Monday, November 24, 2008

'They endured immigration...'




I think the poster, depicting the Indian, with the message ''They allowed (endured) immigration and now they live on reservations', is rather inspired. The point is obvious: native Italians are in danger of being overrun and marginalized and displaced in their own country, just as native-born old-stock citizens in our country are slated to be the 21st century 'vanishing Americans.'

Political correctness apparently has a rather weaker hold in Italy than in most Western countries, if we are to judge by the campaign posters. Please scroll down the web page at the link above,and see the poster which says 'Indovina chi e el ultimo?' The image is that of several 'diverse' immigrants and one Italian man waiting in a social service line. Notice the rather caricatured features of the immigrants. Can we imagine such a poster by any political party in this country? Enough said. And the message, which translates to 'guess who is last?' is rather frank, too. We all know that in our Western countries, the immigrant and the minority (the two terms overlap) are given precedence, while the native-born citizen is pushed to the back of the line.

But is the American Indian's situation, or ''plight'', as the old books called it, analogous to that of white European-descended people as the West is being broken up and given away to Third Worlders? There are some parallels but the circumstances are rather different. At least the Indians were able to fight for their land, --- though they ultimately lost, but modern European-descended people are stifled by political correctness and thwarted in many places by laws proscribing any kind of 'hate speech' (i.e.criticism) against the invaders. The Indians at least were not crippled by guilt-trips and propaganda in their struggle to maintain their territory.

This question of how European colonists and settlers ''stole the Native Americans' land'' is a persistent thorn in the side of Americans who are resisting the loss of their country. I can't count the number of times that some liberal has triumphantly introduced this accusation in a debate over immigration. They always flourish this as their trump card, their ultimate retort, so they think. They smugly say 'white people stole this country from the Natives', and they then expect this rather juvenile statement to silence their opponents.

I've said to such people that if they truly believe this, they should show some integrity and give all their property to the Indians and pack up to go to Europe, rather than remaining on 'stolen' land where they have no right to remain. I haven't yet gotten a response to that from any liberal. They obviously don't literally believe that this land 'belongs to the Indians', or else they would vacate it.

Another question I pose to these pestilent liberals is: ''were the Indians racist and xenophobic when they tried to expel or kill the whites? Why didn't the Indians 'embrace diversity' and why weren't they 'tolerant' and inclusive enough to accept the whites rather than attack them?"

This usually elicits no response, or a changing of the subject, usually accompanied by angry sputtering.

I continue: "if the Indians were within their rights to try to keep their land, why aren't we?"
The usual answer, if any, to that is: ''well, that was different; they belonged here, but our ancestors didn't." This, of course, dodges the question of the origins of Indians, and of their being transplants from Asia.

As for the accusation that whites killed and dispossessed the Indians, I remind the accusers that Indians did the same to each other; there was mutual hostility among many tribes, with constant conflict and frequent skirmishes, and sometimes considerable bloodshed. Indians displaced other Indians in their conflicts.
Indians also enslaved other Indians. Captives became slaves in many cases. The foolish idea that all Indians lived in some kind of idyllic noble savage utopia before the whites intruded still persists.

The liberal always wants to introduce guilt trips about how the Indians were ''forced onto reservations."
David Yeagley gives an Indian point of view on this: he says that far from being forced into isolation, the Indians preferred this solution. They in no way desired to be part of white society; they just wanted to remain Indian and to continue to live in their traditional ways. In a way, their position was the opposite of the black demands for integration, and for the right to live, work, go to school, and mingle socially with whites. Indians preferred to stay with their own kind in most cases. The idea that Indians follow the pattern established by blacks in their campaign for integration and 'equality' is false.

And if it happens that we become, like the original 'vanishing Americans', displaced and relegated to being walking museum pieces, will we want to be 'integrated' into the polyglot, Babelized society that supplants our civilization, or would we want to have our own sovereign, separate areas, where we can continue our own culture and way of life? I think I would choose the latter, if I had to choose between the two. Being swallowed up by some alien culture, among people who are hostile to me and mine, would seem like annihilation to me.

Still, though a 'reservation' or enclave of some sort would be the lesser of evils, I think that most of us are not meant for that kind of life; ''we must be free or die...'' as the poet said.

But I think that Italian campaign poster is a timely warning. We, all of us in the West need to contemplate, and realize how late is the hour, and how precarious our position.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You write: "Scroll down the page at the link above..."

But there IS no link above.

Please provide the link.

B2 said...

Ooops! Here you go:

http://www.wheelsofitaly.com/wiki/index.php?title=Lega_Nord&redirect=no