I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48

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

Problems in any national culture start with uncontrolled immigration. In the case of white America, it was actually the mass Negro imports that comprised the first such immigration. That led finally to forced integration, and integration results in intermarriage.

When your people are few, like Indians, intermarriage leads to racial annihilation.

But blacks don't have to worry about that, nor do Mexicans (Hispanics), Orientals (Asians), or Arabic people. These are the largest racial/cultural groups in the world.

American black leaders want integration because they see equality as economic parity and sexual acceptance. They don't see either except through racial integration. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had to pass laws to insure integration only demonstrates emphatically that most white people didn't want it, and apparently still don't.

After all, white people globally and historically (especially in parts of the Antebellum South) have always been a minority. Segregation was their natural defense, or their instinct for self-preservation, despite the fact that they brought the Negroes here.

But in America's 19th century 'adolescent' period, the government lost this global perspective of race, and made idealistic decisions based on political theory which it applied within America's own borders. Leaders believed everyone living within America's borders must be equal, economically. America has never really matured beyond this political solipsism.

When Indians became vastly outnumbered by whites however, we were subjugated as a minority race, and truly segregated--by land. We were put on "reservations."

Well, Indians were separate nations from America. Indians didn't seek "equality" within the American system. Though Americans dominated our land, we wanted no part of their society.

The white man did not at first try to make economic use of us. He just wanted us out of the way. Reservations kept the warring Indians together, away from white people. We were promised sustenance, forever, so long as we stayed there, and stopped killing white people.

As a result, we Indians still have our cultures, languages, and religions. Much has eroded, but the core is still there.

Now white men see vast economic opportunity on Indian reservations. This will bring forced integration, and that will destroy us. The critical issue of "Who Is Indian?" already demonstrates the need to preserve our race. Today there is so much at stake in being Indian, one really has to "prove" he's Indian. And Indians are the only "ethnic group" whose members must prove their claim.

Indian culture itself can be mimicked by non-Indians. Theoretical "wannabe's" abound, for obviously economic reasons. The casino industry, for instance, is doing terrible harm to Indians, and it deeply insults our dignity of being. Our race is a marketable fantasy.

But a culture without a race is like a country club with open membership. Soon, everyone joins. There's only an economic prerequisite. If you benefit the club, you're in. If not, you're out. The "casino cultures" will eventually destroy the Indian race.

Those who formed the American colonies, and later created the American government, were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In the beginning there was a race, a religion, and a land, (albeit with developing borders). The essential elements of a nation were all there. Never in history did a "nation" exist otherwise.

Today, America has become an ambiguous society. The WASP Weltanshauung still lingers as a cultural drone. However, Americans must today question whether a nation can long exist without definition of race, religion, and land.

National identity itself, at some basic level, requires some kind of segregation.

As an Indian, I hope not. When I look on America's cultural malaise I can only remind America of its WASP roots. These white people are the ones that fought Indians. I feel a strange, abiding connection to the white man.

I'm not concerned about the other races, cultures, or religions. I would have fought them too, and would have wanted to remain segregated. Yet they couldn't have defeated me, so I feel no special respect for them.

But I'm concerned now that the American roots are dying. Strom Thurmond's historical sentiments on segregation could have been implemented differently, and might have been better for everyone.

Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?

Yes. The heros of history have done just that. Leonidas made a stand at Thermopylae; the "noble 500" rode into the Valley of Death at Sebastopol; the defenders of the Alamo died to a man. Is there a value? Of course. It's in the statement made to the enemy, that victory will always be qualified, never fully theirs as long as the memory of great deeds lives on.

Your concession to "inevitability" is the product of either myopia or something vastly more sinister.

Kind of a "horns of a delima" thing. The human right to be free to associate or not associate with whom ever he chooses, individually or as a group of like minded individuals as opposed to state forced association. But is that what happened?

I could never go for the kind of segregation that this nation engaged in at one time, it needed to be brought down. On the other hand, I don't think we should have allowed the cheese eating French to define our nation via the Statue of Liberty, come one come all, it's up for grabs.

One thing is for sure, if America were not rich it wouldn't even be a problem to be asked, if America were not wealthy who would want to come here and horn in, oh, make that, seek opportunity. I think as decendents of the founders we have an obligation to be very careful about who we do allow to live in our home and under our system, or it will not remain our system, it already isn't our original system. While loving one's culture is fine, stay where that culture is, because the message should be if you move to the USofA it is you that must adjust, not us, because our culture and system has proven far superiour to any other and we don't tend to respect failure here. While we may enjoy and adopt your food and dance, we may not appreciate your political views.

We have a mess on our hands, there is no doubt about that, not just a mess but a dangerous and flamable situation that the political parties and other elements have placed us in. Now your pursuit of happiness has to come at the expense of having the ability to jump every hurdle the government places in front of you. Like immigrant cost, crime, opposing cultures, like Islam, terrorism, losing our culture and sense of law abiding community, and the demand of government that it is the taxpayers responsibility not only to support the entire freaking world, but ignore our sovereignty and risk our survival, which was never mandated in the Constitution.

I don't believe in segregation according to color, I do believe in segregation according to culture and I really think that is what the bottom line is about, not something as silly as skin color. At one time it may have been about something that silly, but I doubt that is the case now. What it is about now is not allowing people to come here ONLY for economic opportunity, but to allow only those that want to embrace our ways, join in, and make them theirs.

Kind of a "horns of a delima" thing. The human right to be free to associate or not associate with whom ever he chooses, individually[That Right is protected in the First Amendment] or as a group of like minded individuals as opposed to state forced association.But is that what happened?

