David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Everyone else is an immigrant. Even the early Celtic add-ons were not part of the foundations. The later Irish Catholic immigrants were most definitely not part of the foundations. The social order, that is, the government of the colonies, and that system which distilled into the Declaration of Independence, was created by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The Constitution of the United States of America is the work of Englishman who separated themselves, by war, from their home country.
Some immigrant families at Ellis Island, ca. 1910.
Modern descendents of the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, etc., are first to declare that America is a nation of immigrants. This is their self-protection. Therefore this is their talking point when it comes to addressing the issue of immigration in general. But their mantra ‘America is a nation of immigrants’ only justifies their own presence here. The fact is, these people are all additions, not founders. All of the early immigrants, besides the Jews, have of course blended themselves into the founding sentiments. It was easier for the Scots than anyone else, because they were “British” anyway.
Nationhood is an ancient concept. Again, Aristotle observed that immigrants, foreigners, or add-ons generally bring perpetual discontent, no matter how early they engrafted themselves into the history of the nation. Speaking of causes of discontent, he says:
Then there is difference of race or nation, which remains a source of dissention until such time as the two groups learn to live together. This may be a long process; for just as a state cannot be made out of any and every collection of people, so neither can it be made at any time at will. Hence, civil strife is exceedingly common when the population includes an extraneous element, whether these have joined in the founding or have been taken on later.
This was observed by the famous pupil of Plato in the later part of the 4th century BC. Aristotle, The Politics, trans. Sinclair (Penguin: 1962), BK V, Ch.iii (p.196). The Jowett translation puts it this way:
Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution.
And so we see that “immigration” is a fundamental concern of any nation. It is a development, and also a threat. It represents growth, but also change. Change is the concern of the nation.
From the American Indian point of view, the foreign invasion of various Indian nations can all be summarized as a “white” invasion. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants certainly had no intention of becoming part of any Indian nation. That isn’t why they came here. Nor did the WASP people intend to create a substitute European environment, with different nations of Scots, Irish, Germans, Italians, or Polish people. Everyone was to be white and Protestant, and to speak English. It was an Anglo-Saxon nation that was created on Indian land, not an Irish Catholic nation, or an Arab Muslims nation.
Interestingly, the Jewish roots in America are quite different from the modern public impression. The original Jews in America were sephardic, originating from Western Europe. They were not Russian Communists, and they didn’t come in 1910.
They came in 1655. They came from Holland.
The Jews had been expelled from Spain in 1492, and from Portugal in 1496. Don Luis de Carvajal (a “murrano,” or cryptic Jew) first came to New Spain (Mexico) in 1568. He later got the largest land grant in history from Philip II, and was appointed governor of The Kingdom of Leon in 1579. This isn’t exactly American history, but, the point is, Jews were here on this continent, very early in its European, or non-Indian history. Jews were all over the Gulf. Friar Juan de Torquemada wrote in 1615 that West Indians (Caribbeans) looked like Jews, and their languages abounded in Yiddish words! Monarquia indiana (Seville, 1615). This story is all told so well in Harriot Rochlin’s Pioneer Jews (Houghton Mifflin, 1984).
Portugese Jews had migrated to Brazil as well as to England, then Holland. They obviously were in search of freedom from religious persecution. Remember that English Puritans were taking refuge in Holland as well. Amsterdam to be exact. Jews took part in Dutch commercial enterprises, and found themselves in New Amsterdam (New York) as early as 1654-55. (This group had actually gone to Recife, Brazil, but fled again when the Portugese recaptured the city in 1654.) The Jews were part of the changing world scene, and camped out in Newport, Rhode Island. These Western European Jews are America’s founding Jewish population, not the later Eastern, ashkenazim.
Dr. Abraham J. Karp said in 1976 that Jewish people in America were guided by “the conviction that Jewish interests coincided with American well-being.” (See, The B. G. Rudolph Lectures in Judaic Studies, “Jewish Perceptions of America: From Melting Pot to Mosaic,” March, 1976. Perhaps a self-protecting platitude, but, the Jewish issue focuses the immigration issue like no other element can. In the Jewish management of ethnic identity there is the clearest articulation of the definition. The Jewish community must advocate pluralism for its own survival, yet, must also advocate freedom to maintain its own separateness. The Jew cannot afford to blend any too much.
