Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48
David Yeagley

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-144 next last
To: Teacher317
It is a bit of a stretch to read into my statements a support for forced integration and you have offered no alternative to a continued voluntary integration of races here in America and elsewhere.
61 posted on 12/23/2002 7:39:33 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
By the way, what is your opinion of my reaction to the decision (that forcing whites to "involuntarily" serve blacks is closer to violating the 13th rather than supporting it)? It wasn't well-received in class, but also wasn't commented on very much. The decision in Jones v Mayer is, of course, much more detailed than a simple "13th Amendment-boom-decided". However, the plain words 'involuntary' and 'service' seem to mean the exact opposite of the result of the decision when applied to the plaintiff's viewpoint.
62 posted on 12/23/2002 7:41:58 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Sorry, I don't know enough about the history of the 13th Amendment and the case law under it to have a considered opinion.
63 posted on 12/23/2002 7:50:04 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
AHA! Got it! "Forced!" Sorry, it's still early. ;^) I guess I was making the extra effort to demonstrate that I wasn't opposed to voluntary integration, and put you as pro-forced-integration to be more clearly on the other side. My apologies.

Of course there is no reason to find alternatives to voluntary integration. Free peoples living where they wish doesn't NEED an alternative, it is the desired end-result. The sticky problems come in when pockets of people decide they want to exclude certain peoples for whatever reasons. Ownership rights explicitly contain the right to exclude others from the use and enjoyment of that property (land or otherwise). It seems odd to me that the federal government has decided which exclusions are acceptable and which are not. It also offends my Freedom-loving mind to think about how this power can extend to any preferential decision.

I hope that makes my view a little clearer... especially since my stance is less-than-PC. We non-Lefties have to be really careful when we do that. (*cough* Lott!! *cough*)

64 posted on 12/23/2002 7:50:27 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
I believe you just made the same old argument that was used to justify slavery.

Then you believe wrong and need to bone up on the issues. Of course your response could be an intentional attempt to impune my character as racist, thereby marginalizing my opinion. If the latter is the case then there is no chance of reasoned discussion with you and this is my last reponse to you. However, if your statement is made due to a lack of knowledge of the issues at hand than I will attempt to educate you and you should read on. Your response to this post will be quite illuminating and will also serve to demonstrate to observers not only your motivations, but the constitutional soundness of my position.

Slavery was justified by the view that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore the Constitution did not apply to them. I do not subscribe to that belief. I do, however, subscribe to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and my argument in that post is purely based on the First Amendment, which on it's face stands for the proposition that each of us has the right to discriminate in our personal lives free from Government interference:

Congress shall make no law...or abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Of course our personal choices will have repercussions, based upon the reaction of other individuals to our choices. However, the reactions to our choices should also be free from a government mandated list of responses.

For you to attempt to impune my character as racist is reprehensible. If your post was the product of a very vulgar understanding of the issues at hand hopefully I have enlightened you.

65 posted on 12/23/2002 9:36:33 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Well, then I thank you...and you are too kind.

I'm just an average guy with an opinion, that's all.

66 posted on 12/23/2002 9:37:42 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Teacher317
Jones v Mayer?

I'm enjoying your discussion and am trying to remember those cases....any help with a synopsis?

Good luck on your finals BTW.

67 posted on 12/23/2002 9:39:12 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: everyone
Wow. I did not expect such a response.
Yes, I am Dr. David A. Yeagley, former adjunct professor of humanities and psychology at Oklahoma State University, OKC campus. Former columnist for David Horowitz' FrontPageMagazine. I now am an adjunct at OU's College of Liberal Studies, and speak for Young America's Foundation (www.yaf.org).

Bad Eagle (quin-ne kash-soo-it) is the Comanche name (personal or family?) of my ancestor, who when the Indian rolls were created, signed on as Bad Eagle. Hard to know if he was using a family name, as was often the case, or whether it was his personal name. And yes, I have a website called BadEagle.com It is about American patriotism.

On race: by either the evolutionary explanation, or by the biblical explanation, our obsession with integration in this country is contrary--to nature, or to religious principle. I'm beginning to deal with this on my Patriotism Forum. Check it out.

Integration and intermarriage is not a sign of Christian transcendence, but rather a cheap shot. I call it quick-fix Christianity. Has nothing to do with religion. Marry whom you will, but not in the name of Christ. Man continually tries to bring together that which God has separated, and man continually tries to separate what God hath joined together.

Makes you wonder whether or not the Bible is absolutely true!! Scarey thought, actually.

There is something obviously destructive in interracial marriage. Why do people do it? They're into their own personal, emotional, sexual fantasy. That's fine. They have every right to do so. But, what about the kids? Studies show the kids are crippled, confused, and frustrated. Yes, I'm talking about dramatic racial intermarriages, not between say, a German and a Czech. I mean a Negro and a Korean, or even a White and an Indian.
These kinds of marriages are tough on kids.

It seems to me that sex must be understood in a greater social context than just the personal psychological context. Think about the children. Think about the society.
Think big, not small and personal.

This may be mistaken. I'm asserting an opinion. I know. I could be just plain wrong. The intellectual process however, just consider all angles.
68 posted on 12/23/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by Bad Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Jones v Mayer, 1968

In this second landmark case, the United States Supreme Court went far beyond the decision in Shelley v Kraemer which had limited only the state's enforcement of restrictive covenants. In Jones v Mayer, the Supreme Court determined that the Mayer Company, developers of a private subdivision in St. Louis could not deny the Jones family the opportunity to purchase a home based solely on Mr. Jone's race. Justice Stevens decision for the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Thirteenth Amendment include "the freedom to buy whatever a white man can buy, the right to live wherever a white man can live. If Congress cannot say that being a free man means at least this much, then the Thirteenth Amendment made a promise the Nation cannot keep."

