The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good, Part II

Gerald Martin, American Renaissance, September 13, 2013

Ako
The battle over Texas history.

In Part I, Mr. Martin explained how modern historians are trying to delegitimize the “Anglo” conquest of Texas, and reviewed one of the more repulsive of the recent anti-white books. In this concluding essay, he reviews two more books on Texas history, one merely bad and the other good. He concludes with observations about how history is taught.

The bad

Gary Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in The Promised Land, 1820—1875, University of Oklahoma Press, 2005, $29.95 (hardcover), 494 pp. 

The racial prejudices of 19th-century Texans, who came predominantly from the slaveholding South and feared both slave conspiracy and slave revolt, led them to expect people of other races to conspire against them. Such a worldview distorted Texas history: Indians, brutal and bloodthirsty, were always at fault, and Texas Rangers were saviors. . . . Such a historical interpretation—written by the first two generations of Texas historians—is mythology.

-Gary Anderson

Conquest

By contract, Gary Clayton Anderson, a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma, is a decent writer and a competent historian. He has done solid work in the past, including The Indian Southwest 1580-1830, which sheds new light on the origins of early Texas and Southwest Indian groups.

But the purpose of his 2005, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820—1875, is virtually identical to that of Exodus from the Alamo (see Part I). Prof. Anderson maintains that the central event of 19th-century Texas is the “ethnic cleansing” of Indians, a term Prof. Anderson prefers over the more usual “genocide.” He argues that whites had no right to expand westward:

Texas was not a wilderness open for the taking. American Indians lived in Texas, and they wished to preserve their claim to this land for the benefit of their progeny. To be sure, the Texas tribes had experienced many evolutionary changes. The initial, indigenous inhabitants—Jumanos, Coahuiltecans, Tonkawas, Karankawas, Apaches, and Caddos—had faced decline and, in some cases, near extinction.

Texas actually was a wilderness “open for the taking,” but the people doing the taking—until the arrival of Anglo settlers in the 1820s—were the Comanches. It was Comanches who pushed out the groups Prof. Anderson identifies above. Starting in the second half of the 18th century, they invaded Texas from the northwest. In exceptionally brutal fighting, they defeated the tribes already living there, absorbing some, exterminating others, and driving still others—such as the Apaches—into deserts and other marginal areas.

"Comancheria," the former territory of the Comanches.

“Comancheria,” the former territory of the Comanches.

The Comanches also wiped out several Spanish outposts, raiding so aggressively that the Hispanic population of Texas—only 3,000 to begin with—dropped by one-fourth by the beginning of the 19th century. As Pekka Hamalainen points out in Comanche Empire, the Comanches were so powerful they reduced the Spanish provinces of New Mexico and Texas to tributary status. In other words, by the time white Americans entered Texas, the dominant Indians in the region were themselves conquering newcomers.

To Prof. Anderson, however, the typical Anglo settler was greedy, boorish, and violent, combining the traits of a burglar and squatter, and justifying his behavior with a generous dose of racism. The Conquest of Texas isn’t so much a history book as an indictment against the traditional heroes of Texas history, especially the Texas Rangers. Although Prof. Anderson acknowledges some ranger units were “. . . fine troops: well mounted, well led, and disciplined,” this is how he describes the majority:

Filled with hatred and malice, members of such groups seldom took prisoners or even asked whether the Indians they attacked were friendly or hostile. . . . more often than not [Rangers were] brutal murderers.

Anderson flays the Rangers for atrocity after atrocity. Along the way he excoriates Walter Prescott Webb, the most famous historian of the Rangers, for excusing such behavior “as part of nation building” and as of “the story of the American frontier.”

It is true that Rangers sometimes committed atrocities, but Prof. Anderson does not acknowledge that atrocities had been part of Indian warfare—on both sides—since the early 17th century. What happened in Texas cannot be seen in isolation from what had been happening on the American frontier for two centuries before that: raid and counter-raid. Indians burn homesteads and butcher white families; whites then destroy Indian villages, often killing at least some of the women and children.

Texas Rangers

Texas Rangers

Like so many PC historians, Prof. Anderson is guilty of “presentism.” He judges the past by the standards of the present, and condemns anyone who don’t measure up. The Anglo pioneers of Texas, many of whom were “born fighting” to use James Webb’s phrase, should not be judged by the standards of 21st century liberalism.

What about the murders of white settlers? Prof. Anderson blames white outlaws, who he says slaughtered white families as well as innocent Indians. Whenever the primary sources express doubt about the identity of the perpetrators, Prof. Anderson assumes they were white outlaws rather than Indians. Any source who blames Indians he dismisses as an unreliable “Indian hater.”

It is certainly true that Indians did not cause all the frontier violence. There were plenty of bad white men, Mexicans, half-breeds, and others stealing livestock and killing people. Earlier historians, including Mr. Fehrenbach and Walter Prescott Webb, wrote about this decades ago. However, these older historians failed to show enough contrition, and their work can be disregarded.

Prof. Anderson simply ignores important sources that do not support his conclusions. Two of these are Noah Smithwick and Charles Goodnight. Smithwick was a blacksmith who fought in the Texas Revolution and early ranger companies, and Goodnight was a ranger who invented the cattle drive. Both left memoirs that are considered indispensable sources for life on the frontier—until the rise of PC—and are rich in details about Indian attacks. It is clear that the reality of Indian attack was the single most important fact of frontier life.

Goodnight

But what was perhaps worst about the Anglos is that they did not appreciate “diversity:”

Texans never agreed to accept the existence of western Plains Indians in the state under any circumstances. It was this denial, this refusal to accept ethnic diversity . . . that condemned Texas to a history of violence and instability.

In fact, if there is anything good to say about The Conquest of Texas, it is that Prof. Anderson succeeds in showing how incredibly complex and diverse a place early Texas was, with scores of different Indian tribes, Mexicans, half-breeds, escaped slaves, outlaws, renegades, adventurers, and Anglo settlers, all jostling for space and contending for dominance. Naturally, Prof. Anderson fails to see that it was the lack of diversity among the Anglos—their racial solidarity—that enabled them to defeat the other groups that together greatly outnumbered them.

Far from condemning Texas to a history of violence and instability, this “refusal to accept ethnic diversity” eventually created a peaceful, stable and prosperous society that is the envy of the more “diverse” but blighted societies Prof. Anderson reveres.

The author’s inability to face facts or use sources that undercut his assumptions make The Conquest of Texas a bad book.

The good

Sam C. Gwynne, Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History, Scribners, 2010, $16.00 (paperback) 371 pp.

It is interesting to note Texas’s peculiar position here: neither of these enemies would have accepted peace on the terms the new republic would have offered them. Even more remarkably, neither would accept surrender. The Mexican army consistently gave no quarter, most famously at the Alamo. All Texan combatants were summarily shot. The Comanches, meanwhile, did not even have a word for surrender. . . . it was always a fight to the death. In this sense, Texans did not have the usual range of diplomatic options. They had to fight.

-S. C. Gwynne

Empire

Exodus from the Alamo and The Conquest of Texas are not the only kind of history even in the age of PC. Empire of the Summer Moon is very different. The story revolves around Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche war chief. Parker was the half-white son of Cynthia Ann Parker, who at age 9 was kidnapped by Indians after a raid in which many of her family were killed. Although the story has been told many times before (it is still known by many Texas schoolchildren, and inspired the movie The Searchers), Mr. Gwynne tells the tale of Cynthia Ann Parker and her son with such skill that Empire reads like high adventure. The book has become a best seller–the most popular Texas history book since Lone Star. More wide ranging than a biography, it’s an excellent primer on Comanche history, the Anglo settlement of Texas, and the collision between two peoples.

Quanah Parker in ceremonial garb, ca. 1890.

Quanah Parker in ceremonial garb, ca. 1890.

Unlike academics who view Indians and Mexicans as good and whites as bad, Mr. Gwynne (like Mr. Fehrenbach, he is a journalist) presents a more balanced picture. He even sees similarities between the Comanches and the pioneers:

Both . . . had for the previous two centuries been busily engaged in the bloody conquest and near-extermination of Native American tribes. Both had succeeded in hugely expanding the lands under their control.

Although highly critical of what he sees as Anglo racism and rapaciousness towards the Indians, Mr. Gwynne is unsparing in his depiction of Indian savagery towards whites. One of many bloody episodes he describes is what happened to three fugitives from the raid in which Cynthia Ann Parker was kidnapped:

All three were surrounded and stripped of all their clothing. One can only imagine their horror as they cowered before their tormentors on the open plain. The Indians then went to work on them, attacking the old man with tomahawks, and forcing Granny Parker, who kept trying to look away, to watch what they did to him. They scalped him, cut off his genitals, and killed him . . . Then they turned their attentions to Granny, pinning her to the ground with their lances, raping her, driving a knife deep into one of her breasts, and leaving her for dead. They threw Elizabeth Kellogg on a horse and took her away.

Gary Anderson describes the same raid in The Conquest of Texas without giving any of the grisly details. Indeed, Indian violence against pioneers is either expurgated or euphemized in most recent history books. In the PC era, it’s not only newspapers and television stations that censor reports of atrocities against whites.

ComancheRaid

However, the most important way in which Empire of the Summer Moon differs from PC history is how it depicts whites themselves. They are shown, not as the slave-whipping, Mexican-oppressing, Indian-murdering caricatures one now sees in countless movies and TV shows, but as:

. . . simple farmers imbued with a fierce Calvinist work ethic, steely optimism, and a cold-eyed aggressiveness that made them refuse to yield even in the face of extreme danger. They were said to fear God so much that there was no fear left over for anyone or anything else. . . . They, more than columns of dusty bluecoats, were what conquered the Indians. [The Parker family] offers a nearly perfect example of the sort of righteous, up-country folk who lived in dirt-floored, mud-chinked cabins, played ancient tunes on the fiddle, took their Kentucky rifles with them into the fields, and dragged the rest of American civilization westward along with them.

Although one can quarrel with Mr. Gywnne’s occasional use of purple prose and overuse of superlatives, Empire of the Summer Moon is a very good book. The story it tells is so dramatic, exciting, and tragic it’s hard to put down. For anyone interested in how Texas got to be Texas, Empire is a far better place to start than Exodus from the Alamo or The Conquest of Texas.

The future of history

The history of Texas was unique in North America, but never unique or even unusual in the world of man. It was an old, old story: new peoples, new civilizations impinging on the old. The reactions of these peoples—Caucasian, Amerind, and Hispanic-Mexican—were in no sense aberrations. The treatment of one culture or one race by another was always determined by relative strengths and weaknesses, and by the nature of the cultures themselves, dynamic or regressive. It was never, and probably never will be, so long as men stay men, determined by internal ethical or moral ideas and institutions. More Texans understood this, out of their history, than their compatriots who never physically or spiritually left the safety of the sheltering Appalachians.

