White chix

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

David Yeagley has an article over at Bad Eagle titled White Women Savior:

But today’s white women savior brings a softer touch. She brings the comfort of the New Age philosophy, which idolizes traditional Indian ways. She brings the financial support from communists who aggrandize Indian failure for subversive, anti-American purposes. She confirms the Indian ‘where he is,’ like modern feminist theologians , completely helpless in her hands, completely dependent on her maternal provision.

But today’s great white woman savior comes to the reservation without Christ, without courage, and without vision. She brings salvation in her own flesh.

Promiscuity often follows in her train, and the effect is viscerally divisive among Indian people. This white woman is a sexual intrusion into the Indian community, and she causes alienation between Indian women and Indian men….

On the specific issue a close friend of mine once told me that a Native American professor had told a potentional graduate student (also Native American) that the sexual opportunities offered at the overwhelmingly white University of Imbler for dark-skinned non-white males were myriad. I once had a black neighbor (there are not many blacks in Imbler-especially non-multiracial blacks) who moved to Eugene from Mississippi who was regularly propositioned by women he did not know at malls (he wasn’t very attractive and indicated that he had never had much luck with women in Mississippi). On an individual level this exoticization is not troubling ;)

The problem lay deeper down. Recently I watched a documentary on the disputes surrounding holy sites around the Mt. Shasta area in northern California (about 40 miles or so from where I now live). Apparently nude hippies were lounging around springs and creeks and complaints were being issued by local Native American groups who encountered them on their religious sojourns. I watched as a group of Native American Elders confronted some naked long-haired 20-something white men & women. The Elders explained that the local tribes found nudity at religious sites offensive. The hippies were shocked & appalled and I could see the cognitive dissonance in their eyes-after all, these were people of color who were not supposed to be inhibited by Western patriarchal Judeo-Christian values. One of the bolder hippies responded with some irritation, “But nakedness is beautiful, we’re all born that way….” (imagine the characteristic hippie lilt). The argument went back & forth and the hippies were quickly being disabused of their notions of what Native Americans were like-and the Native Americans were irritated at the patronizing tone that these young naked white savages evinced toward them.

This incident encapsulates many of my problems with American society and its tendency to look toward the group and the mythic past as organizing principles. Left-leaning American whites have created a mythology of the noble savage (or rather, reinterpreted it to fit their own political orientation) and become outraged when non-whites do not fit the bill-and to preserve their mythology they often attempt to de-legitimize the non-white individuals in question (a “black conservative” is not authentic). But it also extends to the Right-leaning end of the political spectrum as conservatives lionize a virtuous past that was far more complex than they remember and express ambivelance and some admiration of the moral certainties of Third World cultures [1]. The problem is that many whites forget to look at the trees in the forest, non-whites are individuals with their own selfish needs & wants. In a perfect world race would not matter and black women would not be angered at the sexual competition of white women-but it is not a perfect world and selfish considerations may trump ideals of race-neutralism. Whites, especially liberal whites, often do not face the down-side of the principles that they hold, which to me explains who Ralph Nader’s voters in 2000 tended to be affluent white liberal males, the very group for whom righteous espousal of principles is to a great extent the ends (they support affirmative action & welfare, but don’t usually directly benefit from it, so can assert that things “need to get worse to get better”). So white women as David Yeagley notes (and some black women have asserted) come into communities that they intend to help, often espousing their own issues, oblivious to the chaos and cultural disruption that they wreak on the individual level because individuals have little importance in their ideology though they loom large in their personal lives.

I am not denying here that race, religion, language and ethnos in general have no utility and importance-but that we are starting to swing too far toward a higher level of identification (gender, race, etc.) away from the liberal ideal of the individual. In the case of Native American (or any race/ethnos) males-they are first and foremost horny guys who will take a sexual opportunity when presented, as individuals, rather than cogs in the wheels of racial harmony. This sort of selfishness can also apply to a higher level of organization as indigenous groups turn against their environmentalist allies when the evil-oil-company offers them a fair shake of the profits. Environmentalists might be shocked-but they never understood that the indigenes have their own material needs and their primary concern was always their physical and social well-being, not a grand vision of a holistic Mother Earth.

Selfishness and imperfection is a human universal.

P.S.: I’m well aware that this sort of blathering is easier for me than most people-I have very little group affinity, whether it be racial or religious, though I would assert I am mildy patriotic. Perhaps honesty is the best policy first-before we can decide where we go on from here.

[1] Conservatives love to talk about how black Americans are more religious and pro-life than their political leadership. As if in the end it somehow changes anything.

