BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall

by David Yeagley · May 25, 2005 · 34 Comments ·

Perhaps Adolf Hitler was hoodwinked by his own Rorschach-style interpretation of racial realities.

Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychiatrist (1884-1922), is famous for the “inkblot” pschological test (published 1921) which presents an amorphous ink blot before a client or patient, and lets him interpret the blot however he sees it. Some patients see one thing, other patients see another. In the patient’s interpretation of the random blot, he reveals certain things about his personality. So thought Dr. Rorschach.

Rorschach.jpg
Dr. Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922)

An other words, any given phenomenon can be interpreted in wildly different ways.

Inkblot.jpg
A typical inkblot, as the
paper unfolds in halves
.

In Hitler’s infamous book, Mein Kampf, there is a classic example of this kind of interpretation. Hitler made an interpretation (not an objective observation) and completely ignored a basic element in the actual phenomenon he was interpreting. Here’s the story.

“With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl [the blonde, blue-eyed German girl] whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.” Hilter then says not only does the Jew do this individually, but also collectively. “It is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race.” (p.325, Ralph Manheim translation).

The incredibly obvious yet utterly deleted element in this scenario is natural sexual attraction. Integration always means interracial sexual relationships, and intermarriage, and mixed children.

But, aside from that, there are a number of errors in Hitler’s statement. First of all, not all Jews are dark haired and dark eyed, certainly not in the 20th century Europe; but that is a stereotype being employed. Even so, contrasting coloring is often a basic sexual attraction. Exoticism is a normal sexual dimension. It is not a plot of one race to destroy the other. Furhtermore, the plotting race stands to lose as well. Such intermarriage is self-destructive, (despite what Kevin MacDonald may theorize in his Culture of Critique).

“Satanic joy” may have more to do with Hitler’s own accusation than any remote relation to feelings of romance in the Jewish youth when he sees a pretty blonde. That would be a psychological revelation, Rorschach style. The ink blot is the Jewish-German romance, and Hitler sees it as a plot, with satanic joy, to destroy the German race. Instead, it’s probably just boy-meets-girl, in a romance heightened by contrasting colors and culture.

And the Jews certainly did not bring the Negro into the Rhineland. It was French regiments of Sudanese soldiers, brought in to occupy parts of Germany after World War I. Hitler is simply way off the mark of historical fact. To accuse the Jew is baseless, and therefore nullifies even Hitler’s Rorschach interpretation of romance between a Jewish boy and a German girl.

BlackGermanGirl1930s.jpg
Black girl among the Germans, 1930

When a person of one race is romantically attracted to a person of another race, it simply does not prepresent a global plot to destroy that other race. It is simply the natural course of emotional, psychological, social integration. There is no profound motivation, no deep seated design to overcome the world, or even to survive in it.

Now, I must say, American Indians today face racial dilution to the point of annihilation. Integration, intermarriage, pose a real threat to the future of Indian people. We are a minority, we have some land base. We have our culture, our language, our religion, etc. We are separate nations, indeed. But we are being subject to all manner of integration and intermarriage these days, and it simply must come to an end. We have to begin to draw the lines, immediately.

Does this represent a plot to destroy another race? Are the people who are intermarrying with Indians trying to destroy the Indian race? No. They’re just trying to own part of it. Maybe they’re just attracted to Indians.

But it doesn’t matter. Whatever attracts non-Indians to Indians, this is no justification for the destruction of the Indian races. We have the right to preserve ourselves. That’s all it is. Self-preservation.

Romance is subjective, personal, and self-oriented. It is time to take the larger, nobler view. We mustn’t idolize our own emotions, but think rather of the people first. This is the grand vision. We must serve our people, not ourselves.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who will serve his people, all? People first, romance second. Sound a bit barbaric? Sound ever so contrary to the “me” generation of America and the west? America needs to be reminded of the truth: America’s enemies of today do not respect the white race, nor the Judeo-Christian religion, but they do idolize their own race and religion. That precious, political religion in America, with the Leftist “equality” bit, gives our enemies a distinct advantage.

It is not racism to love and preserve one’s race. It is racism to destroy another’s race, intentionally or unintentionally.

Posted by David Yeagley · May 25, 2005 · 11:07 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

34 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Nadine // May 25, 2005 at 7:28 pm   

    Calm down, Doc, it will all work out in the end I believe. (:^)

    Another good article, but why so much focus on the Black race of late? Just curious, as this mantra of yours is ever present. Nice pic, btw, of that little Black girl surrounded by all those white girls.