-T.R. Fehrenbach

Since history is a story we tell about the past, I will end with two stories. (The first is from Oklahoma, but could easily be from Texas.) They reflect contrasting realities about what young white people see today as their heritage.

The first story comes from David Yeagley, a Comanche Indian and college professor who spoke at the 2012 American Renaissance conference. During a discussion about patriotism in one of his psychology classes, a female student—visibly upset—told him how ashamed and worthless she felt as a white person. “My race,” she said, “it’s just nothing!” Dr. Yeagley pointed out that she had taken a course from a history instructor known for haranguing students with anti-white ideas. Multiply her confusion and demoralization by the millions and you get some idea of what today’s version of American history has done to young white people.

David Yeagley

David Yeagley

The second story comes from what I saw a few years ago in a 7th-grade Texas history class. I was observing a teacher at another school; my principal required teachers to do this as part of their professional development. The school was in an affluent, nearly all-white suburb near Dallas, and every student in this class was white. It was taught by a very young woman—no older than 25. The lesson that day was “Indian Depredations in Texas,” which she had taken from the title of an 1889 book about the Indian Wars. She read passages out of the book to her pupils which recounted, in graphic detail, the horrible mutilations and torture which Indians inflicted on their white captives. Then she read from Fehrenbach’s Lone Star about the battles between the Texas Rangers and the Comanches. The students were wide-eyed with excitement, bursting with questions, and enthralled by what they were hearing. Whatever emotion they were feeling, it wasn’t shame, or guilt or worthlessness. What their young faces showed was pride, pride in what their ancestors had endured and accomplished.

After the class I asked the teacher why she had chosen to read such violent passages. She told me her family was descended from pioneers, and that as a girl she had heard stories passed down for generations about how hard it had been on the frontier. “I want my students to know what we had to go through,” she said.

Both of these stories reflect the teaching of history in Texas—and the rest of the country. Which reality will prevail? Certainly, shame and demoralization now seem to characterize white attitudes about almost everything. I suspect there are not many history teachers like that young woman.

But there are some, and that is cause for hope. The popularity of a book like Empire of the Summer Moon is a positive sign as well.

This also brings to mind something I heard at the 2012 American Renaissance conference. As a speaker discussed the powerful forces threatening the very existence of the white race, he counseled against despair and quoted Spengler: “Pessimism is cowardice.” Texans have never been cowards. As Voltaire observed, in this world, one is either the hammer or the anvil. The Anglo-Celt pioneers who defeated the Mexicans, drove out the Indians, and made Texas a unique part of Western Civilization were the former. It remains to be seen which their descendants will be.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Gerald Martin
Mr. Martin is a 6th-generation Texan, ex-Army officer, school teacher, and backpacker, now looking for his third career.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JohnEngelman

    The Comanches and the white settlers were equally guilty of atrocities against each other, and other Indian nations. The difference is that the eventual outcome was never in doubt. The Comanches were not out fought. They were out numbered and out gunned.

    Heroism consists of desperate struggles against long odds.

    • Oil Can Harry

      “Heroism consists of desperate struggles against long odds.”

      And white pioneers consistently (and heroically) fought against long odds, often outnumbered by raiding Indians engaged in sneak attacks.

      The inevitable fact that the white man was going to eventually win the war doesn’t detract from the heroism of white settlers in individual battles.

      • anew

        The inevitable fact that the white man was going to eventually win the war doesn’t detract from the heroism of white settlers in individual battles.

        It’s obvious by now that while Mr. Engelman has many intellectual merits, subtle consideration is not one of them.

        • JohnEngelman

          The belief system of my detractors does not seem to be more profound than: white skin good; dark skin bad.

          • Boris McGuffin

            “The belief system of my detractors does not seem to be more profound than: white skin good; dark skin bad.”
            __________

            That’s just our guide for how to avoid dangerous neighborhoods.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have always found Oriental neighborhoods to be safe, even when the people were poor.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            I’m not a detractor of yours (which you know), but with subtle modifications, I think that as a general rule, white skin is relatively good, and dark skin is generally dangerous.

          • JohnEngelman

            I agree with you. However, Orientals have lower crime rates than whites. Nevertheless, there are posters here who dislike me because of my frequently expressed admiration for that marvelous race.

          • Terra Magnum Imperium

            IF a 5’2 China man was being charged by a Comanche Warrior he probably would have pissed in his pants, probably one reason there are few stories of Oriental Pioneers winning the west.

            Even though East Asians have a slightly higher IQ then Caucasians, Whites tend to have more creative drive and excel at thinking outside the box.

          • Alfred the Great

            The Asians have good memories, so they often score well on tests. However, you are correct in saying that they lack innovation and original thought.

          • MikeofAges

            No, people take issue with you because you are snow blind, so to speak. And because of your wooden synsthesis of universalism and the Cartesian mathematical concept.

          • David Ashton

            The mistake many posters make is to generalise collectively about races. As my white old working-class conservative auntie Audrey in London used to say, “There’s good and bad in all races”. Not all Blacks are violent, not all Jews are mercenary, not all Orientals are “marvellous”. But there are racial averages, and cultural differences, which justify our own “White” self-preservation.

          • JohnEngelman

            If most Jews are mercenary, why were so many of them active in the American labor movement during the 1930’s? Why do most vote Democrat? Regardless of what Republicans say on the campaign trail, the only thing the GOP really stands for is skewing things ever more in favor of the well to do?

            I make an effort not to hate blacks, but I can understand why others do hate them.

            Hatred of Jews can only be understood psychologically.

          • David Ashton

            If you re-read my post, you will see that it rejects adverse generalisation about “the Jews” just as it rejects favorable generalisation about “the Orientals”.

            However, the notion that many Jews have been successfully over-active in the area of making and lending money is based on fact, confirmed by the recent sympathetic studies from Jacques Attali and Jerry Muller (who touches on the “labor movement” issue). All “hatred” is “psychological”, but in the relevant case it is prompted by objective experience as well as malign propaganda. The almost universal phenomenon of “anti-Semitism” has beem basically a matter of cultural friction, as well as competitive riivalry, though successively complicated in history by (1) the supercession idea of Christianity, (2) biological racism (including the IQ aspect), and (3) the state of Israel. There are a host of self-serving Jewish apologetic writings, but it is worth reading also Bernard Lazare’s “Antisemitism”, Albert Lindemann’s “Esau’s Tears” and Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” for a balanced view.

            I do not have immediately to hand Herzl’s “Jewish State” but recall his statement roughly from memory that when Jews sink they become the subordinate officers of the proletariat and when they rise there is their terrible power of the purse. Disraeli can be quoted in parallel. Maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about, unlike you.

          • David Ashton

            PS. Reference details, if required, but then citing authorities you regard as losing (rather than winning) the “argument”.

          • Bo_Sears

            Did anyone even notice how swiftly the Engelman switched the topic away from Texas history and/or historical revisionism, called us gentiles, and worked hard to get us to talk about Jewish Americans? What’s up with that?

          • David Ashton

            There is something unusual about this “Nordic Presbyterian of German descent”, who “loves Jews, Judaism and Israel” but admits no racial or national loyalty to the USA, thinks Chinese women the most beautiful on earth, has always supported the Democrats and especially Barack Hussein Obama, liked his CPUSA acquaintances, denies the facts about Cultural Marxism and Soviet subversion of western governments, welcomes miscegenation, has read through the entire Bible in seven different English translations but won’t bother to read any books suggested on this site for his information, and produces the same stock sentences verbatim again and again.

          • Romulus

            Excellent summation!! My thoughts exactly. There is something amiss when that poster is a contradiction on every term.

            The poster ( J. E.) Could very well be the internet equivalent of a ghost writer, whose presence is merely to instigate opposition.

          • David Ashton

            Whatever time of day or night you might put on a Reply to him, he seems to answer back within minutes. He seems to be on his computer screen all time, hardly leaving any time to sample Mexican food or study the Sikh scriptures, etc. Does he ever sleep? Could he be more than one ghost writer, or has he put his computer skills into a robot that trots out the same short sentences automatically in response to critics on screen?

            As a little girl of my acquaintance once said, “My imabination goggles.”

          • Romulus

            I’m curious as to Mr. Taylor’s motivations for featuring his guest essay. J.E.’s commentary has shown valid arguments, which he then immediately eschews in favor of being contradictory.

            It’s not logical. It might make for better discussions if he prefaced a thread with ” Im going with the left’s position this evening”. Then followed with supporting opinion and analysis. Staying on point.

          • stewball

            Methinks you don’t like Mr. Engelman. Correct me if I’m wrong. He may love my lot etc but that may be because he has read his bible and believes we are the chosen!
            You of course know the ditty ‘how odd of God to choose the Jews’. Could be right.

          • David Ashton

            I find Mr Engelman’s posts sometimes irritating because of their “vain repetition” and disagree with him on many issues, but there is no personal antipathy. So long as we have Chinese or Jewish or Mexican food, I am sure he would make an interesting dinner-party guest, though perhaps only once!

          • stewball

            ;-)

          • stewball

            Well you are gentiles aren’t you?

          • JohnEngelman

            In the United States making money has usually been a respected occupation. Without money lenders most Americans would not be able to buy houses.

            I am unaware of any evidence at all that Jewish businessmen and financiers are less honest than Gentile businessmen and financiers. If you have that evidence, please post it.

            In the United States, and perhaps in the UK as well, the rich are getting richer while most people including white people are declining economically. This makes Jews vulnerable because they tend to be more prosperous.

            Many white Gentiles who are angry about their economic circumstances are reluctant to direct that anger against the rich in general. They feel comfortable hating “rich Jews.” Once they start doing that it becomes easy to hate all Jews.

          • David Ashton

            I do not need or wish to be drawn into trying to post any “evidence” about the dishonesty of individual Jewish financiers, whether or not this is statistically possible, because any such particular allegation, valid or not, has never been part of my posts on the subject of anti-Semitism. My main point has always been the friction that has arisen between Jews as a “landless” international ethnocultural people and the ethnocultural peoples who occupy their own national lands.

            Jerry Muller, a Jewish academic at a Catholic University in the USA, who wrote “Capitalism and the Jews”, an academic study I recommend to all and sundry, wrote an article on the relative absence of a general public anti-Semitic response to the fairly recent banking crises and personal scandals in the USA, entitled “The Dog that Did Not Bark”.

