Indigenous vs. ''indigenous''
0 comment Saturday, May 24, 2014 |

Manuel Valdes is apparently one of those ''diversity'' writers for the AP, whose job is to present the Latin-American slant on the news. Apparently he covers the Immigration beat or the Latino turf.
You see, Anglo writers cannot present these stories in a ''fair'' fashion, so only Latino people can cover Latino-related stories, and only immigrants or those with recent immigrant roots can write about immigration. And as we are all aware, immigration these days is a Hispanic thing for the most part, so a Hispanic is needed to write these stories. And we know minorities are not capable of any bias or conflict of interest, right?
One of his recent pieces has to do with the reaction of American Indians to the Hispanic influx into Washington State, particularly central Washington, where some towns have large Mexican majorities, towns like Mattawa.
It's interesting, though, to read what some of the people of the Yakama tribe of Washington have to say about the huge presence of illegal Mexican immigrants in their area. They apparently feel resentment towards the illegals who are taking jobs from them (allegedly, of course) and they perceive that gang violence has increased with the large numbers of Mexican immigrants. Allegedly. But then, those are the same things 'alleged' by those ''anti-immigration'' people, so of course the allegations are suspect. Of course.
The Yakama Indian who is interviewed does not, apparently, limit his objections to illegal immigration only, which is to his credit. Obviously Indians need not worry about censoring themselves; I note that he does not feel compelled to tell Mr. Valdes that he has ''many Mexican friends'' or that he ''has nothing against legal immigrants.''
So Mr. Valdes brings in some Mexican voices who express displeasure with the ethnocentric ideas of the local Indians; one woman seems disgusted that Indians have such feelings. Another Latino pronounces the local Indians as no better than the gringo; the implicit attitude that I hear from the immigrants is 'why don't they just accept our takeover, and just fade away into the sunset?'
One of the favorite propaganda memes of the Mexican revanchists is that they are ''the indigenous people of the Americas'' and that they automatically have the same claims to this land as the local Indians in North America. To unwary gringos, they represent themselves as being essentially the same people as the Indians in the United States. I doubt very much that most Indians accept that strange notion; each tribe is quite conscious of their own identity; there is no monolithic ''indigenous'' group in North America, although the presence of Whites has unified the tribes in common anti-White feeling to some extent.
I am not sure if the Mexican reconquista crowd really believed their own propaganda about their being ''the indigenous people'', or if they were merely coached to say that by the leftist globalists and academic useful idiots who manipulate them. I doubt they really believe it; surely they can see that they don't even resemble the other Indian tribes very much, and I doubt that, back home in Mexico, they even wanted to claim Indian ethnicity. Most of the Mexicans I've met look down on Indians, even though most of them have considerable Indian blood. Indians in Mexico are not high up in the social hierarchy. So I think they merely call themselves ''indigenous'' for political reasons in this country, so as to manipulate that old gringo guilt, to play the race card, to give themselves some kind of false legitimacy.
I find this tactic manipulative and dishonest, lacking any sense of honor or integrity. It smacks of cynical opportunism, mixed with a little pathological lying.
I don't know if they aspire to form some kind of anti-White alliance with the Indian tribes in this country, but I think the commonalities are more imagined than real; the article illustrates that there is a gap between the Mexicans and the Indians. I suspect that any alliance between them would be an ad hoc thing, for convenience sake, but there is little love lost there. Just as Mexicans and blacks seem to clash more often than not, I think their relationship with Indians will be uneasy at best.
I wonder how the average multicultist will feel on reading this article? These kinds of disagreements between their 'victim' clients must pose problems. Who do they side with? Who is higher on their victimhood totem pole? The poor immigrants just looking for a better life while being persecuted by Whitey? Or the poor dispossesed, genocided Native American, exiled in his own land?
And while the confused leftist White is tossing a coin to decide which side is more worthy of the top victim slot, I wonder if he will take a thought for his own people, who stand in danger of becoming like the Indian, a stranger in his own land, in danger of being either mixed out of existence, or displaced?
Our Yakama Indian friend mentions that the mass influx of Mexicans is destructive to his tribe in that it has led to considerable mixing, and with that, the loss of the coherence and commonality that makes a tribe what it is. I wonder if the average White people reading the article are able to see the obvious parallel to our own situation? Do they not see that this is what is happening to our people, too?
Meanwhile the 'diversity' journalists and the corrupt old media continue to churn out their stale ''news''; at what point will people begin to notice the rank smell of propaganda that's long past its sell-by date?

Labels: , , , , , , ,