Ilana Mercer, Hebrew.
This is why the later Communist Jew created such a critical influence. Communism is all about blending, about removing distinctions. Communism is about “equality.” An ethnic Jew (or “Hebrew,” as Ilana Mercer calls herself, rather than a non-practicing Jew) is perfectly safe in Communism–as long as he doesn’t practice any form of Judaism. Communism was about hiding Judaism. Communism was about blending, or, erasing Judaism. Only in this way, the ethnic Jew might survive. Realizing this maneouver was at least part of the reason David Horowitz parted ways with the movement. This was around the time he became acquainted with Isaac Deutscher, the Polish Jew, the Marxist ideologue who said the Sino-Soviet split was Marxist blasphemy. Nationalism, which indicated market competition, was not allowed in true Communism. See, David Horowitz, Radical Son (Free Press, 1997), p. 142, f. Communism meant no Judaism. This is why, in America, home of so many “liberal” Jewish Communists, the new Jewish Right developed. Jews had freedom to be Jewish here, and they preferred to preserve that identity, despite the chaos the multiculturalism and pluralism that self-protective “Hebrews” had advocated.
David Horowitz
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants welcomed Jews, even in the early colonial days of America. The WASP cultural identity was in fact based on Judaism, on Biblical social customs and values. How could the Jew not be welcomed? That there are organizations like the ACLU and the ADL today only indicates a lingering, nagging uncertainty about “To Be or Not To Be A Jew,” as Rabbi Milton Steinberg put it (1941). At this point, the argument that other non-WASP groups must be nurtured and honored by the Jew, in order for the Jew to protect himself from persecution, is a dangerous argument, and really ought to be dropped. It invites anti-Americanism. This in turn invites anti-Semitism.
Edith and Milton Steinberg,
courtesy of David Steinberg.
The secret of successful immigration, at least conceptually, is first to preserve the national ethos, which is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Secondly, any different, foreign group must never, ever appeal to the tax dollar for support, or even protection. “Congress shall make no law” for any such purpose. The excess of foreign elements has distorted the intent of the 1st Amendment entirely.
America has become a kind of international bazaar, or buffet, where all the ethnicities and religions of the world come to market their novelites. This is fairly ridiculous in human history, and sounds the death knell of the nation. A nation is not a business. A nation is a family. A family is a sacred thing. If not mangaged uprightly, the children become monsters–a threat to themselves and to society. This is the final effect of multiculturalism.
Ask any Indian nation how it preserves itself. It isn’t by letting anyone and everyone claim to be Indian. There are exceptions, but they are not the rule.
44 responses so far ↓
1 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 11:20 am
I think the difference between immigrants of the past and immigrants of today, is that the former were eager to leave their homelands to come and be a part of America. My grandfather was born here in 1894 in Colorado. His father was brought over here by an American company building the roads and the mountain tunnels out West. My great-grandfather was a stone mason who, among other things, built the foundations of bridges and the archways at the entrances of the mountain tunnels. He took his family back to what was then Austria-Hungary when my grandfather was six years old, however, my grandfather returned here as a young man in 1911 to seek his fortune, working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania at first, and later as a terrazzo contractor. He spoke Italian in his home, but he learned how to speak English in order to assimilate into American culture. Immigrants like my grandfather knew what it was like to live in a country without freedom. Middle Europe was about ready to launch into WWI when he came back over here. He did not try to change the laws here like this new crop of immigrants have, particularly the Muslim ones. My grandfather was just thankful he was born in America and was able to come back here to live and work and be free. His younger brother was not so fortunate. He was born in Austria ( now a part of Italy) and tried to come here in 1928. Immigration denied him entry, I’m not sure why, but it could have had something to do with Mussolini coming to power, so he ended up going to Australia.
2 David Yeagley // Aug 2, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The Italians created the Columbus Day parade, thinking it might help them be more accepted as Americans.
Lots of Europeans brought their European problems over here with them. Italians have done pretty well, all things considered. That oragnized crime bit, which grew out of the lawless, abandoned ghettos in the eastern cities, is a tiny, tiny element. It has the biggest reputation, however, and the average Italian has an alwfully lot to live down on that score.
