David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Children understand race. Their natural reactions are prophetic. But, liberals, for all their desperate political use, misuse, and abuse of children, on the matter of race entirely ignore children, and worse, contradict the obvious truth which children reveal about it.
From the ABC news piece by Diane Sawyer.
Ensconced within an article about white and black Barbie dolls, there is an ABC video in which saccharine liberal Diane Sawyer comments on a rather artificial interview of a number of black children. The children are shown two dolls, a black and a white doll, and asked simple questions of preference. After viewing the video, it is easy to observe the children’s preference for the white doll, but there are other elements not so evident in the circumstances:
1) the children are all in uniform
2) they are obviously in a private school
3) they are aware of the interview, but answer honestly anyway
4) the boys are not considered to be different from the girls.
5) the girls associated bad behavior with the black doll.
6) the programmed, liberal interview shows the truth of how they feel
Agonizing as it should be to liberals, Sawyer blissfully ignores the stark raving truth that the black children prefer white skin–even though they themselves are black, and Sawyer simply pontificats that superior modern white liberal society, which has risen above all racism, can naturally congratulate itself on the interview with black children. The interview in itself was sterling righteousness. Never mind what the children said. Liberals congratulate themselves, regardless.
The biased and somehow rather uninformed Dr. William Julius Wilson, interviewed in the short news piece, is completely unwilling to face the truth of what the children feel, but instead claims their feelings are inherited through cultural circumstances. The children’s natural feelings are wrong, and therefore not their own, and therefore the result of modern white society.
At the beginning of the news report, Sawyer references an early study (1940) by Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife Mamie, also using dolls. At that point, 63% of the black children preferred the white dolls. Today’s retake yielded only 44% preference for the white doll. But, even in that circumstance, most of the black boys considered both dolls equal in preference. Yet, 47% of the black girls preferred the white doll.
Of course, the questions were loaded (giving the options of only “pretty” or “ugly”), and the responses were necessarily limited. Nevertheless, the children’s answers were dramatically revealing–to liberals who may not be fully decided on their positions. Hard liberals, like Sawyer, simply don’t see the facts, and see what they want to see. They are never shocked by the truth, because they habitually won’t see the truth. This simply video report displays that so perfectly.
The context of the video, an article on black and white Barbie dolls, is a simply report on the fact that Walmart stores are selling dark dolls for half the price of the white dolls. Obviously, either the store calculates that the minority children are going to have less money to spend on toys, therefore, the store gives them a break. However, anal idealists (in the Freudian sense) claimed Walmart was “devaluating” the dark doll. These same kinds of liberals, who claim non-white people are owed everything in the world to them, by white people, owed everything the richest white person has, are nevertheless protesting a price break given to non-whites, because it seems demeaning when so dramtically juxtaposed on the store shelf.
BadEagle.com has written about all this before, in Race in the Face, and elsewhere. The important tests done by Judith Langois (University of Texas) in the ’80’s and ’90’s showed that even infants, just days old, had preferences in faces. They so happened to prefer what adults prefer: beauty. Sawyer’s report was, again, blissfully unaware of the more serious, scientific studies.
If black children are uncomfortable being around white children, of they feel offended at their own appearance by comparison, then what they need is education about themselves, not federally coerced integation and the interracial sexual reproduction which inevitably results. White people cannot make black people feel better about themselves. That is a superficial illusion–dramatized in Malcom X, when Malcom (Denzel Washington) forces his white girlfriend to kiss his feet. It did not make him feel any better about himself.
Given the dimensions of sex and guilt touched on in Freud and Foul Language, it is obvious that the naturally negative emotions involved in sex are compensated in the dark male, when he seeks a white female. That’s supposed to be cleaner. Better. Higher. (Never mind what the white girl actually looks like! Remember what Eldridge Cleaver wrote in Soul on Ice (1968):
I’d jump over ten nigger bitches just to get to one white woman. Ain’t no such thing as an ugly white woman. A white woman is beautiful even if she’s baldheaded and only has one tooth.
Well, it was an imaginary conversation in the section, “The Allegory of the Black Eunuchs.” But the point is just the same. The thoughts are there, in the open.
This is a pitiful plight, really. Is it then a terrible disservice to black people to force integration upon them? Do blacks today feel any different about themselves than they did a hundred years ago? There were plenty of achievers back then, even without civil rights. Something about this whole modern approach to race is superficial, and leaves out the most basic and obvious psychological factors. Wealth doesn’t make a black person white. Fame doesn’t make a black person white.
Blaming whites for their deep discontent doesn’t help black people. this is all weakness and abject dependency.
So, apparently the dolls tell all. Perhaps a little humor would be useful about now. Try, Leftists Rape Indian Barbie Doll (March 18, 2002). I was spoofing white Professor Patricia A. McCormack for her unsolicited protest to the fact that the American Indian Barbie doll had on buckskins and fringe, instead of McCormack’s preference of a three-piece business suit, a doctor’s uniform, etc. Why, that ol’ buckskin thing was denigrating, or at least limiting, to the American Indian woman. I guess McCormack never went to a pow-wow.