    Yes, I agree that Indian Country needs to eventually enact a mandate (a moratorium perhaps) stating that whomever marries outside his/her race will be disenrolled. Sounds only fair, especially if our numbers are to grow (power in numbers, you know). Also, individual tribes need to start taking into consideration the fact that many many Indians are composed of several different nations, and this effects their BQ. I say count it all, as long as it’s Indian blood. Anything else, no. Instead, what we are seeing is the total opposite! For instance, I read where the Comanche Tribe lowered their BQ last year from 1/4 to 1/8. For shame! Too many thinbloods/nosebleeds (i.e. 1/8, 1/16, 1/34, et al) are being allowed to vote in tribal decisions that directly relate to themselves & their descendants, and thus we are seeing the lowering of the traditional 1/4 or more BQ. All for their own self-interest, as usual, not caring about the *real people*.

    I say ONLY fullbloods should be allowed to make decisions for the tribe when it comes to BQ. Also, those with less than 1/4 BQ should not be allowed to vote in any decisions affecting the tribe, nor their presence allowed when the Tribal Council meets. JMHO.

    Nadine

  • 2 Jon // May 25, 2005 at 8:52 pm   

    If it is racism to unintentionally destroy another race, then what shall we do with the mixed race people, like me? Undoubtedly they are the fruit of the sin of their fathers and are unclean and unfit to be among humans. Never again! Where would be the humanity in that? What is being created is a new race more attuned to the wishes of the Spirit, a new American race with roots in all traditions. Promoting racial separation invites cultural and lingual separation, and is not in the American ideal.
    The white man of today is not the white man of 100 years ago. If he were, you could not read this, or breathe for long. Neither is the black or Asian man the same. The only people who are the same are the dead, who because they will not acknowledge the present reality, give up their claim to a future.
    It would only be fair that a man’s % of native blood be the % of a vote he has, with a cut off % that once enacted, cannot be changed for several generations. This would have the desired effect without the nasty smell of racism.

  • 3 David Yeagley // May 25, 2005 at 10:02 pm   

    Nadine, and Jon, everyone is paranoid about racism. Nazi Germany and American Negros have been used by the media to dupe us all into thinking that love of race, honor of one’s own, preservation of one’s own, is a crime.

    We need to forget about Nazi Germany, and forget about the American Negro civil rights history, and just see if we can understand race for the simple and innocent thing that it is.

    You’re right, Nadine about last year’s Comanche vote, down to 1/8. I voted against it, of course. It was just more people wanting in on the goodies, the freebees, and probably a lot of grandmothers wanting their grandchildren on the rolls. This can be changed, however. It can be voted back the other way, in time.

    All of us have much, much soul searching to do, and much work to do in preserving our blood lines. This means something to Indian people, but I realize it doesn’t mean the same to other Americans. So, in this case, I part company. I can’t afford to care too much what anyone else things. Indians have to protect being Indian, or we will perish in due time.

    Anyone who says it is racism for an Indian to be thus concerned, is an enemy of Indian people, just like Ward Churchill.

  • 4 MacMutOkee // May 25, 2005 at 11:16 pm   

    First, I want to apologize to everyone one the blog. I allowed my conversation to become childish in the previous thread. Thank you, Wendy, for pointing that out to me.

    Now, Nadine, what you prescribe sure sounds like stern stuff. I always try to re-state the issue in a way that would be relevent to me to see what I can from my view point. Here goes:

    “Yes, I agree that Indian Country needs to eventually enact a mandate (a moratorium perhaps) stating that whomever marries outside his/her race will be disenrolled.”

    Any American that marries a foreigner in the foreign country gives up their citizenship to America (voting rights). Hmm…am I mistaken in thinking that this is the standard with several countries? I do know that a friends son married an Italian and he retains dual citizenship.

    Ultimately, what happens in the Indian Nations is totally up to the citizens thereof. We, on the outside, can only hope that all of you will make good decisions for your growth and prosperity and for good relations with the rest of us.

    On the side, strictly from an observers perspective, is some of the reason (un-stated I assume) for lowering BQ due to the desire to have casinos and more people wanting a “piece of that action”?

  • 5 Nadine // May 26, 2005 at 1:01 am   

    Jon, you have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine (even if neither one meet in agreement). Btw, I speak as the product of a generation of a loooooong line of mixed bloods on BOTH sides of my family (i.e. Indian & white). I’m not a fullbood, but know the importance of such, thus my holding them in high esteem (of course the ones that deserve it, as too many take their status for granted & use it for bad). For instance, I understand why only fullbloods are accorded the privilege of certain things that us mixed bloods are not. It is their right & their privilege, and that’s as it should be, just as the Italian race has such an example when it comes to one being the *Don* of a family (one must be a fullblooded Sicilian; same goes for the Japanese btw).