People forget, that mob thing was Italian against Italian. Italian taking advantage of Italian. It bled out into other parts of society, yets. But, originally, it was an Italian on Italian thing.
Plus, Italians were all Catholic, and that kept them from the main stream of things.
But, look at today. Italian Catholics sit on the Supreme Court! Only in America.
3 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm
The Mafia, also known in Italy as “The Black Hand” originated in Sicily. Many older Italian people have great disdain for the Mafia. It is the younger crowd that likes to equate the Mafia with being cool, with shows like The Sopranos. It is not cool. It is not even entertaining, at least not to me. Give me Rocky Balboa. I’d take a big and not so bright boxer over a cruel and foul-mouthed pig mob boss in any day!
A few weeks ago I went to “A Night In Italy” celebration at a local VFW. They were going to show scenes from “The Godfather” as part of the entertainment! Needless to say, I didn’t stick around for the show. Classic gangster movie or not, there is a whole lot more to Italy and Italians than Don Correlone and his henchmen.
4 Tweets that mention A Nation of Immigrants? NOT -- Topsy.com // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:32 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Rushfather, A Walker. A Walker said: A Nation of Immigrants? NOT http://bit.ly/dmvRey [...]
5 David Yeagley // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Italian feuding families go back even before the Renaissance. Some say back to Rome. There are books written about it. Jacob Burkhardt’s Civilization of Italy in the Renaissance is probably the best. There are chapters on the Italian personality or character. Fascinating. Try Part II, “Personality.”
As an outsider, to learn all of this, by experience, is quite unforgettable. But there is literature, for the more timid explorer. The Italian stereotypes were set early in America. Nathanial Hawthorne’s The Marble Faun (1860) is all about Italy. Poe wrote a story, “The Assignation,” which is about the Italian femal personality. Then there are the travelogues, like J. F. Cooper’s. I have to say, for the most part, the early Italian stereotype on the street was a shady one. Tall, dark, handsome, mysterious, criminal, violent. It was a trip! And Catholic. That was not a welcomed thing in early American days. I actually studied all this back in the ’70′s and ’80′s.
Major social element in America, the Italian.
6 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Tall, dark, handsome, mysterious, yes, criminal, violent, maybe, depending on what part of Italy he comes from! And do not forget the razor sharp stiletto cocealed in a sheath beneath his pant leg! ( Usually attached to one of his boots.)
Most of these “violent types” originated in the southern parts of Italy and Sicily. In the South Tyrol region of Trentino Alto Adige where my family comes from, there are tall and dark and very handsome people like my grandfather, but there are also many tall and blonde or red headed people with blue or green eyes. They speak German as well as Italian.
Many Catholics erroneously believe that is okay to pray to the Blessed Mother, but it is actually a throwback to the pagan worship of the goddess known as the Queen of Heaven.
In reality, Mary’s greatest gift to mankind was she said yes without hesitating to God’s plan for her to be the mother of the Messiah, knowing full well that she could be killed for being an unwed mother.
No where in the Bible does it say that she is to be worshipped or considered an extended member of the Holy Trinity. It is issues like this that have been a source of great contention between the WASP establishment and Roman Catholics for years.
7 David Yeagley // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm
They say the way to a man’s heart is his belly. Food. Good good. Well, that won Italians a place in the nation, for sure!
Other nations have brought their food, as well as their religion. These days, they flaunt the whole package, demanding a booth in the bazaar. They’re not really interested in being American. They’re here to sell their wares, so to speak.
Nothing weakens the spirit fo a nation more than cultural confusion, tasty and interesting as it might be.
It’s not that we want uniformity in all things. We want simply the basic American family. Since WWII, the public image of the American is greatly mixed. The world think’s it’s “American.” Everyone, anyone, can be an American. They don’t know what this means, of course. They see the lights, the land, the food, the electricity, the life-style. They want to participate in that, and that makes them “American.”
8 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:43 pm
The trouble is that the WASP elite has turned against itself. They cry out to “Save Tibet,” while they wish, for economic reasons, literally to sell out the rest of America.
The country should be moving towards a balkanized future at this point.
From an e-mail I received today:
“We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leaders.
A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, ‘Mexifornia,’ explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.”
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”
‘Here is how they do it,’ Lamm said:
‘First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.’
