "involuntary service to another."
BTW, I would have thought that this sort of logic was as Libertine as it gets. Protecting the individual's rights, limiting federal powers, and relying on free-market economic forces to bear out changes are usually solid Libertarian grounds. Does "libertarinizing the GOP" not go that far in your book?
The only non-Southern state where Thurmond was even on the ballot was South Dakota (where he got well below 1% of the vote.) It was thus quite impossible for him to be elected president. That wasn't even the intent of the campaign. The intent was to deny both Dewey and Truman a majority in the Electoral College, so that the South could bargain its votes with the two candidates to see which of them would agree to terms that the South wanted.
So Lott joked about something that wasn't even possible at the time.
In post #21 you referred to "the inevitable", responding to "it" in post #17, which was an antecedent for "an ever-integrating World" quoted from your post #3. How am I reading more into it when I imply that you think that integration is inevitable? Or are you taking exception to the "usually solid Libertarian grounds" part?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.