          • Romulus

            All would do well to also peruse THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND AND THE JEWISH PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Both excellent books. The latter shedding some light on the formation of wall street. Furthermore, it should be noted that the two greatest thiefs in all of American history in total dollars were 1) Bernard Madoff 2) Michael Milkin ; both Jewish.

          • David Ashton

            It certainly requires a high level of intelligence to maintain a system of usury, with all its modern derivative complexities, and to speculate on currency exchanges. As I have said to Uncle John, what matters is what you do with your brains to other people. Some Jews have brought great benefits, such as research in medicine and physics, and others have figured prominently in financial scandals past and present, but they do not any more than any other postulated collective have a monopoly of inherent wickedness, which was the tragic “mistake” of Hitler that ironically has proved the most difficult problem for postwar race realism.

            The career of George Soros, one multi-millionaire versus the national economy of multi-million population of one United Kingdom, and his subsequent “philanthropy” in political revolution and drugs legalization, would be a case in point.

            Ditto, the “eminent” Jacques Attali, although his 572-page apologetic “Economic History of the Jewish People” (Eska Washington 2010) in its English translation is an unexpectedly sloppy production, containing howlers such as “Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans on Easter Day”, and must be used only after cautious double-checking of his assertions.

          • Romulus

            Quite true. That is the crux of it certainly. I thank you for the previous reading list you provided. Im enjoying it immensely.

          • David Ashton

            Thank you.

            I forget to add a third jewel in the crown, the recently deceased “Rabbi” Philip S. Berg who “amassed a fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars” from tithed devotees, including Madonna and a string of gullible celebrities, of his Kabbalah gibberish and merchandise, while paying his duped helpers £22 a month. Now to be fair, he was criticised by genuine scholars who could read Hebrew and understand the Zohar traditions. But there you are: for every Maimonides there is a Madoff or a Maxwell.

          • stewball

            Stupid rabbi and stupid kabalah. They all went in with their eyes open.

          • stewball

            He was killed by the Romans. Maybe at the behest of the rabbis but they didn’t have to.

          • stewball

            What about your governmentespecially regarding the Indian nation.

          • stewball

            A lot of critics are scared little Jews. Usuary was once the only occupation a Jew could occupy himself with.
            Using cheap labour is not a Jewish thing. There were the sweatshopsbut who worked in them?

          • Romulus

            Your tom foolery is beginning to show in your comments. You either have your head up your a** or live in a fantasy world. Since we have had dialogue on this before, I’ll refrain from further comment. You are a talented word magi- cian.

          • stewball

            Do you remember what Herzl said before and after that lovely piece of writing?

          • David Ashton

            Wealthy Jews did indeed exploit poor Jews (especially women) in sweatshops, and thereby stimulated socialism among the garment workers &c. The crucifixion of Jesus is far too complicated to discuss on this thread. The British record in India is mixed, as indeed in the Middle East.

            I cannot immediately put my hand on the translation of Herzl’s “Jewish State” among my ridiculously large book collection. I quoted his statement that when Jews sink they become a revolutionary proletariat and when they rise there is the power of their purse, to show that there was nothing untrue or even remarkable about Jews being either “communists” or “capitalists”. Herzl believed that conflict with the host-nations could be solved best or even only by the (re-) creation of a national homeland of their own. He had many Jewish critics.

            A final territorial solution was not possible in the confined area of Palestine/Transjordan (nor in remote Argentina) because of Arab opposition, yet this became central to Zionist – as opposed to other Territorialist – demands. In my view, the best solution might have been a modest partition of Palestine between its existing Jewish and other peoples, with internationally guaranteed access of all faith-communities to their holy places, plus the “Uganda” proposal.

          • stewball

            There was no Transjordanper se. It oalePalestine. The brits had carved it all up ignoring the fact that by doing so they had surrounded Israel with all the Arab states because they were so worried about the oil. Had Israel not been attacked as soon as independence was declared we were attacked. Had that not happened there would be no refugees problem. They brought all this on themselves.Why sshould Israel be forced to give back land that was taken whilst defending themselves.Why is turkey nnot forced to give back north Cyprus. There’s no difference yet the United nations pour money into an illegal country. Explain that. Oh right. Jews are not allowed to have/do what the rest of the world does.

          • David Ashton

            The Arabs were there already.
            In brief outline, the British government gave Jews a “state” which had not previously existed in the Arab area. Arabs resented this and unsuccessfully attacked Israel.
            I leave others to reply to the rest of your comments. I have said that Israelis should be defended against murderous attack, but the eastern border issue remains unsolved, and is a headache “the rest of the world” has to suffer.

          • stewball

            We shall have to agree to disagree.

          • David Ashton

            Fair enough. If only Zionists and Muslims could do the same! When are the nuclear hatchets going to be buried?

          • stewball

            Never. The Muslims are supposed to kill us according to the Koran. They won’t stop and we have to defend ourselves.

          • David Ashton

            Useful for readers to give the precise references in the Koran.

          • stewball

            Where was the El Aksa mosque built Mr. Ashton?

          • David Ashton

            In Jerusalem, a holy city for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, during the early Middle Ages, long after Herod and his nation had gone. But I bet you knew that already.

          • stewball

            It’s built on the site of the second temple showing how long Jews have been in Jerusalem. And if God forbid Jerusalem becomes divided again do you think the Palestines will let Christians into the holy sites?

          • David Ashton

            I have no idea. Probably not.

          • Whitetrashgang

            Because their communists at heart.

          • JohnEngelman

            I see. In other words, Jews are capitalists and Communists at the same time. Clever people, those Jews.

          • Whitetrashgang

            When your control the money and the world you are everything.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            That is one of my main complaints against Jew-baiters. Which way do these people want it?

          • David Ashton

            I am against “Jew-baiting” but not informed criticism of some activities by some Jews. To secure amicable co-existence between internationalist Jews in general and patriotic “white Gentiles”, both sides need to understand the phenomena (plural) of “anti-Semitism”, particularly in its postwar ramifications, very thoroughly and accurately, without mutual blame or obsessive hostility.

            Just one point here: it is easy truthfully to document people of Jewish heritage prominent among leading capitalists and (mainly in the past) communists; and it is also reasonable to attribute their prominence, at least partly, to intellectual ability and ambition. Some “capitalists” have been “communists” simultaneously: Alexander Helphand-Parvus, Olof Ashberg, Julius and Armand Hammer, etc.

            This is a big subject, complex as well as sensitive, which requires much more light than heat. Except in so far as it impinges on multi-ethnic immigration and race realism issues, there is hardly room for it on AmRen.

          • stewball

            Well at least your old auntie was a better person than her nephew.

          • David Ashton

            She had nothing against Arabs either.

          • stewball

            Nor am I.

          • David Ashton

            Your comments and replies to them seem to be scattered haphazardly around by Disqus, so you need to check the entire thread. Mazal tov!

          • Romulus

            Unlike sherman, i am. News of crime in china for example is heavily censored. In addition, asian crime tends to be of the gambling and espionage variety. The NSA routinely thwarts 5000 hacks into our infratstructure annually.

          • Nathanwartooth

            Did you really just defend yourself by calling people racist who disagree with you?

            You aren’t lying, you really are a liberal.

          • JohnEngelman

            On environmental and economic issues I am liberal. That is why I vote Democratic.

          • Jefferson

            If you really care about the environment you should stop voting for The Democratic Party. Their pro-amnesty policy is very anti-environment.

            Your party wants to import millions of more south of the border Squat Monsters who do not give a damn about preserving America’s wild life animal species and state parks.

            You should vote for The Green Party.

          • Romulus

            You vote democratic because of your other half. At least have the stones to admit it.

          • JohnEngelman

            What other half is that?

          • JohnEngelman

            Nathanwartooth,

            I just did a search of this thread. You are the first person who used the word “racist” in it. I never did. I do not call people who disagree with me “racist.” I am often called a “racist” because I believe in race realism.

            But yes, on economic and environmental issues I do take liberal stands, so you are partially correct.

      • Boris McGuffin

        A have some ancestors who were killed by Injuns in a sneak attack. If anything, white people were too nice too often and gave the Injuns the benefit of the doubt when they should not have.

        That is the tragic flaw of white people: Being too damn nice to those who obviously hate your guts.

        I’ll never be able to wrap my head around that mentality.

        • Alfred the Great

          One of our biggest problems is that the other races are sticking together against us and we are not sticking together. We are too “open minded.”

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          One of my ancestors was an Amerind girl who was sold to a white man when she was 10. He had her pregnant when she was 12. That’s not right, either.

          Apparently she worked really hard.

    • Boris McGuffin

      No, the atrocities were not equal. Not even close. The Comanches were an overtly brutal savage people, and they were pantheistic pagans besides.

      • NorthSea

        The term “atrocity” lends itself to the prejudice and to the time period of the speaker. I’ve heard Custer referred to as “murderer”, “fool”, etc. The numbers of Cheyenne women and children his troops killed at the Washita River in the winter of 1868, for instance. More of them were killed because the braves fled, and squaws and children fought ferociously. White scalps were later discovered in lodges, and a captive white woman and her child were killed by her captors before troopers could intervene. As far as Custer’s tactics at the Little Bighorn of splitting his forces, earning himself the title of fool from 20th Century armchair warriors – I can’t and won’t judge; I wasn’t there.

        • John R

          As I posted here, I believe that very situation was covered in the book “Empire of the Summer Moon.” In short, American soldiers had been fighting FOR YEARS a frustrating war against Plains Indians-who had excellent mobility on their side. They could move their villages in less than an hour, and only fought to protect their women and children. They would not engage the Whites in set piece battles. (Contrary to many old cowboy films). Custer desperately wanted to defeat the Sioux and Cheyenne, and having found a large encampment, was afraid they would disperse, as was their custom. So, to avoid that, he divided his forces in three prongs and attacked on several sides. Unfortunately, to his surprise, they concentrated their forces and DID indeed attack set piece battle fashion. The rest is history. Custer was a good general, but made a mistake, which happens in wartime.

          • NorthSea

            Correct. And, his written orders from General Terry, in charge of the entire operation, expressly gave him permission to use his own judgement. His main error may have to ignore his scouts, from which all his other errors flowed. That said, I wouldn’t want to have served under him. His pace was grueling to both men and horses.

          • Sick of it

            Exhaustion would have contributed to his spectacular defeat as well. So many commanders overlook the effects of exhaustion upon fighting men, when it’s good common sense.