28 Comments

  1. Razib, thank you for noting my article, “The White Woman Savior.” There are several links in it which reference other race articles I’ve written, one in particular, “Tall, Dark, and Scarey,” in which I probe the white woman’s attraction to the dark man. This is all terribly personal, of course.

    Now, consdier this: nature/evolution brought us linguistic, geographic, dietary, and racial diversity. Immigration means integration, and integration usually means intermarriage.

    How is it that we work now against nature? Sounds ominous to me. Never mind the personal thrills of sexual imagination and experience with interracial partnerships. Is the personal ego to be considered the virus of nature, working against everything nature has created?

  2. In my observation, most of these diversity sluts end up marrying white men and mentally decide that the entire Black Student Union “didn’t count”. They don’t really see sex with non-white men as having any meaning or permanence. They don’t really see them as men.

  3. Sir Duende, you are a true man. I salute you.
    But, let’s give women their maternal instincts, too. They have a great instinct to save. It is natural. The white women has such dazzling power over the dark male (see: http://www.badeagle.com/html/tall_dark.html ) that she almost inevitably finds herself trying to save him, or some such instinct.

    However, in social work, you will find that many white girls have actually been abused as children, by their white family members, and often find solace or relief or reaction, in sexual relations with dark men. This is a factor more often than usually recognized.

    Anyway, the men of each race should perhaps be a little more protective of their own. Just a thought.

  4. “a true man”? I’m a woman, but thanks for the compliment. Yes, white women who consciously decide not to date or marry white men often have sexual abuse and/or incest in their pasts. But the diversity sluts I’m talking about are just slumming. Sort of the equivalent of joining the Peace Corps until you’re ready for a real job. They sleep with nonwhite men until they are ready for a real relationship.

    http://dir.salon.com/sex/col/vitz/2000/09/19/marylou_4/index.html?pn=3

  5. They sleep with nonwhite men until they are ready for a real relationship.

    should i be worried? :)

  6. David –

    Have you read Steve Sailer’s “Is Love Colorblind?”?

    http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm

  7. Duende, your still my kind of man! Let’s hear it for the real XENA. (Kidding.) That’s an oddity in itself, how men can be attracted to a strong female, yet, when the male goes pansy, it’s a big let down for everyone.

    I shall look at Sailer’s piece. I’m supposed to be writing for VDARE.com myself, but so far I’ve only had one piece on there.

    I can tell you right now that “romance” Western style is very much an ego-based Freudian thing, based on the old Elizabethan “deliver the girl from the dragon” approach of the male.

    Our self-centered approach is wholly distorting, but, the testimony of some is, “I’ve been in love with Mable for 45 years, from the day I met her.” That is what we all really want, and look for, I think. It’s some kind of magic.

    And take it from the promiscuous and late actor Tony Quinn…self-oriented indulgence ends in utter emptiness and dispair.

  8. Jimbo, I’ve seen studies like Sailers before. What I told Razib was this: nature created these differences. Why do we now work against them?

    Immigration means integration, which means intermarriage. This implies that trade and “intercourse” as it were, work like some virus, actually, undoing what nature (or some force) has done, making us separate racially, geographically, and culturally.

    And the Tiger Woods bit, he isn’t lauded because of his racial mix. He’s a good golfer, that’s all. He transcended his racial identity through sports. He is accepted because of his talents, not because of his racial mix. I’m sorry, golfing is not a real job. Golf is entertainment, like all sports. This is not where we should make decisions about social priorities, is it?

    Woods may be a kind of mascot for all the careless, frustrated racial mixes in the world, but that’s only because of his success and media.

    Success hardly validates its recipients. Not completely anyway, but only their talents.

    Are you thinking racial mix is a talent of some kind? Some people do.

  9. Razib blogged:
    “[1] Conservatives love to talk about how black Americans are more religious and pro-life than their political leadership.”

    Paleoconservatives like me don’t enage in that sort of blather. The neocon overlords have a uniformly Marxist stance on American racial issues (such as civil rights for instance) and they don’t tolerate any dissent. There are other issues that they won’t tolerate any dissent about either. See http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3870 as well as Justin Raimondo’s most recent column.

    I think that the neocon talk of blacks as “natural conservatives” is preposterous. Blacks will never support conservative causes and its not in their material interest to do so. Also, religiosity doesn’t correspond with moral character at the group level (It *may* do so at the individual level). If religiosity did correspond with moral character at the group level, then perhaps the black crime rate would be much lower. But of course upper class whites can be immoral in more subtle ways than can black gangbangers. Stupid talk about blacks being ‘natural conservatives’ might be an instance of immorality in upper class whites.