    Doc, I really & truly hope that you are able to have an influence/a voice within your own tribe (e.g. raising the BQ), and are not stopped by the venomous slander of such people as WN ~ a typical full-blown sellout self-hating Indian, one that has married white, not Indian, and who suffers from the “Rita Coolridge” syndrome (wants his cake & eat it too), meaning working for Indian organizations but having a white/non-Indian spouse by his side (he forfeited this right once he married a non IMHO), thus can *never* be trusted to work for the best interests of the Tribe! Only a fool would trust one such as he. Rather, I admire Quannah Parker, who knowing that he was a half-breed, corrected that by marrying & having children with several different full-blooded Comanche Indian women. And thus was appointed Chief of his Tribe, which was unprecedented, as only fullbloods were accorded this honor. However, he demonstrated his love & 210% commitment to his people. No Rita Coolridge, pimping her Indian wares, but marrying whiteman after whiteman, and showing off her white babies by her side in the process. (:^P

    MacMutOkee, yes, that certainly is part of it (i.e. “wanting the piece of that action from the casinos”). Lol, so many non-Indians think we are rich, which is certainly not the case. However, we do have things that they would love to ‘get in on’ (e.g. land, education, medical care, per capita payments, etc.). Usually only if one lives on the rez btw. Anyhow, this is *sacred* IMHO, as it came at a HIGH COST, meaning our ancestors paid with their b-l-o-o-d these treaties that provide such provisions, which in reality isn’t much (a mere pittance) considering how much was stolen by genocide/trickery/thievery/et al. And thus I do NOT like it when I see these *white Indians* (aka WN) being enrolled members. What a slap in the face to our INDIAN ancestors! >:^

  • 6 MacMutOkee // May 26, 2005 at 9:43 am   

    Nadine, your comments on Quanah Parker sparked my curiosity. I googled him and found this site.

    http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/quanah.htm

    His and his mothers is a very interesting story. I am sorry she didn’t speek about her years with the Comanche. She may have been able to dispell a lot of mistrust.

    Would you call her “Indian” even if just culturally? She apparently married, loved, and was devoted to a warrior who was known for his violent and bloody raids on her own race.

    You stated:
    “I admire Quannah Parker, who knowing that he was a half-breed, corrected that by marrying & having children with several different full-blooded Comanche Indian women.”

    Is he on record as having said, basically, that? I’ve read that polygamy was a tradition among the Comanche. That would be enough to explain why he had many wifes.

    Which brings up something else I’ve pondered. For those among the Indian Nations who seek to re-vive the traditions, would this be one of them? From what I’ve read (can’t remember the name of the book) polygamy was a very deep rooted part of the social structure.

    Small print:
    Yes, I am aware that there are lots of “traditions” in my white background that are best left “un-revived”. Some that probably need to die, even today.

  • 7 MacMutOkee // May 26, 2005 at 10:06 am   

    A quote by Quanah, later in life:

    “Forty years ago my mother died. She captured by Comanches, nine years old. Love Indian and wild life so well no want to go back to white folks. All same people anyway, God say. I love my mother. I like my white people. Got great heart. I want my people to follow after white way, get educated, know work, make living when payments stop. I tell ‘em they got to know [how to] pick cotton, plow corn. I want them know white man’s God. Comanche may die today, tomorrow, ten years. When end comes then they all be together again. I want see my mother again then.” (Neeley 233-234)

  • 8 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 10:18 am   

    This is all terribly interesting, in as much as I know the story. But this is specific Comanche history. This should be discussed on the Indian Dialogue Forum. It will get archived and “lost” here. I’m perfectly willing to take the Comanche concerns there, to that Forum.

    For now, I say that polygamy was not widely practiced among the Comanche at all. Quannah was a bit grandiose about it. This was an ego thing. Again, we can talk about this on the Indian Dialogue forum, please.

    This thread is about the right to preserve one’s race, one’s own, not how or whether Quannah fits into that concern.

    I know things not in Neely’s book, by the way. Besides, I’m another shirt tail relative myself.

  • 9 Orthomom // May 26, 2005 at 2:06 pm   

    This is all very interesting. I can certainly understand and support the need to “preserve one’s race.” I have a friend at church who is Greek. She takes her children to all sorts of Greek festivals and has them learn traditional dances, etc. It’s really beautiful. I actually told her I was envious.

    Why? Because I am a typical American mutt…I can claim Irish, Scots-Irish and German blood and who knows what else. What traditional dances, language, etc am I to teach my children? If I pick just one of these backgrounds, will they be missing something by not knowing the other? There certainly isn’t an overriding “American” culture, at least not one that I’m willing to let my children emulate at this point.

    This is part of the reason I value this website and the forums. I am in my 30′s and I don’t know what it means to be an American. Perhaps I can learn something here. I plan to read more than comment though…isn’t there a proverb about the foolish man appearing wise if he keeps his mouth shut? :)

    We converted to Orthodox Christianity and are teaching our children it’s rich customs and traditions. Here, at least, they have something they can hold onto. Maybe America is just too young yet to have a real “culture.”

    Interestingly and almost on the same topic…I have another friend who is Greek. She traveled back there this summer to visit her mother and found a “China Town” in Athens. This upset her as she feels the Greek culture is being “lost” due to the European Union.

    I would have to agree with her. This is very sad…this loss of custom and traditions. I think we human beings need such. Placing personal value on holding onto them is not racism, at least not in my opinion.

  • 10 Wendy Johnson // May 26, 2005 at 2:16 pm   

    “Are the people who are intermarrying with Indians trying to destroy the Indian race? No. They’re just trying to own part of it.”

    Dr. Yeagley, this is your Rorschach test.

    This is less about race (actually it’s more accurate to say tribes or nations) than it is about blood quotient (a superficial, carnal identity) and ownership (of another person, of land, of wealth and things).

    While persuasive arguments can be made for preserving the integrity of a recently existing group of people (remember that all the tribes and nations of the present day came from larger identities, and before that from Noah’s three sons), for the sake of personal comfort (identity) and practicality (the blood quotient problem put onto Indians by the U.S. government, their conquerors and later agent for adoption into the larger new nation), this should not be looked to as the savior and preserver of the Indian people. It was not race, or tribal identity, that saved and preserved the people in the face of their enemy in recent time past. [Each side thought the other would be destroyed; God overruled us both.] Neither will it be the savior and preserver in the face of the people’s present foe, which appears to be the Left with all of its penchant for treachery against its own government. And consider that the Left is a symptom of what is really wrong in our country today, including in Indian country, that of rebellion against God.

    In reference to your recommendation to put the people first, fine, but I would ask you and all of our country to aim higher: In Mark 9:34-37 Jesus says, “Whosover will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosover will save his life shall lose it; but whosover shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Throughout scripture God constantly disclaims the assertions of the flesh over the realities of the spirit. We need, you need, to preserve yourselves first through faith in Jesus Christ. Then, as Jesus promised those who worry about what they will have in the future, “all these things will be added unto you.” You can safely infer that this goes beyond the food and clothing He was talking about. Remember from your studies that God doesn’t allow any flesh to glory in His presence, so we glory in Him instead. It is a sure thing for us to place “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” like the white forefathers put it, in God, and not trust in the flesh.

    Paul said, “To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Of course, he is talking about the one God’s authorship of life and peace through the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Invest in Indian country, God’s way, and see how He will certainly preserve them and all who put Him first, into eternity.

  • 11 Davie Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 2:27 pm   

    Wendy, I will not let you make Christianity the agent of racial annihilation, or even cultural mutilation. These things are unrelated, but even so, it pans out into a threat, every time.
    That is, the popular application of Christianity.

    Granted, there are customs in this world which never ought to have been. But we can’t through out the baby with the bath water. God created the nations, and it is nations that shall enter the Gates of Pearl.

  • 12 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 2:31 pm   

    Orthomom, what an interesting note to hear from Greece. I have always been a great fan of the Greeks. Living in Connecticut, I haunted Greek restaurants, diners, and even a soccer club once.
    (I wasn’t allowed to play on their team, because I wasn’t a memeber of their church, and also, I wasn’t good enough!).

    Despite the reputation of Alexander and the empire, today’s modern Greek is terribly traditional, to the point of great superstition. I can imagine their horror at the invasion of their islands by the careless world–by careless, I mean the business world, not Christians, Wendy.

    Besides, the Greeks had inculturated Christianity just after the Syrian Jews. They’ve had Christianity a lot longer than Rome.

  • 13 Orthomom // May 26, 2005 at 3:30 pm   

    I am a fan of “The Greeks” myself. When I was a teenager I attended a Greek Orthodox wedding and was so impressed I was convinced right then and there I should marry a Greek boy so I could have that kind of wedding. It’s rather amusing to me that I ended up converting, although to the Antiochian Archdiocese, as an old married lady.

    My lady friend who recently went to Greece is about a generation ahead of me as she already has grandchildren. She attends our parish, an absolutely wonderful woman who loves our children almost as if they were her own, but then that “mediterranean personality” just seems so big and embracing in everyone of them I meet (sorry to stereotype!). This woman is very conservative and does like to maintain traditions. She made our children “Pascha” candles this year as it is a Greek tradition to do so.

    My husband, however, has a co-worker who is Greek, raised Orthodox, even went to Mt. Athos as a child, who ended up marrying someone of a different faith…not even a Christian one. So, perhaps it depends upon the Greek and their level of “Americanization” as to how “superstitious” they might be.

  • 14 Wendy Johnson // May 26, 2005 at 4:00 pm   

    “God created the nations, and it is nations that shall enter the Gates of Pearl.”

    That is true, like I have mentioned at this site: it’s definitely stated in Revelation about those redeemed out of every nation and tongue. But no nation enters presumptuously, clinging to its unmutilated “cultures” (false religion). No individual, for that matter, enters without faith in Christ. This should be of interest to anyone set on preservation of himself or a group of people.

