BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Op-Ed Column

My Father’s Dragons: Jews, Blacks, and Indians

by David Yeagley · July 19, 2009 · 41 Comments ·

“Niggers and Jews are ruining this country!” my father vehemently proclaimed some forty years ago.

We were doing dishes one Sunday afternoon, he washed, and I dried. Such times often occasioned serious discussion when I was growing up.

“Isn’t that what Hitler said?” I responded.

My father had to smile, being busted by his teenaged son, so to speak. He quickly put Hitler in proper perspective.

“Well, you don’t have to be a maniac about it.” But then he added, with serious comedy, “But I sure understand why he felt like he did!”

My father was born August 29, 1914, in Ohio—Defiance, in fact. His father’s family was originally from Connecticut, with important English ancestry. His mother was German, with grandparents from Munich. So, my father was a rather classic White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is the man who came out to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma during WWII and married an Indian woman—a Comanche, indeed, and my beloved mother.


My father, the young draftee at Ft. Sill, OK.
PFC Ned C. Yeagley, who refused to become
an officer, despite the Army’s hard hounding.

Whatever inconsistencies there may have been in him, he had the highest IQ on record at Ft. Sill, at that time. (And he claimed he was seriously hung over the day of the test.) He had therefore very high expectations for his very talented sons.

In later years, as it became evident that we would not fulfill his dreams for us, he was more and more open about his view of Indians. He finally concluded that the reason we failed was precisely because we were Indian.


My father’s young Indian girlfriend, Norma,
whom he married January 25, 1946; later,
she gave birth to me, their second son.

He once asked me and my older brother, Fred, if being Indian had caused us problems in life. Fred was silent. But I pronounced bravely and defiantly, “Not that I know anything about!” I was in complete and utter denial. (Fred told me later that he was in fights almost every day in high school. He didn’t like being teased about being Indian. He knocked the daylights out of just about everyone he knew, at one time or another. Of course, I was the sickly kid, with cancer and classical music to preoccupy me, so I didn’t have quite the passion for fighting my football-playing older brother did.)

Our response was not what my father really wanted, but, he continued.

“Well, I want you to know, I’m sorry.” He was sorry for the fact that we were Indian. At this remark, I was silent, too.

I can remember when we were teenagers, my father was complaining to me about his disappointments in Fred, and yelled, “He’s a dumb Indian!” I know he thought I was too, but, since I was listening, he spared me the same words.

It’s like he thought we were simply incapable. We didn’t have it in us to be what he thought we should be. In our adult years, our elderly father made known this assessment.

As a child, I thought being Indian meant we were supposed to be better than everyone else, better athletes, smarter, and even morally superior. We always were. But, later in life, these distinctions were not so clear.

My father was acutely aware of my Jewish connections. As a teenager, I was a noted classical pianist. In those days, Jewish people were the only ones pushing classical music in Oklahoma City. My father continually teased me about my Jewish friends. He even had Fred teasing me, too.

When I became involved with the black “community” at Oberlin College, my father was even more disturbed. I attended a small black church in Oberlin the entire four years I was there: the Park Street Seventh-Day Adventist Church. I’ll never forget it. I consider it to this day one of the most positive, formative experiences of my life. “Quit mooching off those niggers,” my father said. He was disgusted. I never told him about later years in Connecticut when, in social work, I was deeply involved in the lives of troubled young black youth.

Not long before Fred died (January 6, 2000), Fred expressed his disdain for my Jewish affinities, reprimanding the Jewish efforts for black people as something vain and pretentious. “The Jews are just trying to justify their own existence,” he said.

“No,” I said,” they’ve chosen to reach out to help the most needy, the lowest of the low. It is a noble intent.”

As most of my family conversations, that one didn’t really go anywhere. I cite these memories now for the simple purpose of demonstrating the fact that I did not inherit my thoughts. I chose them—under great duress. I earned my freedom.

Posted by David Yeagley · July 19, 2009 · 12:05 pm CT · ·


Tags: Jews · Negro Race · Op-Ed Columns · Race · White Race




Read More Op-Ed Columns »

41 responses so far ↓

  • 1 beakerkin // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:14 pm   

    Doc

    Your father was a product of a very different era.His era was the progressive era where man thought it could remake society via social engineering and create a Utopia on earth. Communism, Fascism, Nazism and the far left progressive movements share a common lineage.

    He was obviously enlightened enough to fall in love with a Comanche woman. Yet he was vulnerable to the thoughts of the world around him.

    You lived a very different life and your experiences belong to you. You had the wonderful examples in your educational travels
    to meet scholars from different places.

    All of us go through a time where we feel like outsiders for one reason or another. We go on a journey of intellectual freedom and find ourselves. However, through life we continue to grow lest we stagnate and become a cartoon.