          • NorthSea

            Right. And context is everything. Most of his enlisted troopers had never seen an Indian let alone fought one, there was minimal budget in the post-War Army for rifle training, horses and men were suffering in the Montana summer sun, the shock of seeing the size of the village.

    • Jesse_from_Sweden

      The major issue often forgotten when it comes to indian wars and indian raids is that white pioneers tended to live in family communities, meaning a few grown men and a few young men/teenage boys as well as a bunch of women of various ages and a bunch of children.

      Indians on the other hand lived in clans.

      So whereas the white settlers might have outnumbered and outgunned the indians as a whole, the most common form of war was a raid, where one clan vs one family unit meant that it was the indians who outnumbered and outgunned the pioneers.
      This was the reason that “bands” like the Texas Rangers was formed, because whites were too spread out and weak on their own and had to band together to form a group large enough to be a real threat, whilst indians already had a band large enough to be a threat by the very way that they lived.

      We see the same thing in Europe now, how immigrants are fighting whites and winning.
      Because they stick together as a clan, they have their brothers, uncles, cousins, 2nd cousins, cousins by marriage etc that all back them up.
      Whites only got their own brothers, which with the normal 2 kids per family means they are severly outnumbered.
      And the real problem here is of course that any attempt by whites to band together over the family unit so as to create a group that has sufficient numbers to fight back is seen as racism of the very worst kind and such groups are high priority targets for various state security agencies to crush immediately since they are “havens of nazism, anti-semitism and xenophobia”.

      But the same basic situation existed in the indian wars. Whites might have outnumbered indians as a group, but they seldomly used that numerical superiority since western society left the clan-based culture in favor of a more individualistic approach a very long time ago.
      This individualistic approach has worked very well, as long as you can still band together with other for common goals.
      But this banding together for common goals is now seen as the ultimate evil. At least if is only whites in the band and their common goal is something that benefits whites.
      Blacks banding together, anti-white whites banding together etc, are all classed as good and even encouraged though.

      • JohnEngelman

        Jesse_from_Sweden,

        You have made some good points.

        When I think of the Indian wars I think of the U.S. Calvary massacring Indian villages, and remember that the whites had guns, and that the Indians usually did not. They were stone age warriors fighting what was becoming one of the strongest countries in the world. Even when Indians had guns and ammunition, they had no ready supply.

        As far as immigration to Europe is concerned, I do not believe in brainwashing. If the immigration of Muslims to Europe was a damaging to European whites as many American Renaissance articles and posters maintain, I would expect a political backlash against this immigration. On this side of the Atlantic I do not see it.

        European countries have democratic governments. Political parties that are opposed to non European immigration seldom win elections.

        My attitude about immigrants to the United States, while nuanced, is easy to describe. I like immigrants. I appreciate the cultural diversity they provide. At the same time I am aware that immigration is a major reason for the growing income gap. The growing income gap, is the issue I am most concerned with.

        H1B Visas destroyed my computer career. Nevertheless, I am not angry at the foreigners with the visas. I am angry at the American plutocracy which uses H1B Visas and other measures – like Republican tax cuts for the rich – to get richer while most Americans of all races get poorer. The American plutocracy is almost exclusively white, and mainly Gentile.

        In the United States the chief problem from non whites comes from blacks. Most blacks in the United States are descended from blacks who were here before the American Revolution. As I am a victim of H1B Visas, so have I been a victim of black crime.

        Nevertheless, the black crime rate in the United States has declined since about 1991. This has denied Jared Taylor an issue which I believe would have made him a nationally recognized political figure if black crime had continued the rise it made from 1960 to 1991.

        • Terra Magnum Imperium

          You fail to mention how 20 million mostly illegal squat monsters are driving up working class unemployment and are a drain on mostly white funded(taxes & charity) social services… Black being roughly 13% of the USA population I would not be so concerned but Millions of Illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies have IQ, Crime, and Welfare rates closer to African Americans then Whites.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have acknowledged that even the immigration of high quality immigrants lowers the standard of living for Americans who already live here.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            This is the reason I am against ANY immigration to the U.S., legal or otherwise. Of course, when I become a German citizen, the suicide of the U.S. will make me sad, but not affect me directly. Yeah, I know, I am myself an immigrant to Germany. I think of it more as being an asylum seeker.

          • JohnEngelman

            ShermanTMcCoy,

            Where we probably differ is that I like immigrants, and appreciate the cultural diversity they provide. At the same time I recognize that a high rate of immigration has economic and environmental costs.

            Unlike many on either side of the political spectrum I make connections. Most liberals do not recognize that immigration conflicts with nearly everything else they want to achieve. Most conservatives do not understand the contradiction between desiring low taxes, balanced budgets, and a strong military.

          • NorthSea

            It always baffles me when I see Tea Partiers waving banners telling the government to keep its hands off of their Medicare (!?), and in 2012 I saw Paul Ryan on the stump talking about slashing the government, then turn right around and advocate giving the Pentagon an additional $21 billion.

          • Sick of it

            A strong military does not require a massive multimillion man STANDING army with over 900 bases around the world and invading nations at the drop of the hat. You might be surprised to know that some conservatives realized this years ago but have no voice in the Republican Party.

            Low taxes and balanced budgets are possible, but only by removing welfare programs. Admittedly, many conservatives do not seem willing to accept that. In my opinion, that makes them moderate liberals.

          • NorthSea

            Exactly. Everytime I heard Reagan talk about welfare queens I thought of the Pentagon.

          • Sick of it

            Indeed, it’s a fitting moniker. I’m sure you know that we still have factories building WWII aircraft or parts for them, courtesy of corrupt congressmen. The factories should have been retooled and used to make something a little more relevant.

          • NorthSea

            Gotta keep those defense contractors fat and happy, keeping the world safe for Israel.

          • ShermanTMcCoy

            I am guilty of that. I thought I was so smart and forward thinking, and above all, much more intelligent than the guys working on the assembly line, because I had a B.S. and M.S. in computer science and business. The only reason i am employed (after the company I worked replaced everyone with H1Bs and offshored the rest) is because of my niche skills and foreign languages which allowed me to migrate to Germany.

            But I have fought the good fight against illegal Mexicans for at least the past 20 years,

        • Jefferson

          If Black crime has drastically decreased, why don’t you purchase a home in East St. Louis or Gary, Indiana for example. Come on, what are you afraid of ?

          As a White man you should be perfectly safe in those cities, since Black crime has supposedly plummeted so much.

        • Bo_Sears

          The Engelman is just stuck on “Gentile,” isn’t he? What’s up with his insistence that we are “Gentile”?

      • dmxinc

        “Because they stick together as a clan, they have their brothers, uncles,
        cousins, 2nd cousins, cousins by marriage etc that all back them up.
        Whites only got their own brothers, which with the normal 2 kids per family means they are severly outnumbered.
        And
        the real problem here is of course that any attempt by whites to band
        together over the family unit so as to create a group that has
        sufficient numbers to fight back is seen as racism of the very worst
        kind and such groups are high priority targets for various state
        security agencies to crush immediately since they are “havens of nazism,
        anti-semitism and xenophobia”.”

        You nailed one of the biggest problems we Westerners face and one of the biggest flaws of our societies.

        Foreigners have (and are allowed to have) more of a community in our own countries than we are.

        It’s the same reason the ants dominate the insect world – they work together.

        The end result of our situation is assured (our defeat) if we are unable to reverse this deficit within our own culture. We must regain the desire and the will to band together and act on it.

        Unfortunately, it is not an situation that is moving favorably in our direction. It is discouraged at all levels of our society, from the media, the government, the schools and the churches.

    • NorthSea

      Outnumbered and outgunned by the Army, finally, perhaps. The Rangers, however, adapted quickly to Plains fighting.

      • JohnEngelman

        Did the Texas Rangers kill women and children? Did they rape Indian women? That’s an honest question. I do not know.

        • NorthSea

          I’m sure they did; in Gwynne’s book he documents instances. As far as rapes, I’ve never read of it, but…..

          • Avenger

            It’s not like the American Indians didn’t rape any woman or kill any child.

          • NorthSea

            Oh, yeah. In Gwynne’s book, he documents rape as a central feature of being captured by Comanches.

    • Bunky

      How would someone in 1830’s Texas know that the eventual outcome was never in doubt?

      • JohnEngelman

        Common sense. A stone age confederation of tribes with no national unity had no chance against a modern civilization.

        • Sick of it

          John, people back then did not have information widely available to them like we do today, especially on the frontier. They probably thought they were in danger of being wiped out during their entire lives. Comanche raids that made families disappear would have reinforced that belief.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          The Commanche were the best light cavalry in history.

        • David Ashton

          So who deserves to “own” north America?

          • JohnEngelman

            Citizens of the United States and Canada deserve to own North America. .

            This is what the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has to say about citizenship in the United States: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically intended to extend full citizenship rights to American Negroes. It also extends them to non whites who go through the process to become citizens.

          • David Ashton

            So how does that square with the rights of the Native Americans you seem to have described as the dispossessed real owners?

          • JohnEngelman

            It squares better than the calculations of those who believe that only white Gentiles of European origin belong in the United States.

          • Jefferson

            White people are about as native to The United States as they are to any other New World country in Central, America, the Caribbean, and South America.

            Meaning there is no legit argument that The United States should be a 100 percent White nation when White people are not even Indigenous to the New World.

            The New World is not the an ancestral home of White people, Europe is.

            With Europe it is way more reasonable to support it staying 100 percent White.

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not see any reason for a country to allow the immigration of Negroes or Muslims, except perhaps in the case of exceptional individuals.

            I do not see any cultural or social reason for a country not to allow the immigration of Jews, whites Gentiles of European descent, and Orientals. During a time of high unemployment any immigration tends to suppress wages.

          • David Ashton

            We are all grateful for your complete profile of your attitude towards American Renaissance and the purpose for which it was established.

          • JohnEngelman

            Race realism is not a movement. It is a scientific theory. I agree with race realism.

            I got burned out on movement during the 1970’s.

            I consider to think the War in Vietnam was a mistake. I was active in the anti war movement. Now I think it prolonged the war by angering voters, and causing them to vote for hawks who prolonged the war.

            I do not see any future in a white ethno state. The civil rights legislation will not be repealed. Non whites will not be deported. I think the division of the United States into two or more countries would be a catastrophe.

            I do hope it becomes safer to discuss innate racial differences, and black deficiencies.

          • David Ashton

            I opposed US intervention in Indo-China, though for slightly different reasons and without any illusions about the horrors or objectives of communists. I also agree that the division of the USA into several countries would be disastrous: the establishment of a negro state was a prewar CPUSA policy. I believe in “white supremacy” in the sense that I prefer that the people, whose ancestors were mainly responsible for the civilization of the USA, should remain in charge, so to speak.