    There is a difference between Christianity and Christ. In Christ, you’ll enter. Without Him, you won’t, and there will be no continuation for that rejecting person or nation, except in judgment. What future is there in that?

    David, I am disappointed that you cannot see this. I have only been at this site for about six months, but I have to say that even with your love for God and the spiritual things you do know, I perceive over this period of time that you have not been born again. I don’t say this for any other reason but amazement. I hope I am wrong, but since you firmly reject scripture that gets in the way of your own will, it’s quite frankly hard to tell otherwise.

    Because I would prefer that the leader of a site not be in an adversarial attitude toward Christ (I don’t mind disagreement with the other posters), I would like to say goodbye, and hope that better things can come for you and wish the others the same as well.

  • 15 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 4:12 pm   

    Wendy, I shall be so bold as to point out, on this site, women who disagree are the first to leave. I cannot manage that. It simply happens.

    The fact that nations of the saved are saved by Christ does not mean that they are to intermarry and destroy cultural boundaries here and now. One thought simply does not follow the other. This is the error of the church. This I reject.

    I don’t see your scriptural foundation for thinking otherwise. Culture is not evil. Sin is evil. God gave us our cultures, along with our races and languages. Why remove them? What does that have to do with Christ?

    We have a Religion Forum, if you wish to discuss what it means to be a Christian, or what it means to be “born again,” or what it means to have faith. These are not synonymous, in my opinion.

    Do you realize what you’ve said? A site leader “averse to Christ.”

  • 16 KPS // May 26, 2005 at 5:27 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    From my Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1983), is this definition of “racism:”

    1. a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

    Notice the word “usually.” This indicates that one does not have to hold “the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others,” to qualify as being a “racist.” Instead, all that is necessary to qualify as a “racist,” using this definition, is to hold “a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures.”

    Now, I would like to, again, ask these few questions:

    1. How do you feel when you are called a “racist?”
    2. Do you believe that you do fit the definition of a “racist?”
    3. Or, do you believe that you are not a “racist?”
    4. Do you believe that the accusations directed at you, of “racism,” are unfair?”

    KPS

  • 17 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 5:53 pm   

    KPS, I noticed your comment a blog or so ago, but never got to answer it. These things move quickly sometimes…

    I would say the abuse of words, by liberals, accumulated in the modern culture, leaves me preferring dictionaires before 1960. The meanings of words have change, due to media usurpation.

    I don’t agree with the definitions given in your 1983 edition.

    When and if someone uses the word “racist,” I simply ask them to express what they mean. They usually don’t have a definite idea at all. It is a negative term. They mean that much. They think it means a negative, harmful attitude toward another race. In their thinking, is has nothing to do with love of one’s own race.

    The idea that love of one’s own means denigration of another is simply a false postulate, in my opinion. I believe love of one’s own is the foundation for respect and love of another’s.

    Power grabbing, based on any kind of foundation, is a thing in and of itself. To think it of it exclusively as a race base is simply not factual. All races have seen too many wars amongst their own kind to validate such a postulate.

    So, my judgement or reaction to the term “racist” when applied to me, is simply one of reserve. I know the people who are using the term mean something other than what I mean. I assume this to be the case, anyway.

    I can’t even use “racialist,” because that has been coined and used already, as a high powered form of ‘racist.’

    People are free to call each other whatever they will. They are free to use words to mean whatever they will. We are all not agreed on the meaning of words, obviously. Dictionaries are more or less swept away in liberal usurpation.

    And for all the ideological, political weakness of France, at least they have an official institution for the preservation of the French language!

    Your questions are direct, but I disavow the basis upon which you ask them. I completely reject the dictionary definition you have offered. Therefore, I simply cannot answer effectively the questions you ask. The questions are ill-formed.

  • 18 KPS // May 26, 2005 at 7:33 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    “The questions are ill-formed”?

    KPS

  • 19 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 7:59 pm   

    Pardon my Freudian style. (A usage in Civilization and Its Discontents, I believe…)

    Ill-formed means they address something that is inaccurately conceived. I reference that 1983 Websters definition of racism. You are asking on the basis of that, and I say, the definition is wrong. Therefore your questions based on it are “ill-formed.” They inquire into that which is not. That’s my opinion.

    Prefectly formed questions, grammatically. Application impossible. I don’t control the meaning of words in the mouths of others, but, I don’t have to respond to them, either. I have told you what I believe about the value of race, and love of one’s own. That’s all that I need to say. The rest is up for grabs. People can say about me what they will. I have no control over that.

  • 20 KPS // May 26, 2005 at 8:08 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    Perhaps you might post your-accepted definition of the word “racism.”

    I ask because I note that you have recently been called a “racist,” on your own website, a number of times. Therefore, it seems a relevant topic to discuss.

    KPS

  • 21 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 8:16 pm   

    Oh, it’s relevant all right. Indeed. I simply refuse to address it.

