David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
There needs to be more Indians in Indian country! More Indianness among Indians.
I don’t mean the pow-wows, the arts and crafts, or even the political efforts about sovereignty. I don’t even mean the efforts to achieve economic solvency for the tribes. I certainly don’t mean health care concerns.
I’m talking about race. I’m talking about tribal blood quantum. I’m talking about preserving the blood lines of America’s original people. Today, I see great carelessness, indifference, and what’s worse, I see intentional diluting of the remaining blood lines. Part of this is the fault of Indians, part of it is the result of sexual aggression on the part of non-Indians, particularly Negro males.
The Comanche Nation itself, once the most isolated, self-reliant, independent people on the continent, has in recent decades accepted the trend of interracial sexual relations and the slew of mixed children–who generally care nothing about being Indian. Of course, this is based on a Democrat misinterpretation of historical practices.
These are the Comanches our people need to follow, today. Not
Democrat misinterpretations of our natural social ingenuity.
In the hunting, roaming, raiding days, Comanches existed as small bands, or, extended families. Twenty-five to thirty people in a band. There was no tribal organization or chief. This was all unnecessary. Comanches lived as independent bands, each capable of sustaining itself. The bands were spread out over the southwestern plains.
There were times when a numunukahn (band) hit on hard times, for various reasons. Raids on Mexican villages or white settlements often saw children, and some women, kidnapped, and forced to become part of the Comanche band. (Comanches were on occasion taken captive themselves, by non-Comanche people, as in the case of my great, great grandfather, Bad Eagle.) But, this was not pluralism. This was not intentional cultural mixing. This was not intended as racial dilution. This was not a design to eradicate the Comanche blood lines!
BadEagle.com has posited from the beginning that the preservation of race is honorable and responsible. The attempt to wash out or eradicate a people–this is racism! And it appears that there are racist among Indians–thanks to that poisonous, liberal, Democrat deception that there must be free interracial sexuality, and anything short of it is racial prejudice!
I speak of the obvious here. The only ill-will I hold is towards those who would destroy race. Indians are a race, with many ethnicities. Most Indian tribes never considered their race in the same way the whites have considered theirs. Indians did not unite as a race against the whites, like the English, Irish, Scots, French united against the Indian tribes.
Nevertheless, at this point in American Indian history, there are tribes who are careless, if not intentional, in the matter of diluting blood. When careless, it involves unwed mothers, illegitimate children, and dissolute, dysfunctional “families.” When intentional, it can involve much the same, but also an intent to increase numbers in tribal membership. This means more government treaty allotments, more money, more support. This is then the use of reproduction as a means of financial gain. This is deplorable, in my opinion.
Comanches did not become great by aimless reproduction, or by uniting with other tribes or peoples, for any reason. Independence was the theme. That intuition of greatness is certainly absent in the modern approach to population and financial privileges. As many if not most tribes, Comanche people have espoused modern “liberal” Democrat delusion of racial mixing–in the name of equality and kindness. Comanches today have shown a reluctance to manifest the original pride and power. Comanche have been numbed by the Democrat deception of fear. No one wants to be accused of racism. So, they stand and watch the dilution of the blood lines, the denigration of the people into social club of Indian traditions to which anyone can belong.
This is the delusion of Democrat racism. It is actually a doctrine of Communism: the destruction of race, the elimination of all distinction and separations. The removal of all boundaries.
I raise my voice against it. I believe the race, ethnicity, and nationhood are ordained of the Creator. We are not to toy with these. I do not believe interracial reproduction, careless or intentional, for the sake of increasing numbers is appropriate, or will result in any good, in the long run. I know these statements may seem hurtful to some, in the present, but, we must consider the future. I believe Comanche life in the 18th and 19th centuries is the guide. Our own intuitions and our own way should be our guide into the future, and not some “white” Democrat ideological interpretation of our past survival methods.
The old Comanches are the best guides. Let’s hear them, not modern American politicians.
It is time to end careless or intentional interracial reproduction. No one can help who or what he is, personally, but each individual has a choice about what he brings into the world. For that, we are responsible. Yes, we have racists among us, among the Comanche, but these are not the ones who want to preserve the nation, but those who want to destroy the race. Racism is about destroying blood lines, not preserving them. He who would preserve is a patriot.
44 responses so far ↓
1 hulagirl // Dec 9, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“No one wants to be accused of racism. So, they stand and watch the dilution of the blood lines”
“It is time to end careless or intentional interracial reproduction.”
