1,650 words
Editor’s Note:
This essay is from Michael Polignano’s book Taking Our Own Side, available in hardcover, paperback, and PDF download here.
Multiculturalism is not an attempt to “enrich” White cultures by adding sundry non-White cultures. It is an attempt to replace White cultures with non-White cultures—or, more precisely, with fantasies, lies, and sanitized half-truths about non-White cultures designed to make them seem spiritually and morally superior. The purpose is to induce racial guilt in gullible Whites which can be exploited for the purpose of White dispossession.
An elegant proof of this thesis is “Indigenous Peoples Day,” which is the multiculturalist replacement for Columbus Day, the holiday honoring the White (re-)discovery of the Americas in 1492. The idea was first proposed in 1977 at a United Nations-sponsored International Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas, which took place in Geneva, Switzerland. It received impetus from the approach of celebrations of the 500th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival on Turtle Island on October 12th, 1992. In July of 1990, representatives of 120 American Indian tribes and various human rights, peace, social justice, and environmental organizations met in Quito, Ecuador, and announced the plan to turn Columbus Day 1992 into a forum for denouncing White imperialism, colonialism, genocide, and environmental destruction in the Americas and for celebrating indigenous cultures and their resistance to Whites. (Apparently, “nativism” and anti-immigrant xenophobia are only bad when practiced by White people.)
In the San Francisco Bay area, a “Resistance 500 Task Force” proposed to the Berkeley City Council that Columbus Day be replaced with Indigenous Peoples Day. They did not merely argue that Amerindians deserved a holiday, but that Columbus did not deserve one because he was guilty of genocide. The Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to adopt the proposal, thereby symbolically repudiating all of White history and civilization in the Americas. (In 1990, Berkeley changed Columbus Day to Native American Day. In 1991 the name Indigenous Peoples Day was adopted. After several flip-flops under pressure from both Italian American and Amerindian groups, in 1996 Berkeley adopted the compromise “Indigenous Peoples Day-Columbus Day.”) Other California cities followed Berkeley’s lead, as did the state of South Dakota.
I have mixed feelings about Indigenous Peoples Day. On the one hand, Columbus did kill, enslave, exploit, and plunder the Indians he discovered out of sheer base greed, and these are behaviors that no civilized society should tolerate.
On the other hand, the frontier between two societies is not civilized. There is no common culture, government, or legal system to adjudicate disputes peacefully. Instead, there are competing systems, i.e., a state of war. The notion that Columbus and the Amerindians could appeal to common moral sentiments of humanity and fair play seems like a sentimental ethnocentric projection when one reads actual accounts of Amerindian cultures.
So it seems foolish and decadent when modern Americans, who have never had to face unsubjugated savages, morally condemn the much tougher men who wrested this continent from them, the men whose blood and sweat purchased the long and enervating peace in which fantasies about noble savages and White guilt could grow unchecked.
What I reject is the use of Indigenous Peoples Day as an occasion to spread lies about the unqualified virtues of the Amerindians and the unqualified depravity of Whites. I am glad that Whites conquered and colonized the Americas. All told, it is a much better place for our presence. I celebrate Columbus Day not because of Columbus himself, but because of the historical transformations he set in motion.
But I grant that the history of White men in the Americas is not just a record of creativity and progress, but also of crimes and follies—written in blood and stained with tears. But the same is true of Red men in the Americas, and of all races of men everywhere in the world. Thus it is transparent anti-White racism to create a holiday where Whites are asked to feel guilt for the crimes of fellow Whites but the other races are exempted from the same moral reflection and instead play the role of accusers.
As first step toward blancing Indigenous Peoples Day propaganda, I recommend Kevin Beary’s essay “Life Styles: Native and Imposed.” There Beary quotes Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s The Conquest of New Spain, which chronicles Hernán Cortés’ discovery and conquest of the Aztec empire. As Díaz reports, in the town of Cempoala near the Gulf of Mexico:
Every day they [the Native American priests] sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols, and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms, and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tianguez or markets.
When the Spaniards reached Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec empire and the site of present-day Mexico City, Díaz had occasion to observe the Emperor Montezuma’s dinner table:
. . . more than thirty dishes [were] cooked in their native style . . . I have heard that they used to cook him the flesh of young boys. But as he had such a variety of dishes, made of so many different ingredients, we could not tell whether a dish was of human flesh or anything else . . . I know for certain, however, that after our Captain spoke against the sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh, Montezuma ordered that it should no longer be served to him.