Lamm went on:
“Second, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”
9 David Yeagley // Aug 2, 2010 at 5:40 pm
This is all true. I would add one thing: American Indian Nations are not part of the concern. No other people share the nature of American Indian history, nor have any rights to any status such history brings. No one came here by treaty. No one fought America to have the right to maintain their identity within America’s borders.
All but Indians are truly immigrant. In other words, we do not contribute to the “balkanization” concern, or the multiculturalism. That is a false interpretation of Indian existence today.
Thras, you come up with such excellent quotes!
Muchos gracias!
10 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Yes, the American Indian is totally exempt from the problem. His place in American history is unique and essential. Europeans, after all, did not arrive on a desolate continent!
I would like there to be a strong and enduring alliance between loyal Americans and the American Indian.
11 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm
A Famous American Indian Who Was Really An Italian!
Iron Eyes Cody
12 David Yeagley // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Yeah. We all know that. (Ha, ha!) But, there were a lot of Italians playing Indians in hollywood. A Lebanese now and then, too.
There were Indian actors, but, somehow, they have only recently been included in serious roles. I don’t really care, myself, except when it’s an Indian role!
That Lou Diamond Philips guy, the Filipino, got a lot of Indian roles. That offends me. And the guy Rudy “Youngblood” Gonzales got a role (Apocalypto) and he never demonstrated that he was Indian in any way. Wouldn’t even name his own parents.
13 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I didn’t know that about Iron Eyes Cody! I really thought he was an Indian! I also thought that Lou Diamond Phillips was a Lakota Sioux.
I just watched the mini-series, “Comanche Moon” and I was impressed that the Indian actors ( Wes Studi and Adam Beach) actually spoke in Comanche. They also wore real eagle feathers on their costumes that the movie crew borrowed from the Comanche Nation. They returned the eagle feathers afterwards.
14 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I remember those commercials.
I think that they illustrate the fact that White America had respect for the American Indian and that his place in the culture was distinct from that of immigrants. At the time of those commercials, America was self-consciously a white culture and did not entertain notions of multiculturalism.
15 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:22 pm
An American Indian actor I remember from my childhood was Don Shanks, of Cherokee and Choctaw descent.
Don Shanks.
16 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Hey Thras, if you remember those commercials then you probably remember the first commercial that sort of smacked of the concept of multiculturalism.. Remember the song, “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing”? It was a kind of Hippie-Jesus Freak paean adapted to sell America’s No #1 soft drink to the world. ‘I’d like to buy the world a Coke..”was sort of an invitation for the world to come here, don’t you think?
17 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Yes, I remember that song and commercial as well. It was timed to accompany the changes in immigration law that were the beginnings of multicultural America.
This was planned all along — though the traditional American people did not understand the full picture back then. So, yes, that commercial was a psychological introduction and invitation to the new cosmopolitain vision of America being initiated at that time.
18 Thrasymachus // Aug 2, 2010 at 8:12 pm
The beginning of the very seductive multicultural propaganda, just after the immigration policies were radically chaged (notice that advertisement was selling far more than a product — indeed, a philosophy!):
70′s “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” Commercial .
19 Pamela K. // Aug 2, 2010 at 8:44 pm
The Fruits Of Multicultural Labor
20 Illana // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:11 am
I always wondered why in the Immigration Office there were no Native in the staff ; in the past they couldn’t decided who could come and emigrate. In the present days they could have a decision power …
21 whitetrash // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:40 am
“At this point, the argument that other non-WASP groups must be nurtured and honored by the Jew, in order for the Jew to protect himself from persecution, is a dangerous argument, and really ought to be dropped. It invites anti-Americanism. This in turn invites anti-Semitism.”
Good point. The uptick in anti-semitism on the Left has been pronounced for the past few years. I have been startled more than once to hear a Lefty sounding an awful lot like the Stormfront crowd. And while I feel no obligation, as an American, to concern myself with Israel or Holocaust politics, I don’t wish the Jews or Israel any harm or feel hostility toward their interests. Yet Lefties tee off on Israel as well. It won’t be long before they quibble about how many Jews died in the camps, etc… I think the Jewish tendency to go their own way is odious to an increasingly uniform type of anti-Americanism on the Left.
22 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:00 am
Pam: It’s true there have been Mexican people living north of the Rio Grande, for at least two centuries. In Texas, add another century.