I’m thinking you’re against racial intermarriage? I’m sincere in my query, please don’t take any offense when I say, what the heck are you talking about?? Don’t people fall in love w/who they fall in love with? You want that to be somehow regulated? Produce babies for the cause?? You actually think God would have people not be w/someone because their races were different? I’m married to a native Hawaiian man, I suppose the libs here think that’s a blood diluting crime–turns out we had to adopt kids anyway, one’s Japanese/Filipino one’s Black/White, whoa, wonder what that screws up?? Not sure where you’re coming from; although of course I can see that you want your race not to die out because of dilution, some radical Hawaiians here feel the same way (and most of the time they are married to haoles!). It’s puzzling anyway, but you fall in love w/whom you fall in love with. I didn’t even think about his race, nor he mine. Oh well.
2 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Well, if you make sexuality itself the personal sovereignty of the individual, your point is certainly supported by Western customs these days. All about “falling in love.” The key word being “fall.” It is about self. Sort of, vicarious narcissism. That’s Western romance. That’s a concept of sexual love, but not one that has existed, formally, without contest!
So, I don’t content with your position of self-reference in the matter of romantic or sexual love.
I’m saying, no one comes into the world skinless. Humanity does not exist without various dimensions of idenity.
Race is very person, because we can’t do anything about who or what we are. No one wants to be faulted for that.
But this isn’t what I’m trying to do. I’m saying it is important to consider more than one’s own romance. Think of the kid, the kid’s life, the kid’s experience. What have you given them?
HULAGIRL I suppose the libs here think that’s a blood diluting crime
Liberals are the ones who WANT interracial marriage, or at least interracially mixed children. The liberals want to destroy race, ethnicity, and particularly the white race, and all white ethnicities. And these would be white liberals, no less!
Indians are very, very few. If we do not consciously guard ourselves, in a few generations there will be no Indians. Being Indian will just be like joining a social club, a historical society or something. No race, no ethnicity involved. Why, anyone can learn the language, do the dance, throw the lance.
This is do not wish to see. This is my opinion, which I have had, basically, since I was 6 years old. I have feared for the passing of the Indian people.
3 hulagirl // Dec 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Hello again, I tried to send you a message on Facebook, but it was “broken”. In any event, I’m very interested in the subject of race, and have been since I was a small child. I think there is definitely “something” to races of people and their differences and unique contributions and attributions, yet I spent my life being told that people are people and all the same and it’s more important to realize what it means to be a part of the “human race” rather than our particular ethnic affiliation. I adopted multiracial children. What, was I supposed to introduce the Black one to “Black” culture—what is that anyway, pimps, Hos, and Hip Hop? And the Japanese one, was I supposed to dress her in Kimonos and Zoris? Was I not supposed to adopt, were they supposed to go to their racially-like ethnic people to parent them? What if I was all that was available? Isn’t it true that “love sees no color”? I’m confused, but that’s how I live. It’s a “can of worms” subject, I think, neh??
4 hulagirl // Dec 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Oh, I just saw your post to me…sorry. Here in Hawaii, the liberals bemoan the watering down of their Hawaiian race by the Haole. Most of the Hawaiians, who aren’t Hawaiian Studies professors can’t seem to get enough of haole women, and it works in reverse as well! It’s a strange thing, and you seem to be asking ethnicities to at least try to “mate” w/their own kind, to preserve the race? Sounds conceivable but very odd.
5 hulagirl // Dec 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“Well, if you make sexuality itself the personal sovereignty of the individual, your point is certainly supported by Western customs”, are you suggesting that sexuality should not be in the realm of personal sovereignty?
6 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I think sexually is something that needs management, like every other human experience. Why should sexuality be abandoned, like the last realm of the wild, when it has such permanent, indelible consequences?
I mean, can’t there be romance withint one’s own kind?
Ah, but the contrasts. The matter of contrasts–of color, race, language, culture, social cast, etc. There have been operas written about such romance. Hard to resist. Overwhelming sexo-psychological compulsion. Doesn’t sound healthy, but has always been a great marketer. Great seller.
7 One Salient Oversight // Dec 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The thing about Anglo-Saxons is that they are made up of Anglos and Saxons. Neither of the original survives today. I don’t see that as a problem.
If God wanted us to remain separate and different from one another he would not have allowed us to reproduce outside our bloodline, and nor would he have granted his image to the whole human race.
In the Old Testament, God kept his covenant people Israel separate, but allowed foreigners in who converted to Judaism who, in turn, intermarried.
Even Jesus’ bloodline contains that of Ruth, a Moabite.
Nowadays there is no Jew nor Greek.
8 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Ah, but there IS Jew and Greek. Paul said for the Greeks NOT to become Jewish. That’s what Galatians is all about, really.
Freedom does not obligate one to trangress. Adam could eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but he was commanded not to. He was free not to, as well as free to eat.
Availability of the heathen was not a message of indulgance to the Jews.
Sometimes, freedom is expressed in restraint, not indulgence.
9 caleo // Dec 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Greetings. First I have to say I discovered your site several days ago, and I’ve been reading your previous posts with great interest. Frankly, I’m fascinated. Let me ask how you feel about individuals like Quanah Parker, who was ” mixed “, albeit completely Comanche in every way.
I have to say I find some of your views contradictory ( so far… ), but very intelligently presented. And how do you feel about different Indian Nations ” mixing ” and/or intermarrying ?
10 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Indians suffer from the common plight syndrome. There are mixed Indians, yes. And usually, that Indian will be quite proud of his different Indian tribal bloods.
But, this does no one any good, save himself, or so it seems. It doesn’t make him more Indian. It’s kind of a contest, who is the most Indian. I just don’t agree with that. I think it is a bit immature and superficial.
Quannah parker was born among the Comanche, raised as a warrior, and was never anything else. He was not, however, chief of the Comanches. He was appointed tribal representative by the US government. This was utterly contrary to all Comanche ways. He had to have a half dozen body guards, because so many Comanches resented him. he wasn’t of their sub group. Why should he have authority over them, to rent out their allotments, to lease their land, etc.? But, that’s a different story.
It is a fact. He was brave, and smart, and respected as a Comanche warrior and leader.
Not as a white man. His mother became “Comanche” herself, and was very disturbed when taken away from them later.
By contradictory views, do you mean I contradict myself, or that you disagree with some of my views? I do value consistency, I think! Emerson didn’t. Remember Ralph Waldo?
11 righton // Dec 9, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I agree with Yeagley. Mixing is a war tactic by the left to dilute the identity of people. They want to end group identity to weaken any resitance to their ploy of “oneworldness”. They use their mantras of “we’re all the same ” ,”it is only skin color” to softly subvert of our natural instincts of seperation from others based on differences and our attractiveness to others based on likeness. They also scream racist or xenophobe if one wants to keep their gene line heritage intact. Those are becoming fighting words. I used to not be racially aware until I saw all the promotion of miscegenation on the tube. It seems so acceptable to blatantly advertise for the destruction of the white people. Now , however, the promotion of miscegenation is so perverted it attacks everyone. A true sickness that infests itself in the people the promote this. I do not believe in miscegenation and acceptance in it has only been recently due to the constant barrage from the wh*** possessing the airwaves.
Also, The Anglos and the Saxons both derived from the same places. So when they mixed it wasn’t a racial mix. Bad comparisom.
To the Indians ..Stay Tribal it shows strength.
12 caleo // Dec 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Quick reply !!! As far as contradiction, I should have held my tongue until I’ve read ALL of your posts and opinions. I do agree with ALOT of what I’ve read, and again, I’m glad I found the site. Much food for thought. It seems you have a soft spot for the Jewish folks, and your responses to some of the more jew-negative folks who post here is interesting. I live in NYC, and thus know and work with many Jewish people and had my first serious relationship with an Israeli woman. I’m of Italian ancestry, by the way. Southern Italian. Again, I have more to say, but will refrain until I have a better handle on your opinions. I gather you’re a Christian, and thus reserve a special place for the Jews. Some of what I see as an anti-Arab slant rubs me the wrong way, but I’m sure you have your reasons. Having spent alot of time around Israelis as well as time spent in Israel, it definitely changed my views about the ” Chosen ” people. But I digress. Thank you for your reply to my questions about this post.
13 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Alto belle! Hey, I have a story about a non-educated Neopolitan (whom I loved very much) back in New Haven. Soccer friend. I asked him once, “Ben, what do you think about Palestinians?” He was a traditional import Catholic, of course. I wanted his opinion. You might have thought anti-semitic, but, he said,
“Thesa peeples, they donna work! Theya maka alwaysa trouble. Alwaysa trouble!”
I never forgot that.
We had a terrific Italian on here called “Greetings My Son,” but he managed to offend everyone, profoundly. Myself, I loved the guy! Look on the older Italian forum posts. He truly was offensive, but, I enjoyed him thoroughly. Reminded me of so many years in southern Connecticut. I lived there a good while.
14 caleo // Dec 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Italians and Arabs have a long history of interaction, and it’s obvious to the honest observer that Southern Italians and Sicilians share a strong family resemblance to certain Arab types, as well as the combative and confrontational temper. By the way, a great joke from Northern Italy :
Question- Name the only Arab country NOT currently at war with the state of Israel.
Answer- Sicily, of course !!!!
And the national flag of Sardinia represents the severed heads of 4 moors, a symbol of the day Sardinia won it’s freedom from the Muslims.
15 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Yes, GreetingsMySon used to brag, ferociously, about his true Italian Calabresian blood, and how southern Italians were to be excluded from the true Italian identity.
However, these Arab elements are not well-known in America. Carefully covered-up in the Godfather…
16 caleo // Dec 9, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Well, I just read your sections on Italians, Jews and Persians and let me say I’m impressed. You seem to ” get ” Italians. Your observations were astute and hit the nail on the head several times.
I also know many Persians and I agree with your views. I have had a fascination with Iran since I was a child, and appreciate your perspective.
As far as a poster with Calabrian blood claiming southerns aren’t real Italians, well, I guess he forgot where Calabria is. I guess I would have to read his post to see what he meant by that. My family is from Salerno, south of Napoli. My last name is Classical Latin, pre Italian.
And don’t even get me started on the Godfather.
Anyone with half a brain can’t watch the opening scene of Godfather 2 and not see the Arabic undertones. Remember, up until VERY recently, the only 2 countries in Europe that had a serious problem with ” honor ” killings were Italy and Albania. And all of the pizzerias in NYC are being taken over by Albanians, and the Albos tell me how close Italian and Sicilian culture feels to them. Anyway, glad I found this site.
17 hulagirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:14 am
Geez, you guys are out there. Liberals do NOT seek to make all the same, they are all about identity politics; perhaps, however, just to gain power over the various groups of peoples. The “we are the world” thing has to do w/erasing borders and all getting along and sharing Coke and all that crap, but they are always pointing out (just as they misunderstand) the value of ethnic groups, as long as that ethnicity is not white. And, David, isn’t it a fact that, not just in romantic literature, but in the science of reproduction, that such “sexopsycological compulsion” produces offspring less like each other, that’s why siblings don’t make such good baby makers. Also, OSO quoted the Bible correctly, the context has to do w/the eradication of distinctions between Jew/Greek/Male/Female, not in some modern day liberal interpretation of this concept, but in the concept of people being deserving of love and salvation, no matter who they are.
18 caleo // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:03 am
Hulagirl, whether Liberals are consciously attempting to ” make us all the same ” or not, it is still happening, and most applaud it. Not without alot of help from Advertising and Profits, as you alluded to.
19 David Yeagley // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:32 am
HulaGirl, I think OSO is exactly wrong in his Biblical reference. The religion of Christ is not designed to dissolve the nations, or to destory race. That infamous text about no Jew or no Greek is talking about freedom and equality in the matter of access to God’s blessings. You don’t have to be Jewish anymore. Paul strongly urged Gentiles not to try to be Jewish. (Protecting Jews, he was!)
In theology, equality pertains to access to God’s mercy, not to interracial marriage!
I know this language sounds terribly strong, but we’re in the context of ideology or theory here. I believe getting it straight there does effect the real world about us, however. Remember, I’m not trying to condemn myself, or anyone else. I’m just looking at nationhood objectively.
20 hulagirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I must not have expressed myself correctly, as I was trying to say just what you said about the “freedom and equality in the matter of God’s blessings”–those being love and salvation being the context. So, you believe that God doesn’t like interracial marriage I guess; and you base that on the prohibition in Old Testament times on the Jews intermarrying? How anyone could read the Bible and get that God wants races separated, in fact that God sees anything but a person’s heart is puzzling to me. And people are misunderstanding me. I understand about the communistic wanting to make all “equal” thing, but this does not apply here! It’s two different subjects.
21 David Yeagley // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Well, it’s like we’re on a razor’s edge. We’re almost saying exactly the same thing, but, also it seems like we’re saying the exact opposite.
God created the nations. That is my premise. For whatever reason (and I have my theories), nationhood is something that passes through the Pearly Gates on into eternity. Rev. 21:24; 22:2. So, I don’t base my view on the Old Testament only, or the ancient Jews only. It is very much based on all the New Testament as well. I think the church has greatly erred in advocating the dissolution of nations in the name of equality. That is the Communist, coercive misapplication of the idea of equality.