A more detailed review can be found here

69 posted on 12/23/2002 10:18:25 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
bump in agreement
70 posted on 12/23/2002 10:31:08 AM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Which case was the one that reasoned that because a plaintiff had to go to Court to enforce a covenant that was sufficient "state action" to implicate the Constitution.

And after reading the review you linked it is clear to me that the First Amendment is dead in many ways.

To tell me that there is a government-approved list of reaons for refusing a purchaser for my home is not what the Founders envisioned when they penned the Constitution...

71 posted on 12/23/2002 10:58:48 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
72 posted on 12/23/2002 11:07:07 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Which case was the one that reasoned that because a plaintiff had to go to Court to enforce a covenant that was sufficient "state action" to implicate the Constitution.

Shelley v Kraemer?
"Whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits judicial enforcement by state courts of restrictive covenants based on race or color is a question which this Court has not heretofore been called upon to consider."

To tell me that there is a government-approved list of reaons for refusing a purchaser for my home is not what the Founders envisioned when they penned the Constitution...

The federal government says that you cannot refuse to sell your home to someone, if the basis of your decision is race, family size, religion, or age... interestingly enough, sexual orientation isn't on the list... yet. (Keep in mind that this is a first semster Property Law class... I'm quite sure that many of the finer details are missing, and there should be plenty of FR experts to correct me wherever I go wrong.) Our class discussions also ranged around to include Lester Maddox, which is why I added in all other types of property. That's also why I brought up the idea that the Lester Maddoxes of the world are being forced to involuntarily serve those that they do not wish to, in direct violation of the 13th Amendment. If some idiot wants to lose business, that's his concern. There are plenty of other stores out there that will be DELIGHTED to take up the slack. (I also wonder why someone would want to frequent a shop, most especially an eatery, where the owner does not want their business. There are enough fast food horror stories to make me inspect my lunch twice before eating it!)

73 posted on 12/23/2002 11:22:08 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; Teacher317
Thanks...never did like that case as it would allow any activity to be 'state action' if you have to go to Court to resolve a dispute.

If some idiot wants to lose business, that's his concern. There are plenty of other stores out there that will be DELIGHTED to take up the slack. (I also wonder why someone would want to frequent a shop, most especially an eatery, where the owner does not want their business. There are enough fast food horror stories to make me inspect my lunch twice before eating it!)

Well of course you are correct...but now you have outed yourself as a cracker racist....

(to the PC folks at SPLC and the rest of the liberals...)

74 posted on 12/23/2002 11:28:37 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
"This may be mistaken. I'm asserting an opinion. I know. I could be just plain wrong. The intellectual process however, just consider all angles."

Just plain wrong.
75 posted on 12/23/2002 11:32:36 AM PST by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
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.

The BIG question could also be: If the Creator wanted all races to live separate lives, he would not have made it possible for them to interbreed. He also would not have made it possible for people to travel meet people of other races. Did he not make it possible for all races to live together, and IF so, is there a very good reason for that?
76 posted on 12/23/2002 11:48:37 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
There is something obviously destructive in interracial marriage. Why do people do it? They're into their own personal, emotional, sexual fantasy. That's fine. They have every right to do so. But, what about the kids? Studies show the kids are crippled, confused, and frustrated. Yes, I'm talking about dramatic racial intermarriages, not between say, a German and a Czech. I mean a Negro and a Korean, or even a White and an Indian. These kinds of marriages are tough on kids.

The only reason these marriages are tough on kids is because of prejudiced attitudes that they will face. If there's any more to it than that, I'd like to see these "studies" that you are referencing.

On race: by either the evolutionary explanation, or by the biblical explanation, our obsession with integration in this country is contrary--to nature, or to religious principle.

Why would God allow humans of different races to interbreed if he didn't want them to do so?
77 posted on 12/23/2002 11:52:50 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
Yes, I'm talking about dramatic racial intermarriages, not between say, a German and a Czech. I mean a Negro and a Korean, or even a White and an Indian.

Oh, come on. My wife is French, Spanish, Apache, Yaqui and Maya. Any problems she has comes not from racial issues but from being brought up in a abusive home. If you love and nuture your kids, they can overcome any bigotry they might encounter from the outside world - because kids will ALWAYS come up with something to abuse another kid with. If it isn't race, it'll be their name, or their teeth, or their clothes, or that they're smart...

78 posted on 12/23/2002 12:00:55 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bad Eagle
As an Indian, I believe in segregation. Segregation helps a people preserve themselves and their culture. Modern America should take a lesson from Indians.

I've admired many of your essays in the past. But this one, quite frankly, leaves me slackjawed. How were Indians segregated? At the point of a bayonet - and after Indians were forced on to marginal reservations and forced to try farming on land terribly unsuited for such, every effort was subsequently made by the American government to obliterate Indian culture, including Indian schools that ripped children from their homes, cut their hair and forbade them to speak their native langauge - my wife gets shivers whenever we drive past the graveyard of Indian children in Carlisle, PA, near where we live - the one acknowledgement of their tribal identity is inscribed on the small tombstones. Likewise, blacks were kept segregated by the raw force of governmental power, and that is what Strom was running for in 1948 - for states to continue that. I cannot see how you can possibly support the South wishing to continue to do to blacks what was done to your ancestors, only worse - the unmoral application of power and force to deprive your ancestors of their fundamental rights as human beings.

79 posted on 12/23/2002 12:08:18 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-144 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson