Is Hate-Whitey Politics a closeted form of Love-Whitey Emotics?

Hate-Whitey politics is weird because it is, in many ways, a closeted & repressed form of Love-Whitey emotics.

Look at immigration. All these prospective non-white immigrants would hate the idea of moving to non-white nations. They LOVE the idea of moving to white nations. Whiter the better. Even when they come to Diverse US, they dream of earning enough to settle in white communities. I mean how many are dying to settle in South Central or Detroit? In indeed Diversity is so great, how come nearly all non-white immigrants prefer relocating to US, Canada, and Australia than to Latin America with larger percentage of non-white populations?

If given the choice, non-whites often prefer whites even to their OWN KIND. Hindus prefer to live with whites than with Hindus. Pakistanis prefer to live with whites than with Pakistanis. East Asians prefer to live with whites than with East Asians, despite the success of East Asia. Mexicans prefer to live with whites than with Mexicans. Even when non-whites maintain ethnic communities in US, Canada, or Australia, they prefer to live in their enclaves in white nations than in their own nations. So, better to live in Chinatown in the US or Canada than in China itself. Better to live in Paki-town in London than in Pakistan.

Also, non-whites have sexual attraction to whites even as they bitch about evil whitey. All these black guys who rage about whitey want white women. All those Pakistanis in UK who bitch about the English want white girls, even by rape. All those Asian women who bitch about no-good whitey want white husbands and white-looking kids. All those Latino guys who talk of their pride of mixed blood are always hankering for blondes. Just look at Hugo Chavez who ultimately settled for some blonde bimbo. George P. Bush, the mixed-race kid, got himself a blondie too. Tiger Woods, much hyped for his mixed-blood, got the woodies only for the most blonde Nordic types. And Jews got the Portnoy-Boing-Complex.

So, this Anti-Whitey politics is, at least in part, a lot of noise to drown out the embarrassing fact that these non-white folks really see whiteness as superior and love whiteness more than their own qualities. They just don’t want to admit it. So, even though most of what they actually DO is to be nearer to whiteness, much of what they SAY is to mask their sense of inferiority and preference for all things white.

Their logic is as follows: “You’re awful, you’re evil, and you’re responsible for everything wrong in the world, and I really really hate you. So, will you marry me?”

The Downside of the Professionalization of Violence in the West

One of the problems in the West is the professionalization of warrior-violence.

The West categorizes people as either ‘military’ or ‘civilian’. So, the military men are supposed to monopolize the Art of Violence, whereas civilians are supposed to restrict themselves to peaceful existence in accordance to the Rule of Law. This is not a bad arrangement. Indeed, it’s a very good one under the right circumstances, i.e. as long as the Rule of Law favors the preservation and defense of the native population. But when, the Rule of Law is usurped by Jewish globalists who subvert and denigrate a nation's core cultural stock, people need to rise up and fight. But since the Art of Violence is monopolized by the professional warrior class, the civilian population of the West have forgotten how to react to historical emergencies. Civilians in the West are accustomed to leaving the use of violence to the institutions designed for them. And when it comes to waging wars on foreign enemies or capturing terrorists, the Western institutions of official violence are still very effective. No nation, with the possible exception of China, can withstand the military might of the West. And Western intelligence forces are most often effective at preventing terrorist acts and hunting down the perpetrators who do manage to slip through and detonate something. The real problem is the institutions-of-violence must take orders from the professional political classes that are beholden to Jewish globalist masters. So, despite the formidable means of institutionalized violence to attack & invade 'enemy nations' AND capture & neutralize known terrorists, they are not allowed to engage the enemies & invaders where it is most crucial. They aren't allowed to stop the flow of migrants, turn back the tide of massive immigration, and force non-whites to emigrate back to their proper homelands. The game has been rigged so that the West will keep winning battles(against terrorists) but lose the war(against the Invasion). It's like the US never lost a major battle in Vietnam but lost the big war. When the West is allowed to battle against individual terrorists but not allowed to war against the Invasion itself, its future is doomed. It is like permitting a man to kill individual rats in his house but forbidding him to patch the holes to prevent more rats to enter in greater numbers.

Unlike a Westerner, every Muslim is both a civilian and warrior at all times. The two notions, a peaceable man of God and warrior for God, are fused in the heart of a Muslim. So, when a Muslim feels violence is necessary to defend what is sacred, he doesn’t wait around for the institution to take care of the problem. He takes action on his own since it is the will of Allah that a devout Muslim must do what is necessary to defend what is holy and true.
Among Westerners, there's something Muslim-like in radical leftists informed by anarchism and/or Marxism that every worker must also be a soldier of dialectical history and be ready to pick up a rifle or plant a bomb for revolutionary justice. But such notion is weak among European conservatives long accustomed to acknowledging violence as the monopoly of the state or professional military/police class.
American Rightists are somewhat different because of the long tradition of gun ownership in the US. They see the wisdom of being well-armed in case the System turns against them. And in the movement westward, every white family needed guns to protect itself from American Indians, outlaws, or other whites with conflicting land claims.

Anyway, it is about time EVERY WHITE PERSON no longer saw himself as a mere civilian but a soldier and warrior at all times. In our time, the Rule of Law has been reconstituted(and prostituted) to destroy the white race and hand over white lands to the Great Invasion. White elites are cuck-collaborators of the Globalists or the GLOB. And since the professional military-and-police class must take their orders from the state(that is run by elites controlled by globalists), the people can no longer rely upon it for national/racial preservation and cultural restoration.
The New Order must require for all white patriots to be civilian-warriors who are ready to do ANYTHING by ANY MEANS NECESSARY to restore what is rightfully theirs in the lands of their forefathers.

Which American State is Quintessentially Most American?

Which American State is ideally Most American?

People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

Today, globalists say All nations are 'nations of immigrants' since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
But even if we agree that all nations are 'nations of immigrants', why are they different? Because different peoples 'immigrated' there. So, white Europeans 'immigrated' to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people 'immigrated' to Japan and made it East Asian.

So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are 'nations of immigrants', they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people 'immigrated' there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let's use the broad term of 'immigration' to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
So, one can say US has been a 'nation of immigrants' from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were 'immigrants' going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives 'immigrated' from North America.

Still, a 'nation of immigrants' means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

Consider an alternative American history. Let's say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug -- don't ask me how -- and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
Now, this US would have been a 'nation of immigrants' too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as 'white trash'. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is 'American'. So, every American state is equally 'American'. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a 'nation of immigrants' since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.

Jewish Understanding of Power vs Justified Power

Jews are very smart when it comes to politics and morality.

Politics is important, but even more so is the possession of the moral high ground, especially in the modern West.

Politics is about power, but raw power isn't enough. Power has to be justified.

Since the beginning of history, those with raw power(military class) made an alliance with the clerical class. Thus, the power of might became associated with moral/spiritual righteousness.

Without such 'blessing', power would only be about brutish might, about fear and intimidation.

Such power could last only as long as one had the arms and loyal soldiers. Such power would not be based on real respect, admiration, and etc.

This is why the dynastic power of the First Emperor of China was short-lived. His order was all about fearsome power. He killed the Confucian scholars. His domain ruled by might, fright, and intimidation. Same can be said for Assyrians. They ruled by terror and violence. They were ruthless buggers, just like the later Huns. Huns rampaged and struck fear into the hearts of everyone. But there was no respect among those they conquered.

In contrast, moral power goes beyond the might of arms and terror. Just the power of the word and symbols does the trick. And the power of word is especially effective in the Modern World where one is protected by Rule of Law and especially if one controls the Academia and Media(news and entertainment). The Rule of Law means that the military cannot suddenly move against you even if you insult it with moral condemnation. And control of media means that your righteous Narrative comes to prevail over all.

So, without firing a shot, Jews took over America. In the Russian Revolution, Jews had to take power through power of arms since there wasn't much in the way of Rule of Law in autocratic or weak-parliamentary Russia, especially during Wartime. In the US, as Jews were protected by Anglo-American Rule of Law, they could make aggressive moral claims against Wasps and still be protected by law(that had been established by Anglos). And the military couldn't move against them. Also, as Jews took over media and academia, their vision of history and morality and justice gain dominance.

If white southern conservatives joined the military, Jews joined the academia, media, courts, and etc. And with their power of finance and economics, they were poised to take over the elite institutions. In the US, due to Rule of Law, the military must take orders from those with control over the word. Word orders the Sword.

Jews mastered the Word while white southerners mastered the sword.

In a barbarian world or Leviathan world, the Sword has rule over the Word.

Under Rule of Law, Word has rule over the Sword.

But even Rule of Law wasn't enough for Jewish dominance. After all, Law is supposed to be 'blind'. It is not supposed to play favorites. It is supposed to be equal to all individuals. So, even as Rule of Law protected Jewish freedom and rights, it didn't necessarily favor the Jews. After all, Rule of Law even protects the rights of KKK and Nation of Islam.

For Jews to gain favoritism in the American system, they had to become sacralized while their rivals were demonized.

Jews had to be promoted as a holy people while white gentiles were to be demoted as a wicked people... not least because they had done wrong to the holy Jews. So, the ONLY way whites could gain redemption was by being servile to the holy Jews and making amends for... ever and ever and ever and ever.

So, Jewish success and power depend not only money and might. Such are great assets but don't justify the power. For the power to be justified and blessed, it has to be morally and spiritually sanctified while the power of the rivals must be demonized and accursed.

Consider. The reason why Americans can freely badmouth Saudi power, Chinese power, Iranian power, and Russian power is because they are not sacralized in the Western Narrative. If a rich and powerful man were only seen as rich and powerful, he might be an object of admiration and/or envy, but he wouldn't necessarily be seen as good and righteous.

Because Jews are the most powerful and richest people, they are the natural targets of envy, resentment, suspicion, hostility, distrust, and righteous anger(as the rich and powerful have more means to harm the world). 1% vs the 99%.

So, to protect themselves from criticism and competition, Jews have employed the art of sacralization and vilification. While Rule of Law protects Jewish freedom, rights, and property, it doesn't protect Jews from criticism, rivalry, accusation, and moral condemnation. After all, Rule of Law guarantees freedom of speech for all, even for 'anti-semites' like David Duke.

In order for Jews to silence critics and rivals, they must pervert the 'blind' impartiality of the Rule of Law(as in the EU & Canada) and effectively censor or criminalize anti-Jewish speech(while allowing Jews to criticize, berate, and condemn native whites and other gentiles).

As freedom of speech is still protected by law in the US, Jews rely on the sacralization of their own identity & narrative and on the demonization of their perceived rivals and enemies to maximize their own power.

With such taboos, it has been nearly impossible for anyone in mainstream channels to criticize or challenge Jewish power. In America, Jewishness = holiness. Badmouthing Jewishness is like sacrilege against God. Our support of Jews must be UNCONDITIONAL no matter what Jews so. If a Jew spits in your face and you hate him for it, you are an 'anti-Semite'.

Such being the case, it has been easy for Jews to destroy anyone just by pointing the finger and shrieking 'anti-Semite' and 'racist'. Of course, Jews have morally paralyzed whites not only by sacralizing the Holocaust but also black slavery. Also, the Narrative says ALL WHITES must carry the burden of 'white guilt' for both Holocaust and Slavery. So, even Swedes and Greeks are thought to be responsible for the Holocaust and even recent Polish immigrants in the US are guilty of black slavery.

But then, this setup works greatly for Jewish power. If Jews only targeted Germans with the Holocaust and only targeted southern whites for slavery, it was be less effective as tool against all white gentiles. It is no wonder that Jews erect Holocaust Memorials even in nations that bear NO HISTORICAL GUILT for it whatsoever.

The Power of Word is most effective when one side is sacralized while the other side(s) is demonized. After all, if Jews and White Christians are equally sacralized, both would feel equally righteous and morally proud. For Jews to have the advantage, they must own sacralization while the other side is smeared with demonization. (Jews now say that the ONLY WAY Christians can be half-way redeemed is by turning over their churches to homomania that is pushed by Jews. So, Christians must adopt cultural decadence to gain an ounce of holiness. It is like telling Alcoholics Anonymous that it must serve whiskey to be good.)

Because Jews are sacralized as the holy people historically victimized by white Christians and the Holocaust, they are to be revered, respected, and worshiped. Because white gentiles have been tagged with 'antisemitism', 'racism', imperialism(never mind Jewish money funded much of Western imperialism), slave trade(never mind Jews played a role in this too and never mind that black Africans had slavery for 10,000 yrs), and etc. they are to be reviled, condemned, and dragged through the mud.

Jews invoke historical justice to promote their Narrative, but it's really about political control over their rivals. After all, Jews are always far more sensitive to the injustice of their enemies and rivals than their allies. We don't see Jews get too tough on Saudi Arabia since it is a defacto ally of Israel. It really comes down to Moral Machiaveillianism.

One of the things Jews FEAR MOST is the loss of moral righteousness. It is that Moral Card that allows Jews to get away with so much foulness without facing criticism. As long as Jews are the holy people and white gentiles are the cursed people, the latter must serve the Jews just like sinful flock is supposed to serve God.

The MAIN REASON for Jewish hysteria about McCarthyism wasn't because things were so bad. Sure, some people got blacklisted but same happened to many during WWII when a whole bunch of suspected Nazi sympathizers were blacklisted or worse. Furthermore, there was the mass-'internment' of the Japanese, something Jewish Liberals didn't protest.

The reason why Jews were so alarmed about McCarthyism and anti-communism is that they knew very well that, despite McCarthyite excesses, there were lots of evidence that a whole bunch of radical and fellow-traveling Jews had aided and abetted Stalin's Empire. Some of these agents went so far as to give Stalin, the killer of millions and occupier of Eastern Europe, the secrets to the atomic bomb. That meant Jews = involvement in Communism... and that opened up a whole new cans of worms about Jewish communist role in the mass killings and destruction in the USSR. In other words, before Nazis did horrible things, European Jews had aided Stalin in doing horrible things that were comparable to Nazi crimes.

Jews would have us believe that McCarthyism was terrifying because... uh... some folk singers and Hollywood writers were blacklisted for a few yrs. (These same Jews were silent about people actually being tortured and shot in Stalin's empire.)

In truth, Jews were terrified of McCarthyism because anti-communism had the power(if used intelligently) to take away Moral Sanctimony from the then-developing Jewish Narrative of Jewish Holiness. Anti-communism could connect Jews with the crimes of communism. As WWII was over and The Cold War pitted US vs USSR, this was bad position for Jews to be in. So, Jews really shat when anti-communism became a huge issue. (If McCarthy had been smarter, he wouldn't have gone after the US military, thereby making Eisenhower turn on him. Going after the military was like Hitler going into Russia. McCarthy got over-ambitious and met his Waterloo.)

Because the anti-communist narrative put Jews on the moral defensive(as participants and agents of murderous tyrannical communism), Jews got extremely hysterical in using all their academic, media, and institutional firepower to reverse the dynamics and put the anti-communists on the moral defensive as 'hysterics', 'paranoids', 'fanatics', 'rabid and virulent', 'anti-civil liberties', and etc.
This is rather amusing since Jewish communists had no use for civil liberties. After all, they were aiding Stalin. And they would eventually cook up PC to silence people with all sorts of accusations. And American Jews fully support EU Laws that silence 'hate speech' that is decided by powers-that-be which is the GLOB.

Ironically, the Jewish Liberal Narrative made anti-communists out to be 'anti-American' while making the Jewish communists and fellow-travelers as American-as-apple-pie for having stood firm in the name of US constitution protecting free speech and right of association. So, the commies were made the 'patriots' while anti-communists were made the 'traitors'. (Using this logic, KKK members who invoke the Constitution to protect their own free speech should be hailed as the greatest patriots.)

Negative association of Jewish Power with Communist Tyranny could have neutralized or at least balanced out the positive association of Jewish Power with the Holocaust. The former would have demonized Jews as the latter would have sacralized Jews. So, Jews would be objects of sympathy but also objects of suspicion and blame. Sure, Jews suffered horribly in WWII, but when they had the power in the USSR they did horrible things too.

That way, Americans could have sympathized with Jews where it was deserving but also could have been judgmental where Jews had done wrong. But because there was only sacralization of Jews while demonization was totally suppressed(by making 'anti-communists' out to be the bad guys while making Jewish radicals and fellow-agents out to be 'patriotic' Americans), there never developed any effective challenge or counterweight to Jewish power that grew and grew.

If there had been the balance of demonization and vilification, we might today look upon Jews the way we look upon Chinese or Russians. We know Chinese suffered horribly under Japanese invasion, and we can sympathize with that. But sacralization of Chinese victimhood during WWII doesn't negate our vilification of them during the Mao era when Chinese acted totally nuts.

Likewise, we can sympathize with Russian suffering and sacrifices during WWII. By some estimates, 25 million Russians(or Soviets) died. But such sacralization doesn't preclude our demonization of Russian craziness under Stalinism. So, we can see the noble side and the wicked side of Russians.

But because Jews have only pushed sacralization of Jews while suppressing any demonization of Jews, we can never accuse or challenge Jewish power.

When we see a Russian oligarch or Chinese oligarch, we can say 'Look at that rich Russian a**hole' or 'Look at that rich Chinese a**hole'. But when we see a Jewish oligarch, we aren't allowed to think 'Look at that rich Jewish a**hole.' We must defer to him as a holy Holocaust person. So, all the Jewish money, influence, and connections(and all their bad corrupt deeds) become sanctified and protected. It has a shield around it like the transparent force shield in PHANTOM MENACE.

Anyway, the Lesson of Power is that the Power of Money and Sword isn't enough. Power of money is just greed and cleverness, of wit and cleverness. It may be impressive but doesn't win reverence.

Power of Sword is thug power or barbarian power. It can be impressive or awesome, but it isn't different from the power of a cage fighter, a bull, a lion, a bear, or Big Boss Man. It is power of brawn.

Combine wit and brawn, and you get gangsterism. Gangsters may have some glamour, but their power isn't righteous. It isn't holy. The Corleones are fun to watch, but they have no moral justification.

In contrast, Moral Power means the power to accuse, condemn, and judge others. It means the king-of-the-hill to preach your sermon on the mount. It is the power of MLK myth, the Mandela cult, the Elie Wiesel show.

Granted, the power of word without money and sword doesn't go very far. Dalai Lama is respected as a Man of Word, but China has the guns and money.

But when a people have control of Money, Sword, and the Word(and the idolatry of Hollywood), that is real power.

So, given the nature of Jewish power, the main objective for counter-semites must be to demonize Jewish history the way Jews have demonized white gentile history. Dig up all the dirt things of Jewish evils. Of course, Jews have rigged the system so that when a Jew digs up bad stuff about white history, that is just research and scholarship, but when a white gentile digs up bad stuff about Jewish history, that is 'antisemitism'.

But white gentiles must push at this until the demonization of Jews balances out the sacralization of Jews.