And I wouldn’t want to say that interracial marriage is immoral, or anything like that. I merely say it appears a bit self-centered, as opposed to community centered. It’s what feels most appealing to the individuals involved, instead of what’s best for the greater community of individuals. In that sense, I think it is on the weaker side of things.
And, for small populations like American Indian nations, we really have to be on top of this, or we will lose our existence. That’s how I see it, anyway. You think that’s over the top?
22 MariaAnastasia // Dec 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Oy madon, do I have problems now! I’m half Sicialian/Southern Italian, and half-Jewish! You mean to tell me my Sicilian half is really Arab? (talk about a real identity crisis!)
23 MariaAnastasia // Dec 10, 2009 at 8:47 pm
BTW hulagirl, I am 100% against racial intermarriage; in my case I am of two White ethnicities, but even at that I had “issues” as a teenager…part of me felt drawn to my father’s Ukrainian-Jewish ancestry, the other felt drawn toward my mother’s Italian ancestry. At middle age I still have not completely resolved my identity issues. What a horrible thing to do to a child, and with racial differences it must be even worse, since the differences are so obvious, unlike with me.
I firmly believe that parents who don’t give a care about the identity confusion their potential children will go through, and only think of “being in love”, are people who are truly selfish and hate their future children.
24 David Yeagley // Dec 10, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Gelobt sei den Herrn. Ich kann nicht ändern.
(I’m stunned by Maria’s post. I never expected such complete and forthright honesty! But my German is a bit rusty, I’m afraid. I hardly knew how to respond.)
Maria, I think those of us with strong contrasts of culture feel the tension. The “Brits” in America, for instance, don’t feel it. Scots marrying Irish is all too common. English marrying Scots, etc. Germans marrying English. Some mixes don’t matter to the heirs.
But, strong, dramatic cultural or racial contrasts, often create irresolution in the children. Religious differences are often dramatic as as well.
I mean, isn’t marriage hard enough? Why ask for more drama? Why set yourself up like that?
Of course, what I’m speaking of in modern Indian country is the careless, mindless impregnation of dissolute Indian woman by aggressive sex mongers and race destroyers. I’m not even talking about marriage. Just sex and reproduction.
Gott sei Gnädig.
25 caleo // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Half Sicilian, half Jewish. Minchia !!! Actually, Jews and Italians/Sicilians started coming to the states in large numbers at about the same time, and occupied the same ghettos and tenements, at least here in NYC. The 2 groups have cooperated and grown up together during their sojourn here in the states, and even shared certain stereotypes. Such as : good with numbers, argumentative, and always looking for an angle to get over on someone. As well as the fact that the 2 groups weren’t really considered ” white ” by the larger Anglo population. So your two “sides” actually aren’t that far apart.
26 John Sandusky // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:05 am
The Sicilians have had for centuries customs and a language that was markedly different from that of the mainland. Sicilians know this, and they regard themselves different from the other Italians. There was actually a movement for an independent Sicily right after WWII, spearheaded by former Senator Andrea Finocchiaro Aprile . . . there were and are, plenty of mainland Italians that would love to see Sicily get there wish.
There has been talk, from time to time throughout history of building a bridge between Sicily and mainland Italy. The bridge has been meet with opposition for various reasons. It seems that it just might come to fruition . . .
The Strait of Messina Brigde
27 hulagirl // Dec 11, 2009 at 2:36 am
What if two people, for some odd reason, didn’t know what “ethnicity” they were; do you think they would somehow mysteriously not get along because they were so “different”? I think it must be because I grew up without even giving race one thought, except to notice how Blacks were talked about and treated ON THE NEWS since there weren’t any in Hawaii. Mainly Asians and Hawaiians and Whites(Haoles). I can’t imagine being so caught up in race. I understand David, finally, and get an inkling of what you mean by nations and of course Revelations speaks of various tribes and nations. I think, however, this business of Italians and Sicilians, and Albanians and whatever is quite foreign to me.I wasn’t raised in any kind of political family either. I’m a mixture of European “races” I must be a horrible mongrel, eh?
28 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:49 am
As a child, I was always very “race-conscious.”
I have always felt that faithfulness to one’s own race was both honorable and natural.