    Racism is a connotated word. It is innocent, grammatically. A simple adjective. But, the way in which it has been used for the past 50 years bars any sincere discussion of the subject, most of the time.

    I believe in the value of race, and in loving one’s own. That’s all I have to say about it. Any other meanings, vis a vis “accusations,” are simply not within my power to remedy, and therefore not my immediate concern.

    Let us never invalidate or belittle the honor of war and its positive accomplishments. There ARE bad guys in the world. They DO have to be faced.

  • 22 KPS // May 26, 2005 at 9:06 pm   

    Dear Mr. Yeagley:

    You state: “Let us never invalidate or belittle the honor of war and its positive accomplishments. There ARE bad guys in the world.”

    Is not one example of the “bad guys” mentioned in the “Declaration of Independence,” where it states:

    “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

    But, perhaps you don’t agree with the latter portion of that DOI statement? Perhaps you would prefer to refuse to accept the “official version” of those events? Perhaps you would choose to “revise” those events, and present different “truths” about them? Perhaps you might be a “revisionist historian,” just picking-and-choosing the particular history you want revised?

    Perhaps “your” truths are your truths, and all “truths” that disagree with yours are, to you, obviously not truths.

    I just spent about 10 minutes watching a 1930 John Wayne movie called “The Big Trail.” And, during that short time, a wagon train of Whites were fighting off an attacking force of, what the Whites in the movie referred to as, “savages,” which is perhaps a throwback to the American government’s “official version” of such events, described in the DOI.

    Of course, I thought of your last post: “Let us never invalidate or belittle the honor of war and its positive accomplishments. There ARE bad guys in the world.”

    Incidentally, a short time ago, I came across an article about “racial prejudice.” It is called “Prejudice Is Hard-wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study.” And, it states:

    “Contrary to what most people believe, the tendency to be prejudiced is a form of common sense, hard-wired into the human brain through evolution as an adaptive response to protect our prehistoric ancestors from danger.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm

    Racial Prejudice … racism … where will it all lead, eh?

    KPS

  • 23 David Yeagley // May 26, 2005 at 9:44 pm   

    I talk about it in terms of established sterotypes. It’s all part of Gestalt psychology of perception. Racism, prejudice, these are emotion terms, not scientific terms, if I may be so bold as to suggest.

    Now, on your John Wayne concerns, (I use the term metaphorically), I’m not sure what your trying say. I think your trying to get a certain kind of statement out of me, which I’m not going to make, at least not in the way I think you’re asking for it. You can insult me, you can manipulate the terms, but, I don’t see the point.

    When someone is taking what you believe is yours, you resist. This is not prejudice or racism.

    I say this: whatever you have, even whatever you ARE, there is someone waiting to take it from you. These days, they don’t wait long.

    I don’t care anything about names. Call me Savage. I’ve always said that. Whatever suits you. I’m independent from you. You can think what you want. I’ll let you know when and if I “feel” it. What I think of myself is not dependent on what you think of me.

    White people were plenty “savage” toward Indians as well. So what is the point your trying to manipulate here?

    I’m supposed to feel bad because of what white people did? I’m supposed to hate whites? What good would that do me?

    I think all along you’re just fishing to get some statement out of me that you can fully identify as “racist.” If I, an Indian, can be called a racist, by my own admission, then you don’t feel bad about being a white racist. You feel justified.

    These are not the terms in which I discuss things. You’re not in tune with my message, I don’t think. You want to use it for something else. Perhaps there’s a fine line we trace here, but, I’ll never cross it.

    You need to be what you are and do what you do, on your own. Never look for allies. That’s weakness, in these matters. Be what you are. If others follow, it’s because they believe you, not because you solicited them.

    I don’t vote for anyone in these things, either. If you’re not strong enough to be what you are, on your own, you’re not worth even listening to.

    I say things things using “you” in a general sense, as in “one” does this or that. I’m not sure what you’re doing, other than trying to get a statement out of me.

  • 24 Stargazer // May 27, 2005 at 1:33 am   

    Dr. Yeagley:

    You need to be what you are and do what you do, on your own. Never look for allies. That’s weakness, in these matters. Be what you are. If others follow, it’s because they believe you, not because you solicited them.

    It is these kind of statements why I love to follow your blog, Dr. Yeagley. Always something to learn here. Great words, these.

    To KPS:
    I think this discussion on “definition of racism” is a complete waste of time. Dr. Yeagley always says very clearly what he means. May we hear what your opinion is, KPS? Do you not love your own race and nation?

  • 25 Kidist // May 27, 2005 at 8:54 am   

    Orthomom,

    Why did you convert to the Orthodox Church. What was you affiliation before?

    Hope you don’t mind these questions.

  • 26 Orthomom // May 27, 2005 at 1:54 pm   

    Why did you convert to the Orthodox Church. What was you affiliation before?