  10. created these differences. Why do we now work against them?

    you have to be careful with this train of thinking-the retro-progressives love this. “natural foods,” “natural lifestyles,” etc. etc. etc. nature does not “create” things-it has no purpose or intent (speaking as someone who does not believe in the supernatural). it sets the context-but we as thinking beings do with as we wish. after all, it is natural that half of our children die in infancy.

  11. Like I said in another comment to some past blog entry, I believe that all sentient beings have desires that cannot be fully accounted for by physical causes alone. Whatever we say is good or bad depends on our own desires right now this second. We cannot agree on the rightness or wrongness of anything unless we identify similar desires within us. It is possible that within us there is a chain of desires each one deeper and more fundamental than the ones below it. If this is the case then we can ask ourselves if “what we want is what we really want”. i.e. are our desires in alignement? If our more fundamental desires are universal in nature this does bespspeak a universal intent or will. Maybe ideas such as “what the universe wants” can be assigned meaning through such inquiries.

    I know that this probably sounds to most readers like postmodernism piece because my use of “if-then” propositions without my proving the ifs. I am just describing a possibile alternative to the materialist view.

  12. Razib,
    No need to worry, Razib, I’m sure you can spot a diversity slut from miles away.

  13. “Also, religiosity doesn’t correspond with moral character at the group level (It *may* do so at the individual level)”

    You are right. Though sometimes, in America at least, I think that there’s self-selection. Individuals who badly want to lead moral lives may be more inclined to practice a religion than those that don’t.

  14. And seriously, what is it about my online persona that makes everyone think I’m a man? Is it my robust prose? My fearless questions? My tireless search for the truth? To be honest, I thought my conspicuous absence from Razib’s
    drool-athon posts was all the proof anyone needed.

    Newsflash: DUENDE IS A WOMAN!! RUPAUL IS A MAN!!

  15. What is natural? Some studies show that rock music kills plants (no offence to rockers, it’s the soundtrack to most of our lives including mine) while classical
    music seemed to help them.
    Also, that “high frequency” music–again often classical–improves mental clarity and function and normalized the human
    heartbeat.
    There’s no accounting for music taste, and I know some people would find classical music to be the killer, but the health
    of plants, like that of lab mice, does tell
    us a few things. I don’t know
    how much help or hindrence music provided, but the effect was there. Nature is not good or bad–it merely provides the
    material for our use. It is up to human experimentation and experience to make the judgment.

  16. DUENDE IS A WOMAN!! RUPAUL IS A MAN!!

    RuPaul also has a blog. Everybody who’s anybody’s got one now-a-days don’cha know?

  17. duende,

    Most of us don’t have enough Italian or Spanish to recognize the monker “duende” as feminine. I didn’t know what it meant until I looked it up. I doubt anyone can identify an author’s sex from his/her prose except in rare, over the top examples.

  18. How is it that we work now against nature? Sounds ominous to me. Never mind the personal thrills of sexual imagination and experience with interracial partnerships. Is the personal ego to be considered the virus of nature, working against everything nature has created?

    This certainly seems anti-humanistic to me. It seems as though you are classifying the actions of man as de facto “working against nature”, with “working against nature” being de facto a bad thing. How’s that for a lose/lose situation?

    “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above.”

  19. Everybody who’s anybody’s got one now-a-days don’cha know?
    I may start one if the employment situation continues as it has. Anyone here interested in discussion of the philosophical aspects of modern music? Aesthetics and epistemology, relationship to Aristotelean mimesis, that sort of thing?

  20. Mr. Purdy,
    You do mean “moniker” don’t you? I may be hopelessly single, but I never thought I was monkish. And wouldn’t my much-disputed gender (FEMALE, in case you forgot) make me “nunlike” if we’re going to use the vocabulary of monasticism.

    Actually, “duende” is androgynous. It is the daimonic spirit that animates the flamenco dancer. J. Pozo has a ladies’ perfume called “Esencia de Duende” which I wear, so these days it is more feminine in the popular imagination.

  21. Anyone who wants to discuss music is welcome to the BadEagle.com forum specifically designed for scientific, cultural, psychological, and just plain intelligent discussion. The forum has lagged for many weeks now.