At the same time, I respected the American Indian and, even as a little white child, thought deeply about how Whites and American Indians in the past could have better respected each other’s common humanity and dignity (without intermarriage or integration).
Yes, many “Liberals” do indeed proclaim that they want to “make us all one people, biologically and culturally.” I’ve read this in their writings and heard this in ther speeches. Ultimately, they want One People, One Culture, One Currency, One Government, One Religion.
If you doubt this, try looking up the “Special Fall Edition of Time Magazine” for 1993 entitled “The New Face of America.”
The New Face of America
29 David Yeagley // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 am
HulgaGirl, you’re a wonder person. I admire your natural innocence and sincerity in the matter. Please don’t think I’m trying to make cataclysmic judgments of people. I’m really not. I’m just saying we ought to be able to think in terms of honoring race, as well as transcending it. There is no obligation to do either, unless one invests in the idea that race or ethnicity is something to preserve and protect.
Integration always means interracial sexual reproduction, (sometimes intermarriage–but, that’s fallen by the wayside to a great degree these days–unless for notoriety, as in the case of Tiger woods).
Whether one believes in the Creator, or only in evolution, the human race is found in distinct varieties, basically three, or so our traditions have it. Now, is this something to overcome, or something to recognize?
I think it is a subject worthy of attention. Will you grant that much?
30 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:51 am
Mr. Sandusky, Southern Italians and Sicilians are basically in the same boat. Northern Italians refer to everyone who lives south of Rome as ” terroni “, meaning ” earth people “. And Napoli and the surrounding area were once apart of a larger state with Sicily called The KIngdom of two Sicilies. The true cultural ( even racial ) divide in Italy is between North and South, with Roma as the border.
And hulagirl, I understand Hawaii is so “mixed ” racially and ethnically that there is a new anthro pological term called neo-hawaiin to describe this “new”people. I grew on the East coast in ethnic enclaves that were very tribal, and where everyone seperated along those lines. That was in the Seventies. Things have eased up a little. But only A LITTLE. And now huge numbers of Russians, Georgians, Poles and Albanians are taking over where Italians/Sicilians, Jews and Irish left off. In NYC the Guinea’s created an organizational network that other ethnic tribes are now moving into. THose with experience in this area will be able to read between the lines of what I’m saying.
31 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:18 am
And I also agree with Mr. Yeagley in finding wonderment in hulagirl’s innocence and naivete. I have met some Hawwaiians and all of them seemed to have had a real sense of tribal affiliation, in a celebratory way. They certainly didn’t exhibit hulagirl’s childlike view. And I don’t mean that as an insult to hulagirl.
32 David Yeagley // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:20 am
Caleo, would you not say the “northern” Italians are the Etruscans? I mean, historically, anyway, that’s who settle the north, but, then, they were finally ousted by the Romanis. So, who in the world were those “indigenous” Romanoids, who essentially drove out the Etruscans, or at least conquered them, about 509 BC, was it? Tarquin the Proud (Etruscan) ousted by the Romans. The Romans were kingless for a good while.
Anyway, there is that northern-southern differentiation. It’s more than cultural. The Etruscans were perhaps from Asia Minor (Anatolia), and used a Greek-ish alphabet.
From what I have experienced, the northerners do look down on the southerners. This is a kind of geographic-based demographic psychology–repeated in many parts of the world, among many different peoples, U.S. not exluded!
33 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I agree on the north/south divide being seemingly global in it’s reach. As far as north vs. south in Italy, well, the Northerners are the only ones with the problem. And as to who the Etruscans were, I’ve pondered it for a long time and your guess is as good as mine. There was an indigenous group in Italy before the Etruscans, but history does not give us their name. The early Romans admitted that they were a rustic and primitive people until Etruscan and later Greek influences shaped them and gave direction to their Nation. The early Italic tribes claimed descent from the Trojans, and evidence says they possibly migrated into Italy from the Anatolian plains. The region of Tuscany takes it’s name from the Etruscans, but not all Northerners can claim descent from them. Many Northerners are proud of their Germanic and Celtic ancestors who settled in the North in successive waves for centuries. Yes, the Etruscans are an enigma, but the Romans themselves were immigrants. And the Latin word ABORIGINE was used to describe the Original people of the country who the Romans and Etruscans absorbed after their arrival.
And a quick note on Germanic settlement in Italy. I’m sure everyone is familiar with John Gotti, the former Capo of the Gambino crime family. Well, Gotti means Goth or Gothic in Italian, so a 20th century ” warlord” in NYC carries the name of the Germanic conquerers of Italy from many centuries before. And how that Germanic coldness and ferocity fused with the heat and fire of Southern Italy is a whole other story for another day. Buon Giorno !!!