Díaz also describes how the Aztecs performed human sacrifices:
They strike open the wretched Indian’s chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to the idols in whose name they have performed the sacrifice. Then they cut off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs at their ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body of the sacrificed man is not eaten but given to the beasts of prey.
Díaz also describes the widespread practice of slavery in the Aztec empire. In the great market of Tenochtitlan, he saw:
. . . dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feather, cloaks, and embroidered goods, and male and female slaves who are also sold there. They bring as many slaves to be sold in that market as the Portuguese bring Negroes from Guinea. Some are brought there attached to long poles by means of collars round their necks to prevent them from escaping, but others are left loose.
As for the Indians of North America, they were not always the peaceful purveyors of tax-free cigarettes, casino gambling, and earthy wisdom we know today. Beary quotes Francis Parkman’s France and England in North America, where he describes an attack by the Iroquois on an Algonquin hunting party, in the autumn of 1641, and the Iroquois’ treatment of their prisoners:
They bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured them before the eyes of the wretched survivors. “In a word,” says the narrator [that is, the Algonquin woman who escaped to tell the tale], “they ate men with as much appetite and more pleasure than hunters eat a boar or a stag . . .”
The conquerors feasted in the lodge till nearly daybreak . . . then began their march homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter . . .
The Iroquois arrived at their village with their prisoners, whose torture was designed to cause all possible suffering without touching life. It consisted in blows with sticks and cudgels, gashing their limbs with knives, cutting off their fingers with clam-shells, scorching them with firebrands, and other indescribable torments. The women were stripped naked, and forced to dance to the singing of the male prisoners, amid the applause and laughter of the crowd . . .
On the following morning, they were placed on a large scaffold, in sight of the whole population. It was a gala-day. Young and old were gathered from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with torches and firebrands; while the children, standing beneath the bark platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices . . . The stoicism of one of the warriors enraged his captors beyond measure . . . they fell upon him with redoubled fury, till their knives and firebrands left in him no semblance of humanity. He was defiant to the last, and when death came to his relief, they tore out his heart and devoured it; then hacked him in pieces, and made their feast of triumph on his mangled limbs.
All the men and all the old women of the party were put to death in a similar manner, though but few displayed the same amazing fortitude. The younger women, of whom there were about thirty, after passing their ordeal of torture, were permitted to live; and, disfigured as they were, were distributed among the several villages, as concubines or slaves to the Iroquois warriors. Of this number were the narrator and her companion, who . . . escaped at night into the forest . . .
Ideally, I would like to get beyond Whites and Amerindians trading atrocity stories about and demanding apologies for the actions of one another’s ancestors. But gaining a balanced picture of those atrocities is probably the only way to do this.
In the meantime, if today’s Native Americans wish to express shame and guilt for their racial brethren’s behavior, what better occasion than Indigenous Peoples Day?
October 11, 2004
21 comments
Oddly enough, how to deal with Columbus was the central trope of my Black Studies days: In essence, trying to discover a perspective that properly explains the experiences of each of the participant races. After tons of data and theory were gathered, all with a view to the intellectual processes of the altruistic codification of the “species,” as well as the development of a “science of culture,” that seeks to explain precisely how sociogenesis works (think words encoding themselves on flesh/behaviors), the grand conclusion was . . . are you ready? That ecumenicalism was the only way forward. But, not one that demands a ceasefire on all sides, no; the only race in need of ecumenicalism was ours. All other races are just our creation and victims. So, I say again and again, don’t fight this war in any way that justifies their ecumenical vision. (I’m talking to the separatists here.)
Something I now find super interesting: the Carter G Woodson book I mentioned in the podcast hinges on the “problem” that black students were being taught Latin and the history of the Greeks instead of a history of their own people. Um, hello? And now no one is taught Latin, the Greeks, or anyone’s history. I doubt CGW would find this an improvement either.
What vision would you yourself further?
I’d think the most amenable solution would be encouraging people to learn the history of this continent as a whole, with focus on their ancestors to make this a personal history to which they are heirs and forming a link of continuity. The historian should have precedence over the politically correct ‘activist’ and self-hating moralistic sap anyway, it’s simply a matter of how to approach the history from there.
