Monday, October 15, 2007

A different dividing line

Does the existence of an indigenous minority make the mainstream national identity illegitimate? Not according to David Yeagley, a Comanche Indian. This is his perspective on the situation in America:

The people of a nation must never be denied the expression of their natural love for their country. Without love of country, no nation can exist for long. It will become rather a heartless business convenience, a lusus naturae [joke of nature] of mean greed.

Okay, so America presents a bit of a problem. America is now multicultural. America has many races, many religions - and many ideologies, actually. What is in fact the country? Is there something that we all love? Is there something that is tangibly American?

My view as an American Indian: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants created this country. What is it that they love? What do they consider to be the country?

As an American Indian, I seek their opinion. Their view is the one I want to consider. I am bound to them in blood, war, and treaty. My history is theirs, and theirs mine. I have looked to them for the health of the country.

I must say, they seem quite lost now. They are either afraid of who they are, or ashamed. If they are indeed not proud of who they are, yet continue to constitute the polity they created, they throw a curve ball to the world.

... George Soros equates nationhood to "tribalism." Naturally, he is most interested in bringing down the greatest nation — America. And because of America’s multi-cultural conditioning, it appears an easy enough task. He wants an "Open Society," with closed doors to the basic, historic elements of human existence: religion, ethnicity, and nationhood. He wants a world that can be perfectly controlled, one without these pestilential differences.

This could stand alone as an eloquent defence of traditional nationalism. It has an added significance, though, coming from an American Indian. We are accustomed to white liberals using indigenous affairs to further demoralise the mainstream. David Yeagley refuses to play his part in the script and speaks instead to encourage white Americans to uphold a national existence in the US, for his benefit as well as theirs.

Hat tip: Brave New World Watch
Original article: Vdare


  1. The "indigenous" argument from the left falls apart when it comes to Europe. There they argue that the indigenous have no rights. . .so if the left is willing to go back on its principles when applied to the indignous peoples of Europe, why should we take them seriously anywhere else? Once again, their "unprincipled exceptions" show us what they truly are.

  2. On a side note, I have always respected the American Indians, and even the Maoris, more so than the Australian Aboriginies.

    It is something about the warrior ethos they managed to engender and maintain, while here in Australia, our indigenous population is just plain pathetic.

  3. The aborigines i know are university educated & employed. They do not abuse their children or trash their houses.

    I am honestly sick of all these stereotypes about Aborigines.if given the opportunities they are just as intelligent as anyone else.
    American Indians have many of the same social problems as Aborigines. Their life expectancy is about the same.

    But at least some the Indians have casinos to run.

    Put people in the middle of know where with no jobs & no prospects. Its little wonder they have social problems

    But i suppose if people encouraged them to move into the cities that would be "colonialism" & imposing white culture upon them or something.


  4. Larriii,

    I'm sure they "know where" they are and want to stay there...

    I have met one university educated Aborigine and yes, he is no different from the rest of white mainstream society. Maximum respect to him, absolutely. I would also add I’ve known a few “white trash” types among my own race that are not much higher up on the ladder of social status than the dregs that inhabit Redfern slums.

    Nevertheless, when one looks at the “people” and their legacy, I still find the history of the North American Indians and Maoris so much more dignified, for aforementioned reasons. It’s the bottom line that is judged by history, not my mate at Uni, or the few you’ve known.

  5. Ah but which American Indians are you talking about?

    There were/are many different groups some highly advance societies (such as the ones on the North west Coast) & some still hunter gathers( such as the ones inhabiting the Californian desert).

    Some waged war against the settlers & some were easily overcome by disease & alcoholism.

    The status & treatment of women also varied.
    The Comanche treated women as chattels & women captives were often gang raped and tortured.

    And that is dignified? That is better than Australian aborigines?

  6. David Yeagley ROCKS.

    Sharon Ferguson

  7. "That is better than Australian aborigines?"

    On the whole, yes.

  8. You're incorrect Mark. He encourages "white Anglo-Saxon Protestant" Americans to uphold their beliefs. Clearly, he sees a difference between the "amorphous" white America and the "old stock" WASP America.

    For better or worse, that America no longer exists.

    Prof. Kevin MacDonald would remind us that Soros is a member of a certain tribe who has an ethnic interest in dismantling, in particular, WASP America, if in fact, any of it still remains.

    Desmond Jones