  22. duende-most women tend to avoid controversial topics. my personal opinion is that if it wasn’t for the need to “score” politis & religion would not be that big of a deal as conversation topics since most men don’t get offended for long periods of time over stuff (despite their short-term reactions) and most men don’t care that much what their guy friends think about them. on the other hand-women being the limiting reagant-has a big effect on conversation, and generally i don’t think women are as interested in politics & religion so neither are men-at least in front of women.

    as far as interracial racial sex and how “natural” it is. there are a few points. prior to the neolithic revolution the major form of genetic exchange between populations was women-judging by the greater uniformity of mtDNA lineages. this occured in group-to-group exchange, meaning that neighboring peoples of similar racial background were exchanging material, though eventually a gene might spread through humanity. after the neolithic revolution this changed as greater population lead to the formation of complex social structures. the expansion of iberian male y chromosomal lineages is probably the number #1 counter-trend to the exchange of genetics via women, though there are others. these y chromosomal exchanges/changes were more likely to effect “racial” mixing as they often journeyed long distance-the mongols, perhaps the aryans, and of course the spanish & portuguese (there is some evidence for a male bias in the caucasoid ancestry of the ethiopian peoples as well, perhaps semitic forefathers that settled in the highlands after crossing the red sea).

    the reasons that races did not mingle then were very prosaic. nothing metaphysical about it at all.

  23. minor point-the limiting reagant of females is actually a minority of women-but they act as the lowest common denominator. additionally the extra-sensitives are often the ones who are the most popular and adept at manipulating social networks.

  24. duende,

    Yeah, moniker of course. All day I’ve been having trouble hitting the keyboard correctly.

    David Yeagley,

    Cool, I’ll drop by tomorrow. I try to follow the gene expression stuff as closely as I can but I’m no scientist and never really wanted to be one (except for astrophysics when I was 10)

  25. Razib,
    You’re right that most women aren’t interested in philosophy and religion, or at least not enough to argue about it. That’s why most of my friends are guys. I think a lot of girltalk is the human equivalent of grooming in chimps: numbingly repeated, ritualistic behavior to comfort and strengthen intergroup bonds.

  26. bald eagle said :
    Jimbo, I’ve seen studies like Sailers before. What I told Razib was this: nature created these differences. Why do we now work against them?

    Immigration means integration, which means intermarriage. This implies that trade and “intercourse” as it were, work like some virus, actually, undoing what nature (or some force) has done, making us separate racially, geographically, and culturally.
    ————————-
    The fact that there are human races is pretty much an accident of our dispersal all over the planet. Nature was not acting according to a purpose, it was simply following its own laws : (isolation, relative inbreeding) –> creation of genetically distinct populations.
    Had humans always stuck around each other throughout our history, genetic differentiation into “races” would not have happened.
    With that said, i think it is normal for most humans to be most attracted to those who look like their family. That’s normal, but it has always been also normal for a minority of people to be attracted to people who were quite distinct from them. There is NOTHING unnatural about racial mixing. It just happens. It’s certainly not something i automatically praise OR denigrate.
    ————-

    And the Tiger Woods bit, he isn’t lauded because of his racial mix. He’s a good golfer, that’s all. He transcended his racial identity through sports. He is accepted because of his talents, not because of his racial mix. I’m sorry, golfing is not a real job. Golf is entertainment, like all sports. This is not where we should make decisions about social priorities, is it?

    Woods may be a kind of mascot for all the careless, frustrated racial mixes in the world, but that’s only because of his success and media.

    Success hardly validates its recipients. Not completely anyway, but only their talents.

    Are you thinking racial mix is a talent of some kind? Some people do.
    ————————–
    I certainly don’t. But is being racially mixed a flaw, a stain ? And if it is disadvantageous in some circumstances, is it so in all circumstamces ?

  27. one thing-it is true that people tend to be most attraced to people that “look like them” (there is also evidence for natural incest aversion based on similar smells). but-i have also noted that historically when groups of males journey through new territory they often leave a trail of bastards & angry husbands in their wake. similarly, black men in rural oregon, though they will suffer some racism, also in my experience tend to get a lot of propositions from women that are intrigued by the exoticism. i have heard also that certain areas that are very homogenous (iceland, finland) there is a tendency for women to throw themselves at people who look different & are foreign. on the other hand, this does not tend to happen as much in the reverse at least in the case of finland from what i hear, exotic women tend to be intimidating & scary.

    anyway, just some speculations, but i am wondering if females have a part of them that is also geared toward getting wild-card genes from “outsiders” now & then.

  28. Razib,
    I once saw a nature program where a tribe of monkeys (rhesus perhaps?) was ruled by the son of a prominent female. He had exclusive breeding rights with all the fertile females, even though he was brother and cousin to them. One female “cheated” on him with an unrelated male who ranked lower because this was not his natal tribe. So exoticism might be a strategy to widen the gene pool and protect against incest. This would dovetail with Sailer’s extended family theory.

    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm

a