Well, you know it is Thanksgiving Day here in Canada. I guess I am thankful for this?
Happy Columbus Day.
To have the ghost of Bowden comment on it, perhaps with regards to the atrocities both whites and indigenous peoples in North America can simply say “we stepped over that.” The focus must now be on the indigenous tribes being able to develop their territories while retaining ethnic and cultural autonomy. This is something that white nationalists who in fact do support “nationalism of all nations” should be able to support. Yes, they still talk about the “colonists”, but then that was their experience and it’s rather nonsensical to reject the label when we did, in fact, colonize them. But then, I don’t see the Turks being ashamed of such a history.
I have personally always wondered what the “White Republic” would have as a policy toward native tribes, especially the Covington-esque version. Freedom’s Sons suggests that they were in fact ‘evicted’ from their reserves like the other non-whites in the NAR’s territories.
This is a problem that the NANR is going to have to grapple with, sooner or later. The European New Right has never had to deal with this issue, since they only want to defend lands that have always belonged to our people. But, if we follow the logic that every people has a right to its own land, then obviously the fate of the Native Americans is a dilemma, since there can be no denying that this was their land, even if they lost it to us. To my mind, we can’t get too bogged down in trying to judge and then rectify all the injustices of the distant past – that is the hallmark of liberalism, and also totally unworkable. But in the case of North America, I think the solution will have to be a compromise between acknowledging that the Native Americans have a rightful place here, without compromising the fact that a new civilization has been constructed here and has its own acquired right to continue to exist.
I find Mike’s piece to be a much more balanced and rational argument than the other essay on this topic posted today, by the way.
“But, if we follow the logic that every people has a right to its own land, ”
This is a silly argument. It’s like a general saying to his adversary on the battlefield, “I have a right to win this battle,” and the other replies, “No, *I* have the right to win this battle!” They’re arguing over nothing. What exactly are “rights?” If you ask me, the idea of rights is total nonsense. When you fight battles you fight to win. No one has a right to anything. The powerful and noble take what they want and defend what they need to defend. Whites took North America because they were powerful and wanted the land. Non-Whites are taking over America and Europe because Whites are weak and effeminate and concerned with BS morality and “rights.” RIGHTS DON’T EXIST, PEOPLE! Stop arguing over them. Whites need to shed their morality and stop asking themselves what is morally correct or who rightfully owns what, and start doing what benefits their race.
I tend to agree. Caring about universal human rights is part of our nature now – even if it didn’t used to be. It is an emergent trait in other words. And we have to be completely cognizent of the fact that other races don’t have this trait (some individuals might) but know that we do have it – and will use it against us.
It will thus be a balancing act – and again we aren’t going to satisfy these tribes, we can at best satisfy our own sense of justice. The Indian Tribes want us to go away and die and they always will.
But this, albeit a real question, is one for much later. Mercy is fine once we have secured our future. Liberals always want to show mercy on enemies who aren’t yet conquered and simultaneously have no mercy on their own people.
Like deniken, I think that “rights” — at least unconditional universal rights, rather than rights granted under a man-made law or contractual agreement — are a construct of modern thought we’d best dispose of in favor of ideas that more closely align with Nature.
That said, I do believe in the principle of moral reciprocity. The concept of the Golden Rule predates modernity and variations of it can be found in different religions and philosophies dating back millennia. As such, I believe it reflects primordial truth.
As a purely practical consideration, the legacy of the near-complete disregard (practiced by all sides) for any sort of ethics of moral reciprocity during WWII on the Eastern Front is the biggest challenge we have to convincing fencesitters of the moral rectitude of our cause today.
Darwin’s laws may define the hard limits of our biological survival, but humans have a shared common interest in not letting them define the boundaries of our behavior, within groups or outside groups.
Re: rights don’t exist people…
Is a criticism that turns up often in White rightist circles. It’s a criticism that while true is also meaningless. Of course rights don’t “exist” the way gravity or the oceans exists. No one has ever suggested otherwise. They’re not necessary like the laws of nature and the universe. The same is true for every law, ethical, political and social construct. They’re all human constructs that don’t “exist” absent the power of violent enforcement.The issue is not whether rights exist but whether the rights principle is useful. In my mind, the answer is yes, yes, yes 1000x yes. The principle is indispensable in making a moral case for White self-determination, that is, the idea Whites have a right to exist. Claiming rights don’t exist undercuts our moral case.