18 responses so far ↓
1 tjones // Mar 9, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I just erased a long,and totally useless commentary to this post (yada,yada about that sham of a movie about Malcolm X,etc.),which was,in its way,yet another ego-trip in commentary..you say it so well,I’ll just pass it out on e-mail,facebook,myspace,etc. Thank you!
2 Stella // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:39 am
Luckily for humanity generally, moral, ethical, and legal duties are based on principle rather than preference, and political arrangements in the adult world are not governed by aesthetics.
3 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:06 am
Stella, I would the first person to avow that appearances are not sure indicators of moral states. (1 Sam. 16:7)
Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have refused him; for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looeth on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
This is a fundamental rule of judgement. Appearances are not to be the deciding factor, or the basis of decision, when it comes to the character of the man. To what extent the inner and outer are related is perhaps a different issue.
But, there is such a thing a beauty, and it should not be disdained or hated. It should not even be envied. It should be valued, to an extent, anyway.
“Black is beautiful” bespeaks all sorts of problems, really. Black people obviously don’t feel beautiful around white people. Take a look at Noliwe Rooks, Hair Raising (1996). All about the black female, and the historical developments in ‘marketing’ her.
4 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07 am
I am actually very sensitive about how black people feel. Very sympathetic to their issues of appearance and acceptance. What human being, with any heart, wouldn’t be?
Ah, but this is not what they need, at all!
5 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“AmRen,” until you can be for honest in your own identity, I will delete everything you post, no matter how worthy of conversation.
6 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Was it Samuel Johnson who said, “Truth is Beauty, Beauty Truth”?
I am sorry for black people, because I myself would be unhappy if I awoke to find my skin black.
I think that white people have more potential beauty than Negroes. I am very sorry to offend in saying this. This is my personal preference.
I see myself in the mirror as a white man. If I were a black, I’d learn to live with it, but I would not prefer it or choose to be of that race.
In any event, miscegenation can be the only ultimate object of forced racial integration. The stated goal of the ‘liberals’ is to “abolish the White Race,” which they have openly called “the cancer of human history.”
As a white man, I am deeply offended both by this hateful description of my race and by the genocide of miscegenation being waged against it as the “final solution” to the White Race Question.
I want all races to live and be preserved and to find a psychological and spiritual solution to their inferiority / superiority complexes — a solution that does not demand the destruction of physical and cultural differences!
7 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm
A Conservative conserves! He does not set out to destroy that which God, or Nature, has created!
The political agenda to eliminate all race differences is SIN. At Babel, God condemned “racial harmony” as a potential source of rebellion against Divine Authority. Another way of putting this, in secular terms, is that it is an attempt to overthrow the Natural Order or Hierarchy.
From all accounts, as I see it, this is wrong and cannot possibly be justified. It implies that Nature has made a huge mistake in creating or developing different human races — that the Universe itself is wrong for having done so!
To me, such an assertion is absurd. The Universe must, ultimately, be just, if Life is to have any meaning.
8 Stella // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Was it Samuel Johnson who said, “Truth is Beauty, Beauty Truth”?
No, it was John Keats.
9 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Stella, again, I agree completely. Character is the kind of beauty the Creator looks for. Yet, He also made visual beauty.
Somethings, and yes, some people, are apparently more desirable to look at than others. This is what our human behavior demonstrates, at all levels, in all dimensions. An obvious example, the espousals. You pick a person you are “attracted” to, not someone who repulses you. This is all perfectly normal.
Wiser people, however, pick for character. That’s where the old world “arranged marriages” came from. Wiser people making the choice for the younger.
In America, we value individualism supremely, whenever possible and practical, and therefore, we pay heavy consequences, often.
10 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 3:40 pm
No one wants to be condemned or shunned for reasons he had nothing to do with, for reasons of his birth.
And that works both ways, for better as well as for worse.
Now, the elixer has to be a simple, abiding humility and acceptance of reality as it is. Well, maybe not acceptance, but simply a willingness to work with it.
11 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Yes, Dr. Yeagley, I think acceptance is the “mot juste.”
I believe that some philosopher has said that it’s not enough merely to accept the Truth– one must love it.
If I can locate that quote, I’ll provide it.
12 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm
So, what is the truth about race? the truth that must be loved?
13 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I think the quote I had in the back of my mind was this:
“Amor fati — ‘Love your fate,’ which is in fact your life.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
This is not to say that I’m an expert on, or exponent of, Nietzsche!
The truth about race would be that it is very real — it exists, and that it may indeed be a part of one’s fate — something to be embraced, not rejected. If racial identity is part of one’s earthly identity, one should accept it and love it. Also accept the other races as they are and love them also — but not destroy them through integration. Rather, respect them, and live and let live.
Reciprocity in race relations. Do good to all but do not usurp the identity of another.
14 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm
And do not encourage another race to usurp your identity!
Respect the principle of nationhood and let each nation have its own refuge — its own place under the sun where it can maintain its integrity.