  • Rhialto

    The struggle for existence among organisms on this planet has been going on for many billion years. The conflicts over territory between Whites and Amerinds that this article describes is but one example. The behavior of both sides was normal.; this was pointed out in the article.

    What I find abnormal, is the reaction of Liberal “historians” to this. Instead of a dispassionate study and analysis of past events, these Liberals use it as a pretext for anti-White male propaganda. If nothing else, this shows the extent of Liberal control over historiography.

    • JohnEngelman

      American liberals remain effected by the War in Vietnam. That was a tragically futile conflict against a tough, resourceful enemy in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible. President Eisenhower estimated that as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.

      The War in Vietnam lasted as long as it did because the voters who supported it had been taught in history classes that the United States was always right.

      An electorate instructed in a more nuanced history of the United States will be less willing to support unnecessary wars.

      • Stentorian_Commentator

        But Vietnam would have been unnecessary if it had not been for the U.S. making the world safe for communism in WWII. If we were wrong about Vietnam, it is only because we were wrong in WWII.

        • JohnEngelman

          The United States could have avoided World War II. So could have Great Britain. If both countries had, Germany would have conquered the mainland of Europe. Japan would have conquered China. Another six million Jews would have been killed. Each empire would be predatory as the empires of Assyria and Babylon.

          After the Second World War the United States greatly overestimated the danger of Communism. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 28,000 million dead, and suffered the destruction of one third of its industrial and farm plant.

          A country that suffered like that was in no position to begin an effort to conquer the world.

          Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. Countries that deserved our support from Communist insurgencies did not need it. Countries that needed it, like South Vietnam, did not deserve it.

          • Sick of it

            Once Hitler was a corpse, there’s no guarantee that the anti-Slav policy would continue. And there were a number of folks working on making him a corpse. But hey, apparently modern American politicians are bringing back said policy.

          • David Ashton

            The first part of your comment is hypothetical. Hitler was stronger and more persistent in his lifelong support for the British and their Empire than for the idea of forcibly resettling Germans in spacious areas west of the Urals after a Soviet collapse. Britain and France could have accepted his offer to withdraw German forces from Poland, except for reunifed Danzig, and to compensate the Poles. Chamberlain was quoted as saying: “America and the world Jews forced Britain into war”.

            The USSR in its invasion of Poland and five other countries, and its preparations to attack Germany which its archives now confirm, shares responsibilty for WW2 and also its horrors, including its own losses which may be exaggerated in your account. Many Jews were killed by Germans and their allies, but the assertion that six million were gassed is more of a popular cliche than a proven or even likely event. More objectve research needs to be done on the so-called “Generalplan Ost”.

            The second part is fact-testable. Quite true that in 1946 the Soviets were as unable literally to “conquer the world” as the Nazis in 1939. Stalin’s foreign policy was both primarily defensive and cautiously aggressive, in line with his “Problems of Leninism”. The so-called “cold war” – from atom espionage and assiting French and Greek communists to supporting various Asian revolutionary movements – was interactive, but mainly the fault of Soviet initiative. All subversion was rightly a concern of the US government, and communists and their sympathisers were engaged in it from the 1930s onwards; all this is fully documented in sources I have previously quoted which you prefer not to read.

          • JohnEngelman

            The following quotations come from Chapter IV, “Munich” of Volume I of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler:

            “Germany has an annual increase in population of about 900.000 souls. The difficulty of feeding this army of new citizens would become greater with every year, and was bound some day to end in a catastrophe, provided ways and means were not found to avert this impending danger of hunger-pauperization in time…

            “The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous population has no end of advantages…

            “For Germany, therefore, the only possibility of carrying out a sound territorial policy was to be found in the acquisition of new soil in Europe proper…

            “If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia’s expense…

            “For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe: England.”

            In Volume II, of Mein Kampf, Chapter XIV, “Orientation or Eastern Policy,” Hitler wrote:

            “If we talk about new soil and territory in Europe today, we can think primarily only of Russia and its vassal border states…

            “We must undertake every sacrifice which may help bring about a nullification of the French drive for European hegemony.”

            ———-

            Hitler clearly intended the conquest of the European continent, the depopulation of Slavic countries, and the settlement of Slavic countries by Germans.

          • David Ashton

            When challenged about his comments in MK on France as the traditional (western) enemy by the part-Jewish Bertrand de Jouvenel, Hitler said he was not a writer, who revised his books, but had taken a different course on the pages of history itself. Writing MK with the Leninist invasion of Poland directed towards Berlin in recent memory, and mistakenly expecting a collapse of Jewish-Bolshevik control of the Russian empire (the traditional eastern enemy), he floated the idea of agricultural expansion of overcrowded Germany, sword-first and plough-following, into the drainable marshlands of Belorussia and the underdeveloped wheat-bowl of Ukraine, instead of a southward tropical-world colonialisation. However, in 1937 he welcomed Mosley’s article in the gepolitical journal “Weltpolitik” which ruled out the aggressive partition of Russia. Meanwhile, Stalin and Kaganovich had been subjecting Ukraine to starvation, and other “vassal states” to severe oppression.

            When the German army invaded Russia in 1941, and were welcomed as liberators by many anti-Stalin Slavs, Nazi policies were confused, and even Hitler wondered “what to do now with this giant cake”. His repressive policies towards Russians were a major factor in losing the war in the East, despite the numerous Vlassov volunteers.

            All these matters are more compicated than some people suppose.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            The United States could not have avoided WW-2. Hitler declared war on *US*, and he got done like a dinner.

          • JohnEngelman

            What you say is only partially true.

            President Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack by pressuring the Japanese to withdraw from China. Finally the United States froze Japanese assets in the United States, and stopped selling the Japanese petroleum and scrap metal.

            Back then the United States was an oil exporting country. I am not sure why the Japanese could not buy oil from Arab countries, but they decided to conquer Indonesia for its oil, and feared an American attack if they did.

            If the United States had acquiesced in the Japanese conquest of China, Pearl Harbor would not have been attacked.

            Peace with a victorious Axis would have been an armed truce, similar to the Cold War. The United States would have had few allies.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            The US government was willing to let Japan have Manchuria. Our desire that they cease brutalizing China did not include Manchuria.

      • Boris McGuffin

        I thought the reason that the Vietnam War lasted as long as it did was because it was run by feckless liberals.

        • JohnEngelman

          Like Nixon?

          • NorthSea

            Nixon was not that conservative, other than his anti-Communism. He created the EPA, I think he created OSHA, he instituted wage and price controls and took us off the gold standard. In today’s political climate, I believe he’d be considered a moderate Democrat.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration were good ideas.

            Nevertheless, Nixon prolonged a war the United States did not deserve to win. He ought to have been negotiating for safe treatment for South Vietnamese who supported the United States, evacuating them to the United States if necessary.

            Abandoning the boat people to the Thai pirates was shameful.

          • NorthSea

            Agreed. Abandoning American prisoners of war, in conjunction with his friend Kissinger, more so. I don’t think we should have been in Vietnam, but I have trouble swallowing not deserving to win once in it.

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not think unnecessarily devastating a country entitles us a military victory.

          • NorthSea

            I wasn’t clear. I think unnecessarily devastating a country constitutes a war crime, regardless of victory or defeat. I consider a “win” to be a decisive, immediate negotiation and exit, INCLUDING all our prisoners. The travesty arrived at by Nixon and the war criminal Kissinger in no way constitutes “peace with honor”.

          • Boris McGuffin

            I have zero sympathy for people who embrace communism. They can all die for all I care.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            Nixon’s great sin in political life was administratively applying the civil rights legislation signed by his predecessor to the bureaucratic enforcement arms of the Federal government.

          • David Ashton

            Nixon’s “greatest sin” was to trip up Alger Hiss in dialogue. The liberals have never forgotten that, nor an “anti-Semitic” remark made to Billy Graham.

          • NorthSea

            Nixon’s greatest sin was abandoning 1,205 American prisoners of war in his haste to achieve peace, then to proclaim publicly that all prisoners had been returned.

          • David Ashton

            I sit corrected – partially. This was perhaps his worst offense in patriotic eyes. Trapping Hiss in lefist eyes.

          • Sick of it

            A conservative would not have created the EPA.

          • Rhialto

            Richard F. Nixon was also complicit in the imposition of Forced Busing on the U.S. He could have refused to imposed the Fed court order which herded children around to achieve “Racial Balance”, because the Federal judges decided that the benefit to Black children was worth the damage to White children.

            Nixon did nothing.

          • MikeofAges

            Nixon was the godfather of affirmative action as well.

        • NorthSea

          It was run by feckless politicians and generals.

      • Boris McGuffin

        “American liberals remain effected by the War in Vietnam.”
        __________

        American liberals need to get over the War in Vietnam.

    • ncpride

      Exactly. How many other races, cultures.. what have you, can honestly say they do NOT have the blood of others on their hands? That’s just the way it was back then, yet Whites get beat over the head about it constantly. When people spout their nonsense about how evil Whites are, and try to tell a one sided version of history, it makes them look incredibly ignorant or just outright liars with an agenda. I think mostly a little of both though..

      • Sick of it

        No one ever mentions the ethnic cleansing of the Chinese nor how the Japanese essentially changed the ethnic composition of the Ainu people. And then there’s what the muslims did in the entire Middle East.

    • William Krapek

      “The struggle for existence among organisms on this planet has been going on for many billion years.”

      I see this as something more. It’s the slow, painful rise of the Human out of animalism and savagery.

  • Lt_Greyman_NVA

    Wonderful read. Another book worth looking at is “Captured by the Indians”. by Drimmer. While some accounts are hidious and all are awful, the Author shows how honorable some Indians were to their captives. Davy Crockett, captured as a great prize for his woodsman lore is especially intense as he teaches himself to load a rifle on the run and cuts his bullets in half because the tribe will only give him 1 bullet for hunting. Gradually he builds up enough lead to RUN home over the course of 20 days, killing three braves on the run and shooting enough meat to keep him going (barely).

  • Spartacus

    “…David Yeagley…”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    There are very few non-white people that I can say I have an actual liking for, and this guy is one of them.

    I stumbled across his site about 1 year ago while I was researching some information about Breivik, and came across one of his editorials :

    http://www(DOT)badeagle(DOT)com/2011/07/27/anders-behring-breivik-a-modern-hero/

    The guy gets it, better than the vast majority of White people, and better than the vast majority of Amreners as well…

  • bigone4u

    Turning black into white and evil into good is what Cultural Marxists do. Their narratives are cleverly constructed lies intended to turn us into the victims of their genocidal intentions toward us. The universities that support this foolishness do not deserve our tax dollars or our support in any way. I am not ashamed of who I am or who my ancestors were. You should never feel shame, nor allow your children to feel shame.