    We take pride in our heritage, but this pride does not mean we denigrate the next group. You became an Adventist and expanded your horizons. You got a degree from an Ivy institution and are still growing.

    The bigotry of some is often emulated from the environment. Thomas Sowell points that ebonics is not Black. It is traceable to the poor white folks that the freed Blacks lived amongst. I am starting to wonder if some of this bigotry in this forum from Indians has a similar origin.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Jul 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm   

    I always figured the old Negroes actually spoke “Southern.” I mean, who taught them English?! I’ve heard some native Alabamans…

    Great point about the “savage” Indian thing. Think it’s a projection?

    Nah. I want it for Indians! Ha! It’s ours! We paid the bigger price.

  • 3 beakerkin // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm   

    Doc

    You need to look at some of the critiques of ebonics. We assume that the name Shaniqua is somehow African. This comes as a great amusement to a Ghanaian coworker who has never hear of this. It turns out Shaniqua has nothing to do with Africa it means little Shan and that name comes from the UK not Africa.

    It is natural to emulate the people you are around. In your case in Education you encountered many Jewish role models. A culture that values learning and intellectual debate would be appealing to a scholar.

    Sadly much of the bigotry appears to be emulation of the values off the poor folks that Indians often lived next to. There is no rational
    reason for Indians to hate Jews as there is no meaningful history between the groups.

  • 4 David Yeagley // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:28 pm   

    Well, why have no Southern American, or New England Americans–or any other group of Americans, ever spoken “ebonics”? The “iqua” bit sounds a lot more French to me than Brittish.

    I’d say the most meaningful moment in the history of American Indian/Jewish relations whas when Ulysses S. Grant appointed Dr. Herman Bendell, a Jews, to the position of Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Arizona Territory, 1871. Grant thought that a non-Christian might have a more objective concept of Indian custom and religion, and be able to understand how to communicate with them. Christians were more or less against any Indian cultural identity back then.

  • 5 beakerkin // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm   

    Doc

    Many of the poor whites were Scots and French.

    Patios languages are not limited to Blacks. There are several Jewish examples notably Yiddish and Ladino. Haitian Creole and Africaans were similar types of patios.

    The thinking is that persecuted sub groups created sub dialects as a survival tool. There might even be Indian English mixes somewhere?

    The hostility to Jews and by some to Blacks was likely caused by the proximity to poor whites. The only Jews most Indians likely encountered was an odd trader. This would place some of it in Sowell’s Middle Man Merchant hypothesis. The author points out the hatred of Chinese in Indonesia and Indians and Lebanese in Africa are very familiar to our own hatred of Jews.

    Sowell is a brilliant writer.

  • 6 CDIB // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm   

    The Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, does it?

  • 7 David Yeagley // Jul 19, 2009 at 5:44 pm   

    Beak, I know of no Gaelic dialect, nor any French dialect (or Catalenese) that remotely resembles anything like ebonics. You’re giving way too much credit to an Africanized English of some kind. I acknowledge ethno-linguistic evolution. But, let’s let blacks be black.

    Furhthermore, in his desire to transcend being black, Sowell disdains Indians, like many whites. Maybe it is subtle, but I see it plain as day. I’ve written about this. Many blacks, especially educated ones, feel superior to Indians. This is laughable to Indians, of course. Indians with pride, that is. Indians who are concerned about preserving what’s left of us.

    I sense you’re automatically taking the same position. This is unacceptable to me. I care deeply about black people, but they are no part of Indian people It is a grave, white racist error to lump blacks in with Indians. Everyone does this. (Ann Coulter didn’t do it, however.) It seems automatic, here in America.

    I hate this. I despise this. This is racism. I’m not saying you’re doing this. But, I’m saying please don’t do it! Be careful not to do it.

    No one feels responsibility toward the Negro like the Jew does. No one shares that psychological commitment. I appreciate it, but, just leave Indians out of that mix, please.

    I despise most Negro thinking and Negro behavior. It is slavishly dependent, parasitical, and weak. This is the antithesis of the Indian spirit. However, I do love a lot of Negro people. That’s a fact. I guess that’s a different subject, actually. I still haven’t really written on black folks, yet.

  • 8 beakerkin // Jul 19, 2009 at 6:27 pm   

    Doc

    I do not know how much of Sowell you have read.However, as someone who has read his works they speak of wider world wide concepts. They deal with global patterns and show that our situations in America are not unique.

    The writings of Sowell would agree with your thoughts about the behavior. However, his approach is from another perspective. Sowell points out the corrosive influence of government and a culture.

    Actually, nobody I know of despises Indians. They brag of the 1% connection with the greatest pride.

    Maybe Indians would be better off if they were portrayed as the folks next door. Are we as a society ready for a show about an Indian business owner with real relatives who are truck drivers and teachers?