    I don’t mind, but it is such a loonng story! Here’s a short version…I’ll post a short version on the religion forum at BadEagle. I hate to muddy up Dr. Yeagley’s blog…LOL!

  • 27 Candace // May 29, 2005 at 1:37 am   

    I don’t believe your drive to preserve the blood of the Indian is racist. In fact, I find your pride intoxicating. However, I believe that some of your vision is short sighted. Your DNA is not all that you are. You know this.
    I am white. I am a woman. I loved an Indian man who was killed 13 years ago. Subjective and personal, yes. I didn’t love him because he was Indian. I wasn’t attracted to him because he was Indian. He said he knew from the moment he saw me that I was the one. There were strange things that happened between us, as if we had been here together before. However, bottom line we loved each other because we grew as ONE. I didn’t own him, nor did he own me.
    Blood is worthy of it’s weight. Skin is worthy of its thickness.
    I am not riding on the back of anyone’s bus. It is not my agenda. My point is sometimes great strength comes in unlikely union.
    Sometimes unlikely union wins the war.
    I believe it would be a terrible loss, for the Indian race to bleed into caucasian culture. Yet, there are things sacred and mystical beyond racial preservation. You will continue to think as you do, to try to better your race. The universe will continue to unfold in whatever way it does.

  • 28 jeff // May 29, 2005 at 2:14 am   

    Mr. Y,

    You are a biracial man. Were it not for a mixing of races,” you would not exist. You bear very little resemblance to the black and white portrait of the Native American on your blog.

    As for a previous post of yours in which you say that there is no affinity between Native Americans and “blacks,” I beg to differ. There has been a long history of alliances between Native Americans and blacks throughout the Americas. One needs only look at the history of escaped African slaves who fled into Florida and bonded with Native Americans. The same story occurred in the Caribbean with the Carib natives. Or, in Brazil, escaped African slaves allied and intermarried with Native tribes.

    As the census now shows, the majority of Christians in the United States are Catholic. Latinos, who make up a larger portion of the United States population are of Amerindian ancestry.

    You mention that around 1840, the U.S. population was mainly English/Celtic/Germanic. You miss out on a huge population section: Africans. There were millions of Africans in the United States. As for the Celtic, do you mean Irish or Scottish? If you mean Irish, I think it’s more than fair to say that the Irish were not considered model Americans at that time. You may want to read a book called “How the Irish Became White.”

    Truthfully, your ignorance of science, in particular, basic human genetics is quite sad. All human being originated in Africa and migrated from there to the rest of the world. The only differences amongst the so-called races are minor environmental adaptations: white skin provides for greater absorbtion of sunlight for creation of vitamin D; dark skin protections from solar radiation; tall bodies provide for dissipation of heat; and so on and so on.

    As for your conjecture about White men respecting Native Americans and their fortitude and strength, are you nuts? The majority of white people have horrible stereotypes about Native people. If you went to some areas of Canada (or the U.S.) whites openly joke about druken Indians, etc.

    It’s mind boggling that you suffer so badly, as one person wrote, from Stockholm Syndrome. Instead of viewing whites as individual human beings with flaws and blessings, you deify them into the greatest of the greatest and then tack on Native Americans at their right hand.

    That’s not reality. That’s not, nor has it ever been, American culture.

    Have you not read the statistics of the deplorable state of Native Americans on reservations? The rates of suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic dysfunction, and diabetes is horrific. But, somehow, I’m sure you would blame those conditions on “blacks.”

    Funny thing how the same horrible conditions facing Native Americans are also facing Australia’s and New Zealand’s indigenous people. Of course, you can also look at the respect white men have given to Native Americans in Latin America. Kinda funny how that genocide thing happens all around the world.

    But hey, it was the “blacks” who gave disease infested blankets to Native Americans right? Right after they bought Manhattan for a few beads and sent the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma.

    Oh, that’s right, it was the WASPs who did that and not the “blacks.” Of course it was the “blacks” who after “discovering” the New World and settling on Hispanola decided that if a certain amount of gold was brought to their new masters, the Native American would lose a limb. Of course, this policy resulted in virtual extermination of the Native population, but those “blacks” were naturally a blood-thirsty, greed lot. Oops, silly me, it was white European, Christian Christopher Columbus and company who did all that and not “black” people. In fact, since Christopher and his pals wiped out most of the native population, they had to kidnap enslave Africans (those “black” people you hate so much).

    As for your good friend, Dr. Rushton, he certainly has a high regard for Amerindians. Not. Rushton is funded by the Pioneer Fund, racist organization that has long supported efforts to prove through junk, pseudo science that Amerindians and Africans are subhumans.