    • 48224

      It’s another case a white liberal showing everyone how “smart” he is by kissing black or brown butts and making whites out to be evil…generally paid for by tax dollars. Yawn.

  • Erasmus

    During a discussion about patriotism in one of his psychology classes, a female student—visibly upset—told him how ashamed and worthless she felt as a white person. “My race,” she said, “it’s just nothing!”
    These are our future white realists. The tens of millions of American school children who’ve been lied to for the past two decades will be glad to hear that they’re from a race of heroes, intellectuals, poets, inventors and brave men and women; and that the people who told them otherwise are scum, liars and will deserve the kicks in the teeth they’ve finally get.

    • NorthSea

      Her race is nothing? Who built the institution in which she was self-flagellating?

      • Erasmus

        Truth is the daughter of time. -Francis Bacon

        This is precisely why the continued onslaught of the cultural Marxists can ultimately never succeed: It runs contrary to the truth. When the generation today discovers (and they will) how they’ve been thoroughly lied to by the cultural Marxists, educators and the media, they are going to be very angry. Count on it.

        • David Ashton

          Hasten the day!

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    The rise of the Comanche reminds me of the story of the Maori in New Zealand. They were supposedly the natives, and so oppressed by the white man, but archaeology has determined that the Maori did not arrive in New Zealand until about 100 years before whites, and when they did, they pretty much ate the previously existing inhabitants.

    • Spartacus

      “…they pretty much ate the previously existing inhabitants.”

      ———————————————————————————————————–

      Is that to be taken literally ?

      • Stentorian_Commentator

        I’m no archaeologist, but from what I understand, yes, to be taken literally.

    • Sick of it

      Sounds like the Meso-American invaders in Chaco Canyon.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Bravo, Mr. Martin, for three fine reviews. I am reminded of this description of the most popular American history textbook of the first half of the twentieth century. The excerpt is from The Dictatorship of Virtue by Richard Bernstein. Quoting:

    The most popular text of the first half of the twentieth century, David Saville Muzzey’s An American History, was first published in 1911….

    He provided a powerful description of the treatment of the Indians, who, he said, “were cheated by rascally government officials, fed on rotten rations, debauched of whiskey, and robbed of their lands.” Muzzey, however, portrayed the Indians as primitives and savages. In his 1941 revision, he talked of the treatment of the Indians as “a chapter of dishonor” for white men, but the Indians themselves, he said, “nowhere advanced beyond the stage of barbarism … They had some noble qualities, such as dignity, courage, and endurance, but at bottom they were a treacherous, cruel people who inflicted terrible tortures upon their captured enemies.”

    Even the great revisionist historian and liberal hero Charles Beard, writing in the prologue to his History of the American People, published in 1918, had to explain why he gave so little space to the North American Indians. “They are interesting and picturesque, but they made no impression on the civilization of the United States,” he said, showing a tough-mindedness that would be excoriated now.
    [from page 247]

    • NorthSea

      The historian Stephen Ambrose in his “Crazy Horse and Custer: Two American Warriors”, while admiring the personal and martial qualities of Crazy Horse, also speculated whether it was justifiable to leave millions of square miles of arable land to the few thousand Natives wandering across it, to the detriment of the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who put the land to work for the improvement of millions more.

    • Sick of it

      They did contribute to our history by being the reason for the formation of the militia system (which started in the 17th century), as British troops could not be counted upon to ensure the survival of the colonists.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    “TVA on the Mekong” was a phrase LBJ used often.

    • NorthSea

      I hope he’s really warm where he’s at now.

  • pcmustgo

    I’ve always said how important it is to change the way history is taught in this country… from the fraud that all “whites” are descended from slave owners , and therefore owe blacks something, etc. Blacks (and Latinos) are quite simple, so you can imagine what teach history this way does to them, and how hard it will be to change their perceptions…

    • Jefferson

      Only the English, the Portuguese, the French, and the Spaniards participated in the Sub Saharan African slave trade.

      And even than among Caucasians of those nationalities, only a minority of them actually owned Sub Saharan slaves. Yet all Whites are suppose to feel White guilt about the Sub Saharan African slave trade, F that $hit.

      • pcmustgo

        yes. my biggest pet peeve.

  • John R

    I remember reading that book, Empire of the Summer Moon, that I checked out at the public library. Boy, was I surprised when I read it; I couldn’t put it down! No, it isn’t about “the poor Indians and the evil white man.” I was actually surprised that the book got published. Maybe some day we will read books about black criminals, their atrocities, and the heroic White police and citizens who fight back against them. We can only hope.

  • JohnEngelman

    Seb,

    What you have said about the left is equally true of many on the right. Reasoned arguments cannot sway strong emotions. Most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgment of what is true and false. I do it too, but I try not to.

    • John R

      You miss a very important point: The extremism of the Right is called out and condemned in our society-rightly or wrongly. But that of the Left is seldom even questioned. Big difference.

  • William Krapek

    Bravo! Great work in both parts! This kind of talk makes my heart sing. I say this to Brits all the time in regard to Mohammedans:

    “Screw them if they can’t take a joke.”

    And do NOT abandon your country. I see far too many educated Brits doing that.

    Once again: thank you for brightening my day. Dallas working class types like me really get it on the chin. It’s lovely to be reminded that I am not – in fact – crazy.

  • NorthSea

    War is always “a great adventure” for the ones not fighting in it. Another great book is “Washington Rules” by Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army officer who fought in Vietnam.

    • JohnEngelman

      I voted you up, guy.

    • NorthSea

      Merci. I think I’m giving you a run for your money on numbers of downvotes lately. Oh, dear.

  • NorthSea

    I’m sure my French ancestors who settled Quebec in 1659 would be surprised to learn they weren’t “true”. Sacre bleu!

    • Sick of it

      Imagine how I feel. My first Dutch-American ancestor was born in New Amsterdam in 1620. Look at who lives in New York today – They aren’t Dutch!

      • NorthSea

        Some of my ancestors probably took potshots at yours in upstate New York.

        • Sick of it

          Well, the Netherlands and France have a rough history generally. I suppose we all got along inside of the United States and South Africa.

          • NorthSea

            From the 19th Century to present, yes. During the 17th & 18th centuries in New France and the 13 colonies, the French and Anglo-Dutch launched a 150-year period of tit-for-tat raids on each other..

  • John R

    So true! And the number one dogma of leftists is the idea “All races are equal.” To question that is akin to committing heresy.

    • Sick of it

      A ridiculous notion as no two people are necessarily equal. We have different abilities, different talents, different looks, etc. Otherwise humanity would have arisen as something like an insect hive.

      • David Ashton

        And an “insect hive” is the sort of society the egalitarians impicitly want for humanity.

  • NorthSea

    Stephen Ambrose’s “Crazy Horse and Custer: Two American Warriors” seems even-handed. He even defends Custer’s attack on Dull Knife’s village on the Washita River, which usually induces words like “massacre”.

  • NorthSea

    One word should suffice to quieten anyone denigrating European culture: Dentistry.

  • NorthSea

    Eisenhower was not the avuncular figure he has been awarded. He just looks good against the backdrop of all who have come after.

    • JohnEngelman

      Eisenhower also directed the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install the Shah as dictator.

      Eisenhower made two decisions that did not harm him, but they destroyed the presidencies of two Democratic Presidents.

      • NorthSea

        And he took marching orders from the United Fruit Company to assist in the overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Guatemala in 1954, setting the stage for 30 years of civil war. I Like Ike, indeed.

    • Sick of it

      He worked for the military-industrial complex he warned about.

      • NorthSea

        Exactly. Everyone remembers his prescient 1961 farewell address warning of it, and not that he did nothing about it for the past 8 years.

  • ViktorNN

    Interesting pair of articles. I hope Gerald Martin takes on another theme around which to review books. It’s a great approach.

    • NorthSea

      I would like to see him address one of the Apache chiefs, fascinating,deadly people.

  • JohnEngelman

    As I have explained many times, white Gentiles, Jews, and Orientals get along fine. We compete in the class room and on the job, not in the street.

    • MikeofAges

      White gentiles, Jews, Asians and gentrified Hispanics get along well enough. But excesses of immigration of any non-European people ultimately could prove the undoing of American civilization. Suppose it not replaced by a new, but equally advanced civilization? Then you lose even that consolation. North America is blessed by nature, that is true. But so are a lot of other places, and not all of them have civilizations worthy of their resources. Not only don’t now, but didn’t in the pre-industrial age either, when the playing field was a little more level. Unlike America, which already had developed a great civilization even before the American Revolution.

      • Alfred the Great

        Very accurate! The difference is the people.

    • David Ashton

      There are several reasons why Germany and Japan recovered, but homogeneity is an advantage, especially to peoples of a high level of intelligence, self-discipline and industry.

      • Alfred the Great

        Japan sees the writing on the wall and they have zero immigration. Why can’t we do that? And don’t bring up any economic reasons because those reasons do not off set our survival.

        • David Ashton

          I thought to myself “Which people on earth could be seen as the most different from the Japanese?” and thought “Brazilians”. Then I read about Brazilian workers in Japan…

      • Romulus

        Yes and one of the bigger reasons is gigantic infusions of American money.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      “We do not fight in the street.”

      I always fought in the streets after school. I fought against everyone in any numbers. I battled teachers and policemen. I stabbed my first cop when I was 11. I was once a coward, but after school nobody would stand up to me on my way home. I broke my ex-father in half when I was 14, when it beat up my mother. I didn’t like fighting against other kids after that.

      I liked beating the poop out of adult men who sassed me, and I enjoyed it when they ran away.

      • JohnEngelman

        I hope you never got a security clearance.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          I was the one who told the Russians how to make the SrBi2Ta/Nb2O9 computer memory. I also fought in Eastern Slavonia.

          • David Ashton

            Get that autobiography written as soon as possible. Have you kept a photo of the parked car you wrecked in your drive, or of the English soldier you shot in Ireland? With all due respect, your life story would make a mint on the TV Horror Channel, and the video would outsell “Doc Martin” of rural Cornwall.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            I bought my mother the first five seasons of “Doc Martin” on DVD for her 71st birthday. We love that series! Doctor Martin is grouchy and ugly, but he (spoiler) ends up marrying the nice dark-haired Scottish gal.