34 hulagirl // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“I’m just saying we ought to be able to think in terms of honoring race, as well as transcending it. There is no obligation to do either, unless one invests in the idea that race or ethnicity is something to preserve and protect.”
This is true, but talk about a razors edge. And talk about a “subject worthy of attention”, look at the talk it’s generated on this thread! In my naivety, it seems I make many generalizations, but in my little head, I’m following what to me are paths to logical conclusion. I read “Infidel” by Hirsi Ali, (the woman from Somalia who immigrated to Holland and became a member of Parliment before she was ousted for speaking too much truth about the Muslim extremists invading her African country). The book is full of descriptions about “tribal” mentalities. I marveled at the seeming greatness and danger of identifying so closely w/a “tribe”; it provides protection and unity, but also an awful lot of strife and war. Obviously I know nothing about being a member of a “tribe” or ethnic group, that’s why I find the fascination w/it (in modern times when the need for such community and cohesion by group so curious). How do you honor it and transcend it, it’s a tar-baby (excuse the racial reference!) but one indeed worth exploring. It almost sounds like the people on this thread are the ones being “liberal” or socialistic by advocating a type of collectivism by virtue of race. Doesn’t focus on differences separate rather than bring together? It’s true, I’m very naive about race.
35 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm
With all do respect hulagirl, your naivete about tribe and race stems ( I think ) from the fact that you are SO mixed that you have no firm ground upon which to stand, and hence no way to transcend it. Those like yourself who have no distinct ethnic identity are easily manipulated by modern concepts of multiculturalism/globalism. I have always felt sorry for whites who have no real ” roots ” to explore or give sense to their being. And don’t think for a second that your ethnicity ( or lack thereof ) doesn’t affect you and your response to the world every day. Your innocence in regards to this whole thread I see reflected in the attitudes and beliefs of millions of ” white-americans “. As Seneca the Roman once said : No wind is favorable to the ship that does not know to which port it is heading !!!
So goes White America today.
36 hulagirl // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Good grief, there could be no less “globalistic” person on this thread than myself, you people are reading me wrong. People are telling me how weird and naive I am w/out presenting a logical argument for all this obsession w/race! It can be dividing, can you give me that? What’s wrong w/having an “American” identity that doesn’t include separation by race? Separation, by definition, is not cohesiveness. The multi-culturalists won’t even let us have an American identity; I’m talking about being able to have such an identity and if we yack all day long about how different the races are within America and base our sense of self and “roots” on this, where will we go? Someone give me some meat here w/regards to my questions. I may be undereducated (only a Bachelors!) but I’m not stoopid (and if you think I don’t know I misspelled that word you don’t get my irony OK?) Caleo, what “firm ground on which to stand” are you talking about?? I’m so mixed that I’m hopelessly mixed up and can’t have “sense to my being”? What rubbish. I find my identity in Christ, and, quite frankly, I don’t have time to explore the extreme importance (according to you folks) of “race”. Sorry!
37 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Apology accepted !!!
38 hulagirl // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Race–a nice subject to study and cogitate on; I’m sure there are people who spend their life doing so. I just don’t get the obsession here. Guess I’m just a “rudderless ship” sailing blindly in the night. Obviously, it behooves us to look at culture and look at what is good and bad about each one; I’ll bet David would have something to say about African/Black culture. Heck, I ask myself all the time, what is WRONG w/that continent. My answer is, again, I’m sure, terribly “naive”–they need to adopt the principles/values of Western Civilization, and yes, there are “better” cultures/ideas than others and America has done pretty well. I think I’ve even read David’s comments (years ago) on what the “White man” brought in the way of, dare I say it, a “superior”(“ish”) way of
life; one way of life supplanting another. I’m sure there are many wonderful aspects of each ethnic group and culture; I just thought, for the sake of establishing an “American” identity, once again, we should focus on how we are alike, what we can stand for together (the left does this very well) and get on with it. Someone tell me they get my point, at least.
39 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I get it, and I wasn’t trying to insult you, or cast aspersions on your intelligence. It’s hard to communicate some of the nuances I feel about the subject over the internet. In conversations like this, generalizations often lead to misunderstanding and hurt feelings. Let me say I’m sure your a lovely person, a wonderful mother. But I don’t feel love of my ancestors and my tribe to be obsessive. There is a fine edge that Caucasians must walk (in my opinion ) in regards to love of ancestry, and not let it become soured by hatred and jealousy. A fine edge indeed.