  • 29 virginia kay jeffers // May 29, 2005 at 7:16 am   

    i never watched c-span..but yesterdat i did…and i saw you david…my heart stopped in its tracks…you are the most handsome person…and you make sense when you talk…i wish i could talk to you in person…i have a crush on you…well i just finished reading the mirror section…so am i to understand that it is wrong to have feelings for you because it would undermine the indian race..i have liked indians since i was 4yrs.old i am now 62,.my mother is 85.and she favors your mother…she was adopted.parents being hanes and stringfellow…i have a german grandfather and a dutch grandmother…i just wanted you to know these things…if you could email me i could give you my number or my address so we could correspond and i can learn more about you and the indian culture thank you

  • 30 Betty Ann // May 29, 2005 at 1:28 pm   

    “i never watched c-span..but yesterdat i did…and i saw you david…my heart stopped in its tracks…you are the most handsome person…and you make sense when you talk…i wish i could talk to you in person…i have a crush on you…well i just finished reading the mirror section…so am i to understand that it is wrong to have feelings for you because it would undermine the indian race..i have liked indians since i was 4yrs.old i am now 62,.my mother is 85.and she favors your mother…she was adopted.parents being hanes and stringfellow…i have a german grandfather and a dutch grandmother…i just wanted you to know these things…if you could email me i could give you my number or my address so we could correspond and i can learn more about you and the indian culture thank you” Virginia writes

    *I couldn’t help but respond to this post. Virginia, Virginia, Virginia. You fell in love with Dr. Yeagley ~sigh~.

    Betty Ann

  • 31 bluerpearl // May 30, 2005 at 12:39 pm   

    it sadden me to hear you say this…being half of each race myself…and knowing no heriage because of people like you but then again i am a stronger person for it and i am finding my own path though it may be lonely but i have god and that enough for me… i cant speak for the other and isnt love suppose to be the grand package not races…seem to me you might want to look in your heart before you judge other…

  • 32 Ted // May 30, 2005 at 10:06 pm   

    “Yes, I agree that Indian Country needs to eventually enact a mandate (a moratorium perhaps) stating that whomever marries outside his/her race will be disenrolled.”

    What does “disenrolled” mean?

  • 33 Betty Ann // Jun 2, 2005 at 11:40 am   

    “Yes, I agree that Indian Country needs to eventually enact a mandate (a moratorium perhaps) stating that whomever marries outside his/her race will be disenrolled.”

    What does “disenrolled” mean?” Ted writes

    *My goodness…I thought I was bad in contradicting myself…You want Indians or the US government to enact a mandate or even perhaps a moratorium on us!!???? to state if WE marry outside of our race our offsprings and future would be disenrolled and then you ask what disenrolled means? So seriously, are you Ted Kennedy or Ted Turner?

    *So Teddy, why not this….create a US government mandate or moratorium that all people who are not Indian who marries one of us and for the younger ones their offspring will all become a part of Indian country.

    *Or better yet if a white man or woman marries an Indian they have their status as an American citizen taken away and placed within the confinements of a new type of reservation system.

    *Forget the blacks, mexicans and chinese we have no need for them in Indian country. But we do need the white women for labor and our men need them for their own pleasures…the white man we need for sperm banks so we don’t interbreed too much.

    Betty Ann

  • 34 va holt // Jun 3, 2005 at 12:43 am   

    Dr. Y,

    “It is not racism to love and preserve one’s race. It is racism to destroy another’s race, intentionally or unintentionally.”

    I pulled that last line from your commentary. I can’t help but agree with you – There is a small community of Jews living in Italy that had to send out for more Jews. Their gene pool was getting too muddy. Are they being racist’s? No way – they just needed to have their community to survive.

    It is extremely natural – if not genetically driven – to want to continue your blood line. When a culture is at stake – all stops need to be pulled out.

    When the Nazi’s were getting rid of the less than desirable people (Jews, Gypsy’s, mentally retarded, mentally ill, etc.) family’s were shipping their kids to anyone who would take them. They shipped them to America and to England never to know what happened to them – their need to continue their lineage and culture/traditions went past their personal pain and sacrifice. They were willing for their kids to be raised by Catholics in hopes that atleast they would survive and G-d willing would return to their old traditions.

    It is a romantic notion for many individuals to marry a Native American. I can’t speak to whether or not they kept the traditions alive for their children because the few Native People I have met along the way seem to have the same cultural involvement I have. I do realize that most people don’t discuss their traditions outside of their group – I know I don’t discuss mine

    The Jewish and Indian Communities have something very powerful in common. It is the narrative tradition. If this cannot be protected, who will tell the stories of the hero’s of the past?

    I don’t quite understand the “enrollment cancellation” point of view. If a tradition can be taught to a young person – thus insuring that the memories of the past are handed down – does it really matter what appearance that child has?

    Is it a need to have oneself mirrored? Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the continuity of looking like others within your world. Helps to feel that you belong.

    I also know what it is like to have two traditions. At times you can feel less connected outside of your immediate family. That larger connection is extremely important -

    Once again….thank you all.

    V

You must log in to post a comment.