I could never go for the kind of segregation that this nation engaged in at one time, it needed to be brought down. On the other hand, I don't think we should have allowed the cheese eating French to define our nation via the Statue of Liberty, come one come all, it's up for grabs.

The problem is that the solution to the state-enforced segregation was a state-enforced integration.

If both are repugnant to the principles on which the country is founded, how can one arrive at a constitutionally acceptable solution?

The answer, IMHO, lies in a limited Federal Government, State's-rights oriented interpretation of what the Founder's intended [each State decides on the solution, without interference from the others - you don't countenance state-enforced segregation, so you make sure you live in a state of like-minded individuals]

- but that leads to the usual flame-war so we won't go there...

"Be ye not unequally yoked together." Does it apply here? I would point to the problems created by diversity. It is important to note that color of skin hasn't always been the instigator when it came to racial strife. The Irish were frowned upon for quite a while. I believe that an honest and open discussion should see segregation as a componenet. I am not advocating racial segregation. I only think it is something that should not be out of bounds to discuss.

As far as I am concerned, it is evil to look down on races other than your own as inferior. By the same token, I believe that it is dishonest to state that any ethnic group of any monetary status can and should be allowed to enter our nation in numbers too vast to assimilate.

There is another verse in the Bible that says "moderation in all things." I believe this is true with immigration, it is true with trade, it is true with liquor, it is true with food, it is true with sex, it is true with most things in life.

Those who advocate exclusively one idea without any possible compromise on it's full potential, are generally afraid of any challenge to their ideals because they can't support them as well as they claim to be able to.

You're right in saying that European "culture" is universal in nature. Ours is a culture based upon universal principles that apply to everyone. Our "rights" are simply not for white people, for brown people, for Christians or Jews. They apply to everyone equally. And this is true in a political sense, since the Natural Rights tradition is based upon the idea of universal human nature that is the same everywhere, in every culture.

Of course, this tradition has been under attack for well over a hundred years. The latest assault has taken the form of deconstructing the tradition to show that it is, in fact, and oppressive system of control.

The problem, so far as political philosophy is concerned, is to reconcile the natural rights teaching with the demands of modern natural science. Some sort of teleological basis for normative values is what is lacking.

Do you see a lot to be gained by debating the inevitable and attempting to prevent it?

You mean like the inevitable collapse of America into a dictatorship?
like nuclear war or a major nuclear accident?
like death?

Since they are inevitable and can't be avoided, why try to prevent them? Sorry. Count me on the side that will continue to struggle and hope, even against the worst of odds.

State-imposed segregation was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and a series of other decisions in the 1950's. Granted, it took years before these decisions were fully enforced, but in time they could -- and presumably would -- have been, as in the end they were in the 1970's.

State-imposed integration was started by the Civil Rights act of 1964. The two steps are quite different, and it was not necessary to proceed from the first step to the second. But that means raising the kinds of objections that Barry Goldwater is now so vilified for raising in 1964.

It is just as wrong to force people together as it is to force them apart.

That reminds me of a decent zinger I threw at my uber-Liberal Property Professor. We were discussing the history of Racial Zoning in America, and she lamented the fact that as blacks were finally getting the opportunity to leave impoverished urban areas (thanks to FHA programs), that whites would often move away making those new areas segregated yet again. I asked her if she was saying that whites should no longer be allowed to move away from areas for racial reasons. She said "no, of course not" but couldn't explain how else to prevent de facto segregation if whites continued to do so.

The racial identification of the people who created, engineered, implemented and nurtured the remarkable socio-political thing called America has no further relevance. There is a real American "culture", it is powerful and inspired and successful, and it is race neutral. The racial and ethnic tensions we endure in our nation are cultural, not racial, in makeup. Urban black American culture STINKS. It is contemptuous of education, family and community responsibility, health care, work ethic, community safety, investment in the neighborhood and next generation, spirituality and personal accountability. Any white person who adopts that putrid life plan will see equally dismal results. Matriarchal Societies are dysfunctional, because they block males from vitally crucial societal responsibilities as dependable providers, loving, strong male role models for young men to emulate and young women to desire, and it causes sociopathic results like educational and vocational ignorance, slothfulness, crime, murder and reckless and shameless impregnation of girls/women and immediate subsequent abandonment. Urban black culture is valueless, and until we shout that out boldly and fearlessly our society will continue to be split and increasingly at odds.

The lefties are trying to suck Mexican immigrants into the same dysfunctional culture they've ensnared too many black citizens through the lure of easy welfare and unaccountable entitlement. That's evil.

It's not about race. It's embracing a winning game plan leveraging our uniquely American institutions. Black folk who work the program will thrive. A Korean or Sri Lankan girl who has a child as a teenager out of wedlock, shuns any future desire for a man to fill his primal familial role of provider and protector, drops from school, seeks no jobs, provides no vital care and direction for her child and does not PUSH educational achievement is on her way to leading an intergenerational legacy of uselessness and a slot as a societal parasite.

You mean like the inevitable collapse of America into a dictatorship? like nuclear war or a major nuclear accident? like death?
Since they are inevitable and can't be avoided, why try to prevent them? Sorry. Count me on the side that will continue to struggle and hope, even against the worst of odds.

How did you mange to jump from further integration being inevitable to nuclear war or dictatorship being inevitable? The only item on your list that would qualify as inevitable is death and with death the best that you could do is attempt to postpone it. What kind of laws do you propose to use in an attempt to prevent further integration or do you have other ideas to use in your fight?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.