However, the people claiming America is their homeland are NOT those Mexicans! They are new comers.
And the land north of the Rio Grande was Indian land! The North American Indian is quite a different ‘breed’ than the indigenous people south of the river. Who knows how or why, but, that’s the way it is. Very different people.
23 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:02 am
Illana: Indians are, in a way, sacrosanct. We’re not allowed any place in American government. But that’s because America still considers us foreign nations. This is glorious, if you look at it in the right way.
24 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
WT: Jews are always willing to go to bat for some other immigrant or minority group. But, no one goes to bat for the Jews!
Some Jews believe that, to fend for the rights of others, they insure their own rights and safety.
This approach is used up, at this point. It is back-firing on the Jews, methinks.
25 Pamela K. // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:09 am
Who are the real Mexicans? I always thought the original inhabitants of Mexico were the Aztec Indians, right? The Spanish influence came later after the arrival of the conquistadors from Europe.
26 Pamela K. // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:30 am
I always thought it should be that the Indian Nations should be recognized as separate and distinct from the United States, like the Seminole Nation of Florida. I also think that the Indian Nations should receive a whole lot more from the government that schemed to decimate them as a people, and I don’t mean casinos, either! However, only the Indian Nations should be recognized in this way. the rest of us, like the Us government, are trespassers. We could even be called squatters. Unfortunately, it always gets complicated once the government gets involved, especially resolving the question of who is an Indian and who is not. Common sense tells me that someone like myself, with may be a few drops of Cherokee blood in my veins does not qualify to be a member of the Cherokee Nation. Likewise for a group of people with distinctively African features who claim to be descendants of a tribe, from Rhode Island I think? This is where the concept of multiculturalism is most evident, and it’s wrong because these people are clearly not Indians, not “first blood” ones anyway.
Where do you draw the line here? Mandatory DNA testing?
27 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 11:21 am
Family. Oral tradition, historical record.
I, for one, simply have never had any confidence in DNA. It got it’s first name when liberals tried to claim humanity was Negroid, from Africa. It got further reputation when it entered court. Why, DNA was the last word of authority.
Having had such an overdoes of science and academia, I have no trust in either. They are based on interpretation, and as such, are only another opinion. i do not concede “authority” to opinion.
To make personal genetic idenity dependent on DNA is to insult all heretofore recorded history, and all past human effort, word of trust, and legal record.
I, for one, will not let the pop-science DNA ascend to ultimate authority. It’s just an opinion.
28 Pamela K. // Aug 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm
DNA testing has been used to exonerate men on Death Row wrongly convicted of rape and murder.
As far as DNA testing, I too, have my doubts, especially after the case involving Anna Anderson, whom many people believed was the lost Russian princess, Anastasia. I think she knew too much not to be the missing daughter of the last Czar.
Anyway, I know this is a hot button issue, and I also know I am not a racist, however, I do believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution does have elements of truth in it.
Look at the cave men. They did not exactly look entirely human. And then, I was always told that Cain mated with primates in Africa after he was cast out for killing Abel.
I’m sure there is some sort of a connection, but if there is, it happened thousands of years ago.
29 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I shouldn’t act so “emotional” toward a “scientific” issue. Ha!
I just know this human character thing. Society is like a person. Full of dubious motives, at times. People always want power–over others. Scientists want it. Professors want it. Politicians. And rich controllers. What is this, sublimated rebellion against parents? against the ultimate parent, God?
30 Frog // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:02 pm
David,
You said: “All but Indians are truly immigrant.”. Is that a true statement? Are there no bones of ancient peoples more indigenous than the modern Indian anywhere? Those who lost the struggle to survive?
I speak of the pre-clovis North American humans suggested by the Topper site dig. Then there is the Kennewick man.
The question is rhetorical but is anyone really indigenous to any place? Isn’t life just constant war with the stronger writing the history? Aren’t there always gnawed bones of the losers buried somewhere?
Can you share your thoughts?
31 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm
This is where Indians generally part company with moderners. Each Indian tribe (or family of tribes) has its own Creation Story. I think it is safe to say that the average Indian has a lot of regard for his own people’s story.
It isn’t a question of reality or truth. It’s a question of loyalty. Survival sometimes is the result of loyalty. Other times, loyalty can destory you, true.