Now, neither demonization nor sacralization should be eternalist or permanentist. In order words, if Jews did some bad things in some time in history, it mustn't reflect on all Jews at all times. But by the same token, if Jews suffered tragically in some time in history, it shouldn't reflect on all Jews at all times. So, Jews shouldn't be condemned for communism forever wherever there are Jews. But neither should Jews invoke Holocaust to protect themselves as holy victims from criticism forever. But this must apply to white gentiles too.

All peoples have their demon-histories and holy-histories. Sometimes, both are tied together. Much of what Japan did in WWII made it a demon nation. But the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a 'sacral' effect at least on the innocents who died there.

Power Outside Politics. Learn from Jews.

Looking to politics for ultimate power misses the point.

Jews are 2% of the population, and there has never been a Jewish president. But Jews rule this country because they work as a team in controlling the key industries and institutions of America.

Whites need to learn from Jews. Act in unity for identity. Identify or create a common enemy against which white people can come together. Gain power and create networks OUTSIDE politics. Once that has been accomplished, the political gains will naturally follow.
It's like training in the off-season prepares for the performance during the season. The game itself is only the culmination of all the practice away from the playing field.

Black failure hasn't been primarily political. It has been economic, moral, and social. They abused freedom to revert to savage African nature. Blacks have succeeded politically in places like Detroit and Baltimore. But, their political success only led to social failure because blacks are weak in morals, virtues, skills, and knowledge. Outside politics, they succeed in failure.

Emographics than Demographics Has Been the Biggest Hurdle for the Right

It's often been said the demographic tide of Diversity(mainly by immigration) will doom White America, especially the Right. While this may true in states like California, what of all those states with solid white majorities that go overwhelmingly for 'progressive' Globalism? Why do so many whites prefer globalism over nationalism?

It is because they are EMOTIONALLY shaped by the 2-PC's: Political Correctness and Pop Culture.
If White = Right, we are not seeing it in many white-dominant states. Even Iowa went with Obama. And very white Maine and Vermont were among the most pro-Obama states. And as big cities have become more gentrified and whiter, they've also become more globalist. Also, some of the whitest states are importing Somalis for no other reason than to virtue-signal.

So, Emographics among whites than Demographics of Diversity is the real knife in the heart(through the back) of White america. After all, even many white American 'conservatives' fear being labeled 'racist' more than being called a 'race-traitor'.

History and What It Means to be 'American'.

Progs will say that everyone is equal in America. No American is 'More American' than any other American. American-ness is all about citizenship according to the law, not about identity-history-heritage.

But then, how can the ethnic privilege of Indian Reservations be justified? Such special right is accorded to no other group in America. It illustrates how history does matter? It is history that informs us that American Indians were here first and that they tragically lost their homeland to white conquerors and settlers. So, on those grounds, they have given special rights to have their own reservations or 'nations' within the larger nation.

And, could Affirmative Action for blacks be justified without history and identity? Isn't it because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination that blacks were rewarded with special rights in college admissions and hiring? Without that history, there would be no moral justification for Affirmative Action.

So, not all Americans are equal, indeed not even under the law. Given American history, some groups are accorded certain privileges, special rights and recognitions.

Well, if American Indians and American blacks are to be specially recognized for historical tragedy, then one can argue that European-Americans should also be specially recognized for their essential and profound contribution to the creation of America.
Just about every idea and value that were instrumental to the development of America came from Europe. And no people did more to settle, build, and expand America than white people.

So, history matters. It is history that gives Indians and blacks special recognition over other American citizens. And it is history that should give whites or European-American special credit and recognition as the people that contributed most to the creation and construction of America.

Not all American citizens are equally American. If history doesn't matter, a new arrival from Nepal should have same rights as Indians to have a 'reservation' and same rights of blacks to benefit from Affirmative Action. And he should have the same right as whites to make the claim that his forefathers founded and built America.