          • David Ashton

            His difficulties with their baby are also amusing. My wife watches it, and I usually enjoy it when it is on. I haven’t noticed any “persons of color” introduced (implausibly) into the white redoubt of rural Cornwall as yet, but this may follow suit like all the other escapist TV series.

    • Alfred the Great

      I agree with most of what you say, but try telling that last part to whites in California who are terrorized by the Asian gangs, which are ruthless by the way.

      • JohnEngelman

        I never had any trouble with Asian gangs when I lived in downtown San Jose, California in the early 1980’s when the area was engulfed with Vietnamese refugees. I never had any trouble with Asian gangs during my many visits to the Chinatowns of San Francisco and Oakland. I never heard about anyone who did. Come to think of it, I never heard of any Asian gangs.

        • David Ashton

          The Chinese gangs terrorise Chinese, not white visitors. This ethnic group is very “private” compared to Afro-Americans. I gave you references to Chinese and US Police reports on escalating “Asian gangs” but you have still “never heard of any”!! We do try, but you are very trying.

    • Bo_Sears

      The Engelman calls us “Gentiles” with a capital G to show that is who we are. At Resisting Defamation, we denounce any of labels affixed to us like gentile, goyim, shiksa, gringo, pale face, round eyes, cracker, honky, etc. When did we license the Engelman with the supremacist power to name & label us?

  • NorthSea

    And, during the 1968 election, he interfered with peace talks being conducted by LBJ, in order that any resolution be stalled till after the election. I don’t know how many GIs and Vietnamese needlessly died in the interim due to Nixon’s Satanic machinations. I hope he and LBJ are very warm now. I think there’s a spot reserved for Kissinger, as well.

  • NorthSea

    Then they can patronize those rough men when the dirty work’s done.

  • JohnEngelman

    Would Napoloeon’s technological edge and tactics have defeated Alexander III of Macedon?

    – Glen

    Yes. The muskets and artillery of the French Army would have killed Alexander’s troops from a safe distance.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      No. The braver men could handle musketry fired into them and then do their job.

      It is almost always courage that does it.

      • JohnEngelman

        Did you ever watch the movie “Zulu?” Courage without modern weapons causes one’s side to be massacred.

        • NorthSea

          Excellent movie, even with the expected historical inaccuracies. Even used real Zulus! Ever see “Zulu Dawn”? The movie was made 15 yrs after “Zulu”, but historically set days before the battle at Rorke’s Drift. About the extermination of one of Lord Chelmsford’s columns after he invaded the Zulus’ territory.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          Of course. I would have also surrounded the Welsh position and ambushed relief attempts. The frontal attack was silly.

          Have you never gone to war, Mr. Elgelman?

        • David Ashton

          Lucky for Israel that US aid has helped it to make modern weapons (and sell some of them abroad).

  • Sick of it

    I’m sure it won’t be popular to say, but again, white Texan settlers, in some cases, married Indian folk. I have a relative by marriage who is descended from such a union. Her people settled in Texas in the 18th century. How do the claims of people who have invaded since the Roosevelt Administration compare to the claims of descendants of literal natives of Texas? Same regarding the claims of people who supposedly owned Texas as a territory and yet never settled there.

  • Sick of it

    Before the repeating rifle, absolutely. After the repeating rifle and the Gatling Gun…not so much. Indians tended to have older gun technologies (single bullet, slower to load/reload).

    • skara_brae

      Not against Custer at the Little Bighorn. The Indians had better guns.

    • David Ashton

      “We have the Maxim gun; they have not.” Who said that?

      • Sick of it

        “Whatever happens, we have got
        The Maxim gun, and they have not.”- Hilaire Belloc

        Devastating in Africa, as were the calm, highly organized British infantry generally.

  • Sick of it

    You forgot anti-God, but yep.

  • MikeofAges

    Depends. Sometimes advanced civilizations succumb to in migration. The long term trend, contrary to what most people believe, maybe be toward the eventual extinction of advanced civilization.

    Whites and migrants from the southern realms both share one happy delusion. Both believe that orange ball will always get bigger and bigger and higher and higher. But maybe not.

  • NorthSea

    Bubba Clinton celebrated that fact already before a university crowd in Oregon some years back, I’m sure to thunderous applause.

  • NorthSea

    I think that is true for what passes as conservatives as well. They were eager to go blundering into Iraq in 2003, too eager to prepare the Army.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    NorthSea, Engelman

    This is why I keep saying we need to free our minds from the cults of abstract ideologies.

    • JohnEngelman

      Ideologies cause people to believe things that are not true, and to reject facts that are inconsistent with the ideology. Those on the left and right are equally susceptible to this.

      • David Ashton

        “Liberalism, the ideology of western suicide” (James Burnham).

        • JohnEngelman

          “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

          – John Kenneth Galbraith

          • David Ashton

            And “Jewish” writers – Ayn Rand, especially – are among the most prominent of them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Granted.

            Ayn Rand was a militant atheist. I hate her philosophy.

            Although I recognize the Ashkenazim as a racial group, my affection is fairly limited to observant Jews.

          • David Ashton

            Well, that narrows it down quite a bit!

          • NorthSea

            “Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi, about the meltdown of 2008, describes how our financial genius Alan Greenspan worshipped at the feet of Rand while a student.

          • David Ashton

            He broke from her and her ideas later. Admittedly she didn’t understand enough about money. Her fictional banker Mulligan was called “Midas” because his investments helped to produce real wealth and secure property for individuals, but her “capitalism” was a conceptual ideal. She would not have supported a government- banker financial programme that effectively injured homeowners, productive workers or helpless taxpayers. She also was against subsidising overseas slave societies and therefore their cheap exports. Her self-appointed heirs and successors are “global usury” and “open-door (except Muslim) immigration” fanatics who exploit her name.

  • Spartacus

    Yes, he gets it, I assure you . Read some of his other articles, besides the one I linked, you’ll see .

  • NorthSea

    Where and when did yours settle?

  • Scott894398

    The great irony being, our ideological arch-enemy at this point in time is none other than….Europe. The birthplace of the Frankfurt School, political correctness, hate speech laws, Islamoapologia, everything that undermines what used to be America. Europeans as a rule despise America and they are not our friend. Sure, we like Europe’s rule of law, excellent roads, dedication to science and sanitation standards (as they like ours too) but when it comes to the ideological termite eating away at America’s house, that termite is European.

    • Spartacus

      No, it’s not. I think you Americans keep forgetting that in most European countries, being against immigration gets you a jail sentence. The majority of Europeans aren’t really that different than the majority of Americans, the difference is that they’re disarmed and have no 1st amendment to protect their freedom of speech .

    • IstvanIN

      But were the proponents of the Frankfurt School actually European?

      • Sick of it

        Yes and no. I know who you’re talking about, but don’t forget the aristocrats supporting them.

    • David Ashton

      Some Europeans are snobbish over the Coca-Cola-Culture, and others rightly detest Afro-American “music” and movie-trash, but we British, French and Germans have a shared interest with white northern Americans in preserving our race and civilization from common dangers. Time for unity and solidarity!

    • MBlanc46

      We, the Canadians, the Australians/New Zealanders, and the English-speaking South Africans, are the European diaspora.

  • Sick of it

    Half probably wouldn’t be accepted in some sort of ethnic enclave. I bet that many old family Yankees are part Indian as well. More recent arrivals may not have a drop, but they’re the people who brought us the glories of socialism.

  • MBlanc46

    All patriarchal oppression.

  • Luca

    History is like a football game. When a play takes place on the field, the home team describes it one way and the opposing team sees it another way. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

    Referees will always be around 50% unpopular, even though many plays are self-evident.

    Unfortunately, what we have today are propagandist sports-casters (professors/writers) who are calling the plays and asking us to believe their agenda-driven versions rather than trusting our own eyes, ears and minds.

    The tragedy is, the number of young minds who believe this drivel.

  • David Ashton

    Those who denigrate the British and French in favor of the Inuit seem quite happy to invite in non-indigenous people from all over the globe, so long as they are not
    British or French.

    • NorthSea

      In Quebec, the Federation des Quebecois de Souche is challenging the official provincial assertion that French-speaking Haitians and Moroccans are ethnically French.

  • Sick of it

    Many of us loathe both business subsidies AND farm subsidies today. Not that many independent farmers anymore to skew the views on it. Again, your assertion fits with the Republican leadership more than the base. Our people are starting to question this whole corrupt scheme. That may have something to do with the reduced economic conditions of the 99%.

  • Sick of it

    Our militia system (with a small, core standing army) was sufficient to smash the British Empire. Are we worried Mexico will invade with 5 million highly trained troops in the near future? Nope, just the usual rabble.

    • David Ashton

      Immigration can be an “unarmed invasion” and therefore more difficult in some respects to defeat.

      • Sick of it

        Ah but David, if we brought back the militia system, we would obviously guard our borders rather than let them walk in.

  • Sick of it

    Texans would likely have refused annexation if they knew what this country would become.

  • NorthSea

    I was unaware he advocated that; that’s disappointing in an otherwise realistic historian. I think we can best atone for our idiotic foreign policy decisions by heeding George Washington.

    • wilburnsprayberry

      He also advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament for the USA at the end of Washington Rules. OTOH, saw him on C-span booknotes last weekend talking about his latest book and he gave an excellent interview.

  • NorthSea

    That’s exactly what I thought of that passage. The logical disconnect is glaring.

  • NorthSea

    Have you checked out the website Federation des Quebecois de Souche? It’s a new Quebecois Eurocentric group that poses a nice counterpoint to the socialistic Parti Quebecois.

  • NorthSea

    Was that Lt Gatewood, the young officer who secured the surrender of Geronimo? He’s a fascinating study. Came to a tragic end, transferred to Wyoming during the Johnson County Cattle War and wounded in an explosion. He died in agony from stomach cancer. I’ve always admired him. The reason I’ve always been impressed with the martial qualities of the Comanches was that they drove the Apaches from Texas, no mean feat.
    About the Civil War, I’m always annoyed by the belief that the Union was fighting for anti-slavery from the beginning. I posted elsewhere that Capt. Frederick Benteen, one of Custer’s officers and a brevet colonel in the Union Army, said he never met an abolitionist in his army.

    • Harry

      The Union and Confederate Armies had both conscripts and wiling volunteers.

      There were Southerners, who because they were loyal the Union, volunteered to fight on the Union side.

      There were Northern Confederate sympathizers who went South and volunteered to fight on the Confederate side,

      Not everyone who fought on the Confederate side was for slavery. Many who fought for Southern independence advocated abolishing slavery in exchange for foreign recognition of the Confederacy, and freedom for the South.