The movie Black Robe (1991) is a brutal depiction of missionary encounters with indigenous tribes in what is now Quebec. Apparently, true story based on diaries. Its on Netflix, but I saw years ago as a rental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Robe_%28film%29
I noticed that Rotten Tomatoes gave it 92%
Well thought out and measured in tone. This is quoted and linked and discussed here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/10/history-isnt-pretty-more-on-columbus.html
Columbus was not Cortez and the American Indians are not
Aztecs or Mexicans. The history is so incredibly
Ironic, mysterious and unbelievable I am surprised you would do it so little
Justice. As far as I know Columbus
Had very little to do with America and it was Cortez who conquered
Mexico, and his is an incredible
Fate filled amazing history, not just lusting after gold.
Someone once said of the Conquistadores, God, Gold, and Glory were all one thing to them. Such unity of character gave them great strength – but it didn’t make for introspection…
The needs of one desire might not be satisfied by another or by such a fusion.
Since there is no such thing as a ‘Native American’ as they all had ancestors who crossed over from Asia, they should not lose the opportunity to shut up.
If the whole history is a question of which stronger tribe pushed out which weaker tribe then they lost and should perhaps get over it and work with the winners instead of against them.
“Since there is no such thing as a ‘Native American’ as they all had ancestors who crossed over from Asia, they should not lose the opportunity to shut up.”
I’d wager good money that it was jews who started using the term “Native Americans” to describe the aboriginals here.
From wikipedia:
“The use of both “native American” and “Native American” to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas came into widespread common use during the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. ”
Yup. Definitely jews. They love doing that kind of stuff, using nonsense to undermine and subvert people’s sense of self and identity.
I use the term Native American only because it’s less confusing than saying “Indians” and then having to clarify that I am talking about American Indians and not Indians from India. The term Indian only came into use because the early explorers didn’t realize where they were.
Why not just say “American Indian” or “Amerindian” then?
As Columbus travelled through the Caribbean he was greeted by crowds of people. The man himself reported that he saw very few women, a fact that suggests high levels of female infanticide. He also said he saw no one who looked to be more than thirty.
It was definitely a world of constant warfare and mostly low population density compared to Europe. In the Americas today there are probably more people of Indian descent than there were in 1492.
So can we agree that our Rights come from God (you said Primordial Truth) or Nature, or Nature’s God as the Founder’s said, but we have to fight for them here on Earth?
So what then is the “cash value” of such a belief? It does help maintain such rights in a stable state be it a Republic or a Monarchy. Obviously in a struggle against savages or atheists, it may not help at all.
I am on island time so I do not know if anyone will even read
This. But the idea that women were slaughtered at
Birth in Native American or Aztec is highly questionable
Especially considering that Cotez’s super star companion
Was a woman named Marrianna. She was a left overMayan with
A gift for language. Mayans were being hunted down for human
Sacrifice by the time the Spanish arrived. The Mayans had put a virtual
End to the practice
It was the Aztecs that revived it. Along with eating people.
We are cannibals too. It heals (what a strange word …). Anyway think of
All the transplant patients that take on the character of their donee. The world is strange.
We are Aztecs.
We are worse. This was a people who had to do all the hard work
Of feeding themselves and they required magic and ritual
To uplift the people for the work. I do not like or want
To eat people and I would rather die then have a dead persons
Organs so – many people are happy to ingest anothers organs- because it is healing- there is still something very modern and
American about the Aztecs.
Yes, accepting someone else’s organs, a form of cannibalism, is a barbarity. And a sign of incredible arrogance: you believe that you are entitled to more than one life. And I would die before enduring the presence of strange flesh sewn into my own, causing spiritual confusion and physical grief till I die anyway. Nobody seems to grasp why antirejection drugs are needed: because your body doesn’t want someone else’s organ. So, I wouldn’t say that having someone else’s organs inside you is “healing”.
Beware of the organ harvesting industry. It is happening in hospitals everywhere, with doctors standing over the dying waiting to cut their heart out.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.