In some peoples’ minds, reality is perceived differently, believed to be different–from the Western European concepts.
Perhaps there are multiple realities, each right in its sphere, so to speak. Coexistent, and not contradictory. One may enable its believer to do more or different things among other earthlings; it may empower him. But it doesn’t mean that his reality is the only reality, or even the best reality.
Men are of different character. There are similarities, but, in the social, group behavior, there are definitely differences.
North American Indians were never into dominating any other culture, or controlling other Indian cultures. Europeans seemed to live for control. Major difference there. Not saying good or bad, just observing.
Maybe the Kenniwick man was another ‘expanding’ Celt…
32 David Yeagley // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Today, many people like to aggrandize the Comanche roots as lying in the Shoshone people. I don’t particularly believe that at all. Shared customs, or even language, doesn’t indicate anything other than proximity for a period of time. Comanches have lots of other bits and pieces of other cultures.
I say Comanche came not from the earth, but from the wind. That’s the culture I perceive. Wind people
AND I HATE THOSE UNSIGHTLY WIND MILLS, and this new fake craze for wind power. So there!
33 Pamela K. // Aug 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Born of the Wind
By Lois Lenski
Swift are the prairie children
Riding across the plain
From rise of the sun
Till day is done
Careless of snow or rain.
Strong are the prairie children,
Pushing against the breeze
Their feet have trod the prairie sod
They know not fear or ease.
Brave are the prairie children
wading the whirling snow,
Born of the wind
Born of the sun
Over the prairie they go,
Over the prairie they go.
34 Thrasymachus // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm
As to me, personally, I want no dominion whatever over any other people(s). I just want refuge and a safe place where my own culture and heritage can survive.
I can’t think of anything more insane than the two world wars — with perhaps the exception of the U.S. civil war.
I want nothing for myself that I would not instantly grant to all others. It’s not about “superiority”; it’s about heritage and identity.
I would never actually run for political office. But if I did, the American Indian would certainly have nothing to worry about in my policy towards him.
35 Thrasymachus // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:29 pm
“Men are of different character.” “Perhaps there are multiple realities, each right in its sphere, so to speak. Coexistent, and not contradictory. One may enable its believer to do more or different things among other earthlings; it may empower him. But it doesn’t mean that his reality is the only reality, or even the best reality.”
———————————————–
A truth that is, in these times, being suppressed.
Rudyard Kipling expressed it well, in my humble opinion, in the words of Mabub Ali, the Arabian horse-dealer:
Mabub Ali (Muslim) to Kim (an Irish boy):
‘Thou art beyond question an unbeliever, and therefore thou wilt be damned. So says my Law – or I think it does. But thou art also my Little Friend of all the World, and I love thee. So says my heart. This matter of creeds is like horseflesh. The wise man knows horses are good – that there is a profit to be made from all; and for myself- but that I am a good Sunni and hate the men of Tirah – I could believe the same of all the Faiths. Now manifestly a Kathiawar mare taken from the sands of her birthplace and removed to the west of Bengal founders – nor is even a Balkh stallion (and there are no better horses than those of Balkh, were they not so heavy in the shoulder) of any account in the great Northern deserts beside the snow-camels I have seen. Therefore I say in my heart the Faiths are like the horses. Each has merit in its own country.’
36 Thrasymachus // Aug 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm
As with the Faiths, so with the nations and their cultures. That is my point.
37 birdofprey // Aug 3, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I dont see any thing Mexican about those Mexicans. All I see is the same ol inbreed greed that flourishes throughout Europe. If they were real Mexicans they’d be at the alter, giving gratitude to the sun for their prosperity. Like an ocean wave, churning all its elements. Sunlight and blooming flowers go hand in hand. All I see is today is ignorant greed, no flourishing flowers just weeds and twines. Asian carps from Europe with no god just hypocrisy..
38 Illana // Aug 4, 2010 at 8:46 am
To answer to David, it’s really a shame that non native americans get a position in a gouvernement as a symbol of recognition …
I don’t know how each nation feels it but it’s a shame and unfair..
As for the illegal Mexican who refer to the “true history” their identity is not clear for themselves : their face look like Aztec, but what about their culture, customs..