15 Sioux // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Thinking back to God’s continuous edict to the ancient Jews – don’t mix with the heathens! This had nothing to do with physicality but rather beliefs and values. The more you mix, the farther away from God you go.
So, when will there be a Hispanic mulatto Barbie? I sure do love the Indian one – gorgeous!
16 Thrasymachus // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I haven’t studied Nietzsche. I do not believe in any “master race” theory, nor do I find such an idea attractive.
I do believe, however, that the Biblical commandment implies a biological message. It has always seemed to me that God would have told the Ancient Israelites, “First convert the heathen to the Faith; then you are free to intermarry with them.”
No, I honestly believe that the genetic kinship or line of descent from the Patriarchs was an essential part of the Covenant made with Abraham.
17 David Yeagley // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Wow. Really good stuff here! Thank you Thras and Sioux.
Today, we might say, intermarriage (or, so many cases, just interracial sex), is not so much wrong as it is simply way too difficult. That’s all. It creates problems that are not necessary. It all based on personal schemes or manoeuvers on the part of individual egos, which did not particularly value ethnicity or race.
18 Thrasymachus // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:32 am
I can only give my point of view as a white man and a member of a moribund race and civilization.
(Remember that Patrick Buchanan stated that Western Civilization is dying.)
So, as I see it:
(1) A people are part and parcel of their culture. Their culture can be shared to some extent with other peoples (knowledge can multiply without being lost to anyone originally possessing it), to be sure, but minus the people who originated the culture and the culture in question is, for all practical purposes, dead.
(Only a Comanche can BE a Comanche, though he may share knowledge of his cultural heritage with an interested non-Comanche. The outsider cannot fully participate in the tribe, in the “inner circle,” so to speak.)
(2) Abortion on demand has, more than all else, decimated the white population on a global scale. The percentage of Whites is shrinking from year to year and, unless arrested, they will become a people too small to be a major player on the world stage any longer. They are even at risk of extinction, when they become too weak and vulnerable to defend themselves from a world which could desire their disappearance.
(3) Young Whites (those of child-bearing age) have become almost a commodity on the world marriage market. Many a non-White, successful in worldly affairs, has openly preferred, sometimes exclusively, a white partner in marriage. This public demonstration for such a “trophy” (if that is what it is?) has generated an example to follow in, or is at the very least reflected in the culture of, the population at large.
(4) The government education system and the popular media have made inter-racial sex–especially a White with a non-White–a continual presence in and essential part of mainstream culture.
Thus,
(5) What was once considered abnormal or highly unusual has become fashionable and is vigorously and vehemently defended in the court of public opinion. And the white birth-rate is below replacement level.
(6) Wherever and whenever this situation has developed in World History, the peoples involved have either become a trifling minority or have even become extinct.
So, for example, the arch-enemy of the Ancient Israelites, the Philistines, once a nation, have become an extinct people solely via miscegenation.
Whites are 10% or less of the world population. I can easily imagine them dwindling down to a mere 2% within five generations or so (at least within the next 200 years).
My conclusion:
I think that it’s wrong to equate racial loyalty with “racism.” I believe it is entirely possible to believe in, and practice, loyalty to one’s race and culture and, at the same time, respect and appreciate persons of other races and cultures as equally valuable members of the human race.
Are political policies that will, for all practical purposes, lead inevitably to race suicide (at the very least, making a nation of people a minuscule relic and mere shadow of what they once were) morally sound?
Remember that Whites can easily be absorbed into black, brown, and yellow gene pools, while these latter are not likely at all ever to become extinct by means of miscegenation! The sheer numbers are against this.
So my people are dying out. Am I really supposed to celebrate the diversity (forced integration and the resultant sky-rocket inter-marriage rate) that is bringing this about?
God knows that I’m genuinely interested in Chinese and Japanese culture, in American Indian culture, etc. Yet it is somehow a sin for me (according to “liberals”) to worry about the survival of my own culture? It is my “duty” and “moral obligation” to work toward the “abolition of the White Race”?
I just don’t think that this is fair!
I believe in preservation of peoples and cultures and reciprocity in good will. I believe in sharing knowledge. I believe in listening to and learning from one another about history and culture and beliefs. Is this not enough? It certainly is not enough for the “liberals.”
I once, some years back, saw on television an “infomercial” for a church — some strange religion I cannot recall the name of — that was devoted to mixing the white and black races in marriage. They actually made a religion out of the practice! If you did not practice intermarriage, you could not be a member of that cult. Well, this is slowly, I think, becoming a real situation in mainstream Christianity.
“Christianity Today” has published an article saying that Christians should “celebrate intermarriage” between Whites and Blacks, as this is pleasing to the Lord.
For me, it is a sad period — the saddest period — in the history of the White Race. I do not wish such a fate on any people now living.
And last of all, I can tell you that I have spoken with, on the Internet, persons from mainland China and Hong Kong and Japan and other places in the world, and they too feel that what’s happening to the West — to the White Race — is a great tragedy, not only for Whites, but also for the entire world.
You must log in to post a comment.