      Not everyone who fought for the Union was for abolishing slavery. Modern portrayals of Northerners as 19th Century liberals are historically inaccurate. Many who fought for the Union would have gladly let the South continue slavery, in exchange for preserving the Union.

      Conscripted Southerners, who were loyal to the Union, but in the Confederate Army because they were drafted, when taken as prisoners of war by Union forces, gladly volunteered to switch sides and enlist in the Union Army, when given the chance to do so. These were called “galvanized Yankees.”

      As far as American Indians are concerned. There are two reasons, our white civilization was able to defeat the western plains Indians.

      The plains bison almost suffered the same fate of extinction as as it’s Eastern cousin the woodland bison and the Passenger Pigeon. The U.S government encouraged mass slaughter of the plains bison so that the Indians would be forced to surrender.

      The other main reason the U.S government defeated the Indians was that many of the tribes had more animosity toward their traditional enemies than the white man. The U.S. cavalry would hire scouts of the enemy tribes, against the tribe they were fighting against. In other words, in a scheme of divide and conquer, the military policy was to defeat the Indians one tribe at a time. If you saw the movie “Dances with Wolves” the Pawnee scouts in the last minutes of this movie, were a rare historical accuracy from Hollywood.

      George Custer had Crow scouts in his battle against the Sioux tribes. Incidentally, far from being the savage “political incorrectness” portrays him to be, Custer admired the Indians he fought against as noble adversaries. Because of the bison mass slaughter, broken treaties, and theft of Indian land by settlers and miners, Custer sympathized with why the Sioux tribes, and other Indians he fought against, were warring against the advancement of white civilization.

      • NorthSea

        Capt. Benteen, of whom I posted above, was an example of what you’re talking about. His family was from Virginia, and he was commissioned into the 10th Missouri Regiment, a Union outfit. Custer himself was a lifelong Democrat, and didn’t seem to harbor any animosity toward Southerners, he just enjoyed fighting them, as indeed he seemed to enjoy fighting in general. His closed friend was a West Point classmate and Confederate officer, Thomas Rosser. You’re right about Northerners sympathetic to Southerners, they were called Copperheads.

  • NorthSea

    Hundreds of thousands of French-Canadians have Native blood. They created the Metis Nation. Metis are a recognized ethnicity in Canada.

  • NorthSea

    Equally fraudulent is calling Social Security & Medicare “welfare”, programs you pay for your entire working life.

  • NorthSea

    Clinton’s problems are legion, even apart from being a Democrat. Interesting how militant a draft-dodger became once attaining to the Oval Office.

  • NorthSea

    It may have been Davis. He resigned his commission during the Apache campaigns and went to Mexico to work as a ranch-manager. He had only recently graduated from West Point. Gatewood was in sickly health and tried to resign his commission during the Geronimo campaign but was refused. In fact, when he came face to face with Geronimo to arrange the details of the surrender, the old Apache even told him he didn’t look well. Britton briefly served with Gatewood. (If I were standing in front of Geronimo I probably wouldn’t look well either, lol)

    • Gerald Marin

      Yes, I believe it’s Davis, and I think I read about him in The Indian Frontier 1846 – 1890, by Robert Utley. I will eventually get to C.L. Sonnichsen’s, The Mescalero Apaches, which has been on my bookshelf for many years, unread.

  • NorthSea

    I wonder what the Apaches thought of the Comanches’ right to expand southward?

  • Jefferson

    So that is a yes to you being open to purchasing a home in Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis ?

  • Sean

    They don’t need to fight to displace us or be criminal to displace us.

    Is invention a necessity for a great people? If so; look up Asian-American patents and compare to American patents.

    If not go; live in a mud hut.

  • Alfred the Great

    I am a seventh-generation Texan and darn proud of my forefathers who fought and died to leave me the legacy, my birthright, which is the Greatest State of Texas. Now we are under siege on all fronts: television, movies, government (which includes education), the churches (everybody was brown in Biblical times), economic situation (yankees are coming in by the thousands who care nothing for our history), Latinos (let’s set that record straight on this point too, they are Indians not Hispanics or whatever other name you choose to give them), republicans and democrats, to name a few. I read the first article about the Alamo and all that I have to say about that is that it is a bunch of trash. Then I read this article and it is more of the same trash. To set the record straight, my Anglo-Saxon ancestors ventured into Texas, first, because they were invited in by the Mexican government and, secondly, because there was opportunity. The Mexicans wanted Americans to settle in Texas because the Mexicans couldn’t stand up against the Indians. Well, the Texans did and then some. I have two ancestors who were Texas Rangers, they each have a pink-granite grave marker from the State of Texas because of their service to God and country (State of Texas that is). I also have two ancestors who were in the Army of the Republic of Texas during our war against the tyranny of Mexico–lawlessness and not governing in accordance with the Constitution of 1824. That’s why we flew the 1824 flag at the Alamo. If we don’t fight for our rights and who we are as a people (race), 10,000 years from now, if they still have electricity, PBS, Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc., will portray our ancestors as browns and/or blacks. Just like they are trying to do with the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Israelites, now. God Bless the Greatest State of Texas! I am a Texan first!

    • David Ashton

      Good luck with that book on the Founders!

  • Alfred the Great

    In the “Bell Curve,” if I remember correctly, the Jews were first followed closely by the Germanic peoples.

    • Romulus

      The Jews were first and foremost brick humping slaves to the Egyptians. Slaves have no input into the societies that they labor for. It is only a matter of proxy that technological prowess is absorbed by a another replacement group as Egypt was conquered from without ( neighboring conquerors) and within ( corruption, filth and greed). Just a brief look.

      • stewball

        You really ought to get rid of your computer and stuff. Most of the important stuff was made here. By israelis. And Jews

        • Romulus

          Yours is the only people that position themselves as off limits to criticism and scrutiny. I’ve never said that they haven’t made positive contributions. On the contrary. Unlike, other fellow Americans, I am intimately aware of your history and it’s impact on the indigenous tribes of Europe. Im sick of hearing the victimology garbage. You seem pretty levelheaded or at least curious, otherwise you wouldn’t be on this site.

          The fact remains from your own history. We all know the exodus story. I was referencing your peoples servitude to the Egyptians, obviously long ago.

          • stewball

            I get touchy and defensive. Sowwy.

      • stewball

        That doesn’t mean they had low IQ!

    • stewball

      What’s the curve bell?

      • Alfred the Great

        It’s a book from about 20 years ago or so. It was “controversial” because it contained much data in support of all of its conclusions about the races.

  • Alfred the Great

    Spot on. My own opinion is that too many people don’t mind how they make their money (by hook or by crook) and too many people are making a heck of a lot of money without doing much work to get it. Too many people have an “I’m gonna get mine” attitude and can care less about being honest and hard working.

  • Alfred the Great

    I am working on a book about the Founding of America and keeping a homogeneous society was written by several of the Fathers. They were constantly warning about factions and race is an obvious source of fracture in a society. Our first naturalization act states that “white people” and then a little farther down it states “of character” were the qualifications to become an American citizen. Notice I said American citizen and not a State citizen.

    • David Ashton

      “Our posterity”.

      • JohnEngelman

        Let’s discuss what “Our posterity” means.

        This is how the United States Constitution begins:

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        Quite a few of those who signed the Constitution owned slaves. It is reasonable to assume that several had posterity by some of their more winsome slaves.

        The U.S. government began to suppress the slave trade soon after the Constitution was signed. What this means is that American Negroes are much more likely to be descended from people who were in the United States, or the thirteen colonies, before the Constitution than are American whites. In addition, at least eighty percent of American Negroes have some white ancestry. Their white ancestors are likely to have been in the United States before the Constitution was signed.

        So, if the beginning of the Constitution means that citizenship rights are to be restricted to those who can trace their ancestry to the United states before that Constitution was signed, more American blacks deserve those rights than American whites.

        But do not fear. This is what Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        In other words, white Gentiles who became American citizens last week are just as thoroughly American as those descended from the first negro slaves sold to the settlers at Jamestown, Virginia.

        • David Ashton

          A clever argument. Some of the Founders had pretty clear ideas about the sort of people they wished to settle in the country, and the line was held pretty firmly for decades. Jared Taylor, whom you quote when it suits you, has written an essay on this subject.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am not a spokesman for Jared Taylor. I share his beliefs about the nature and importance of racial differences. I do not share some of his likes and dislikes.

            For their time the “Founding Fathers” (some of whom fathered children by slaves) were intelligent and well educated. Many had college degrees when most Americans only had a few years of formal education and could barely read.

            Nevertheless, they were not omniscient. They were products of a rural country with a population of several million people. What they had to say about various issues is worth studying. It should not be considered The Absolute Truth.

        • Bo_Sears

          And The Engelman cannot resist giving us the name “Gentiles.” We don’t accept names imposed on us by strangers.

  • Alfred the Great

    Much Asian on Asian crime does not get reported.

  • David Ashton

    Green on the outside, red on the inside.

  • Romulus

    He is a tribesman masquerading as a nordic. The maternal phenomenon perhaps? Paternal lineage? He’s generally very careful with personal descriptors.

  • JohnEngelman

    Most Americans accept the presence of Orientals and Jews in this country because they behave and perform well. I welcome that presence.

    It does not matter who you want to let in OnGuard. You are a member of a dwindling minority.

  • stewball

    They didn’t have to. They were already living on their own land .

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    The Mongols were more properly medium cavalry: armored men with better weapons, but the Commanche were history’s perfect raiders and ambushers. Send 200 men out against the Commanche, and they won’t find anything. Send 20 men out, and they won’t come back.

  • stewball

    But would the little man be able to afford it without a mortgage? My daughter certainly couldn’t.

  • stewball

    Who’s ron and rand paulz
    You obama man is making a mockery of your. Country. I newspaper writer said that Obama is trying to make America weak so that it no longer has to be the super power.

  • stewball

    @PesachPatriot.
    Good Lord. I’ve never even thought of Mr. Ashton as a brown shirt Nazi. Where on earth did I say that. If anybody it would be Romulus.

  • NorthSea

    Je suis desole. My remark about “Native blood” stems from the frequency of relations, married or not, between Frenchmen and Native gals 300 or so years ago. In no way do I regard that to compare with “La Raza”. I do genealogy as a hobby, especially regarding New France, and am struck by the number of instances of marriages between the two. I do disagree with the assertion of one writer who stated that the majority of French-Canadians had Native blood. Quebec is not Bolivia.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      Northeastern Amerinds are not ugly squat orcs, either.

  • David Ashton

    He isn’t relatively young. He is a veteran opponent of US intervention in Vietnam.