40 John Sandusky // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm
It is important that people keep up, if they are to voice opinions on the origins of other people.
“Recent genetic data suggests that ancient Italic tribes, including the Romans, were closely related to the Alpine Celts who founded the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. In other words, the Romans conquest of Gaul was more like the final part of the unification process of the Italo-Celtic tribes.
Genetic evidence
The S28/U152 SNP was discovered as a subclade of haplogroup R1b about 2 years ago and tests have become more widespread over the last year. The original trend seem to point at a Celtic origin for this haplogroup, with a possible origin in the Black Forest or Switzerland.
R1b-S28 was found in the area of extension of the La Tene culture, along the Rhine, Moselle and Meuse valleys north to Belgium, around the Alps in Eastern France (Lorraine, Vosges, Jura, and maybe as far as Auvergne), and in northern Italy, known as Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans. The haplogroup was also observed at lower frequency in Britain, which is compatible with the establishment of Belgic tribes there prior to the Roman conquest.
But it now appears that R1b-S28 is also the most common subclade of R1b in Italy, even in the south and in Sardinia. It could indeed be the original haplogroup of the Italic tribes, prior to the arrival of the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Phoenicians.
The coalescence age for R1b-S28 haplotypes is around 3,500 years ago, about 1,000 years before the beginning of the European Bronze Age. This makes it possible for a common origin of the Alpine Celts and Italic tribes. Little is known of the Italics before the mythical foundation of Rome in 753 BCE.
In all likelihood, the ancestor of all/most R1b-S28 people lived in the Western Hallstatt culture, around the Black Forest. This happens to be the place where the highest STR diversity is found for this haplogroup, which usually means that it is the place of origin. . .”
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25249
One knows nothing of the European peoples without a profound knowledge of the Celts, and where they originated from
41 David Yeagley // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:41 pm
John, this isn’t so well known, but, I think there is much truth to it, too. The indigenous tribes of Europe seem all to have great or significant Celtic, or Gaelic (Gallic) markers one kind or another. I’ve long felt an intuition about it.
The problem is, there are Europeans, white supremacists, who dis the Jews as some Kahzar group, leaving the whites open to claim they are the chosen race. This I do not believe.
However, I do think there is much Celtic, or Gaelic-ism at root in most of Europe. I also think the Irish have are still fighting the Anglo-Saxons (English–or does that include Norse as well?) even in American culture. With all the Fox news biggies being Irish Catholic these days, I’d say to the Gaels, “You’ve come a long way, baby!”
42 caleo // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm
First Mr. Sandusky, when I give opinions on Italy I’m talking about MY people, as I’m Italian. My “opinions” are based on what the Romans said about themselves, as well as other ancient historians. I did not say it was iron clad truth. But after your quote of the genetic studies, you finish with ” Little is known of the Italics before the mythical foundation of Rome “. You basically repeated what I said, and admit that genetic research is inadequate ( though interesting ) in determining the origins of these peoples. And I wholeheartedly agree that the Celts are a key element in trying to understand the history of European peoples. But genetic research has a LONG way to go in determining who did what and when and where they first did it. The samples taken for this research have been from the tiniest segment of these populations. Genetic research is in it’s infancy, and creates more questions than it answers.
43 hulagirl // Dec 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“It’s a Black thang, you wouldn’t understand”, kinda like that? I think it’s great whatever your tribe and ancestors are, that you feel a sense of pride and love. My point is that it is usually the Liberals who stress identity by race, sexual identity, whatever. I think we should indeed “transcend” race, but at the same time honor it. No one, when trying to defend staying w/the “same”, recognized my point that in nature, it is the “different” that produces the best offspring. It’s not just the allure of the “contrasts”, it’s a fact of science. You guys sound rascist to me. And I’m not offended, nor are my feelings hurt, I do feel somewhat frustrated that my points are not coming across like I mean them to, but I’m not even convinced that’s my fault
. I sure don’t feel any “hatred or jealousy” as a “Caucasian” “walking a fine line” w/regards to understanding “love of ancestry”, I guess I just can’t, indeed, relate to it. Good for you to have something like that, I just think we can have families and love and matches and functioning societies, not segregated as you people seem to be implying.
44 Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest December 27, 2009 // Dec 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm
[...] Saving the Indians [...]
You must log in to post a comment.