Personnaly I find them very “hispanic” with much latin influence…
39 Frog // Aug 4, 2010 at 10:09 am
Thank you for the answer to my question. The truth that reality is perceived differently by individuals is … easy to forget or minimize. Even more so the followup concept: perception shapes reality.
I agree with your thought overall. Americans are notorious for their attitudes and desire to impose them on others. Often hypocritically. Lord save us from the do-gooders as well as the wicked.
Let me take issue with some of the words you wrote.
You said: “North American Indians were never into dominating any other culture, or controlling other Indian cultures.”
No?
What of the long lasting pre Columbian Cree-Inuit wars? Likewise, the Iroquois warred pre contact for revenge, territory, prestige.
I realize you draw a boundary at the Rio Grande but nevertheless. What of the Aztecs and their predecessors? Warfare, predation upon weaker tribes (including slavery), taking of hostages and sacrifices, were these not a staple and foundation of their lives? And were these not the things that helped assure their eventual demise? I believe that these are certainly examples of domination and control.
Furthermore, is it valid to combine the American tribes, some violent, some peaceful, into one group; the Indian? Then compare that construct to another artificial group; the European?
You further say: “Europeans seemed to live for control.” I take issue here too. The Europeans who came here were motivated by various things, empire, greed, persecution at home, poverty, etc. The Europeans who preferred to stay out of other peoples business stayed in Europe.
The Europeans are as different as the Tribes. The Italians, Poles, British are as different as the Inuit, Lakota and Comanche. Europe is not and has not been a melting pot despite thousands of years of intermarriage and warfare. The nationalities persist. We’ll see how successful the EU will be at changing the situation.
Personally, I think that the domination and control issues came largely from the unholy collaboration of the British Royalty and Jewish banking families. What a concept, print your own money by the bucket and use it to pay soldiers to die to force other peoples to buy into the pyramid scheme.
Take care and God go with you.
40 Thrasymachus // Aug 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Frog,
Yes, each European nation has its own national characteristics — sometimes these national groups cross geographical boundaries and are determined by language and common ethnic origin. Each European nation has its own personality.
Wagner was an anti-Semite and wrote about the use of Jewish banker’s money and Jewish power. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a document more harsh in tone that Wagner’s “Judaism in Music.” Many professional thinkers wonder if Wagner wrote this out of anger at a particular Jew who rebuffed and displeased him, as Wagner seemed to be on friendly terms with other Jews.
Nevertheless, I think that the WASP elite in the States is chiefly responsible for allowing liberalism to flourish. Our national problems existed long before any Jews came here. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the public mind would not bear the burden of sorting these matters out and solving them intelligently. White America simply kept sweeping its problems under the rug — and is still doing so to this very day, as if pretending they do not exist will somehow make them go away. The White Liberal and the White Neo-con — those Whites who refuse to take a strong moral stand against the forces attacking and dispossessing the White population — are the culprits here.
41 Thrasymachus // Aug 4, 2010 at 2:57 pm
The modern “Christian” churches are teaching false doctrines about race and nation — the strong delusion spoken of in the New Testament — and the average White Christian is very liberal and committed to (or tolerant of) the suicide of the nation. There’s no word the average White Christian is more afraid of being called than that worn-out weaselly word “racist.”
If wanting Whites to survive and have a good future as a people and society displeases the politically correct, so be it!
Whites today desperately need to get a balanced view of their own history and stop feeling guilty over things, both real and imagined, that happened in earlier generations.
42 birdofprey // Aug 4, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Seems the new cycle of life is almost complete. The old cycle practically gone. No matter what tribe, American or European, Mexican or Jew. Life as it was for millennias has just about ended. A new cycle of life will bloom soon. Just try and give birth to a human and let um grow without vaccines. Lets watch the buffalo stampede and hunt them as they once did. Disease, virus and bacteria will reign, immigration ignored. Our greed will be the last issue we the immigrants debate as the new top of the food chain predator devours our immigrant species. Check your green card for entry to heaven or hell, Jesus died for every last one of us.
43 calliegal235 // Nov 9, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I have thought for some time we should return the statue of liberty to the French. Really, we should have done that before we restored it.
44 calliegal235 // Nov 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Amazing how many flags were raised over California!
http://www.loeser.us/flags/california.html
You must log in to post a comment.