    The Indian represents man’s attempt to live free
    in American popular culture. In real life Indians worked very long hours to survive. He was a foe that was respected and feared. He is the all knowing shaman and she is the wife of his dreams.

  • 9 Sioux // Jul 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm   

    I believe that the Jews feel an affinity with African Americans due to a shared slave status– Jews were in bondage throughout history. Too bad they were so bamboozled by the elitist Imposter half-breed Barry Soetoro who shares nothing of this slave experience. Barry is probably as prejudiced as Doc’s Dad considering some of the remarks he made about the ACORN workers he was trying to organize in Chicago. He has no regard for his own family members in Kenya – doesn’t help them, but wants me to pick up the tab.

    Ebonics helps keep the White man from really knowing what’s going on in the inner city – pity the poor kids who can’t take a test because they don’t hear the white man’s words nor do they want to speak it. They don’t care what you think either.

  • 10 David Yeagley // Jul 20, 2009 at 7:30 am   

    Beak: Maybe Indians would be better off if they were portrayed as the folks next door.

    Interesting thought, Beak. However, it is the antithesis of Indianism. Most non-Indian people have no idea of what it means to an Indian to be Indian. Few people love their own race or ethnicity as Indians love ours.

    I must tell you, I would expect the Jews to understand this more than any other. Of course, the whole purpose of Communism, according to Horowitz’s version, was to “hide” the uniqueness of the Jew–to avoid persecution. It was precisely to put the Jew into the mold of the “folks next door.” This is when Horowitz parted ways (among other reasons.) If there are no nationalities, no specialties, no recognizable difference, the Jew would be safe. Communism is actually anti-Semitic, ironic as that sounds to some.

    No, I believe in preserving nationality, race, and ethnicity. This is my position. Sowell couldn’t care less about this. And even if you say things that might imply the same, I don’t think you really believe it!

    “Fighting Sioux” forever! That’s the battle cry of all Indians.

  • 11 kschwantz // Jul 20, 2009 at 9:39 am   

    This was a very very interesting Article Doc, Telling I suppose, although I haven’t quite been able to pin down why. I supposed because it indicates, rather than explains…

    The first few lines made me think of a biography about Stanley Kubrick the Film Director. I read that one of the funniest things he heard said was that, “America would be much better if every black person could be persuaded to swim back to Africa, with a Jew under each arm!” According to the bio he repeated that to all his jewish friends until they thought he was mental… Being Jewish himself.

  • 12 David Yeagley // Jul 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm   

    Ah, but American Negroes far outnumber American Jews! Not enough to go around.

  • 13 David Yeagley // Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm   

    I remember once my mother said that the reason I loved Jews and Persians is because they were the only ones with enough brains to appreciate me! What mothers say to their sons! The Lord bless mothers.

  • 14 bops // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm   

    Did you ever ask your father why he felt the way he did about Jews and niggers, why he felt they were ruining the country? Did he ever explain why he felt you were “mooching”?

  • 15 CDIB // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:38 pm   

    Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released by the National Archives.

    “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

    “You believe that?” Nixon says after the “stranglehold” comment.

    “Yes, sir,” Graham says.

    “Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

    “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

    Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

  • 16 David Yeagley // Jul 20, 2009 at 1:54 pm   

    CDIB: Is that Graham tape on the internet?

    Bops: As far as I can tell, my father’s opinions were based on his own personal experience. He had six years of college, but never got a degree. He was in Defiance College at the age of 15. He said he never could decide what he wanted to do, professionally. He was an accountant, and even worked for the government.

    I don’t think he read anything that influenced him particularly. He never spoke of any such readings. He did speak of his personal experiences.

  • 17 CDIB // Jul 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm   

    Tapes are in the Nixon Library.

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090625/new-nixon-tapes-include-phone-call-with-billy-graham/index.html

  • 18 David Yeagley // Jul 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm   

    Well, these things must be stated very carefully. To say there are some Jewish men who have created large pornography industries is not a false statement.

    But neither do I see it as an anti-Semitic statement. It depends on what a person intends by the statement.

    If you intend that all Jews should be, what, returned to Russia, Israel, or wherever it is they came from, then I’d say that’s anti-Semitic. If it is simply a statement of fact, I certainly concur.

  • 19 beakerkin // Jul 20, 2009 at 4:56 pm   

    Nixon must be judged on his actions not these moments of stupidity. In the 1973 war his administration ( Al Haig) turned the tide of the battle by supplying TOW missiles and resupplying
    Israel,

  • 20 CDIB // Jul 20, 2009 at 9:17 pm   

    Nixon Archives

    BTW- Since when is the act of speaking not an action? Or do you mean gestures or maybe accomplishments?

    These are the words that came directly from the mouths these gentlemen and one of these guys knew he was recording this conversation.

  • 21 beakerkin // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:38 am   

    Actions speak louder than words. Nixon was more
    complicated than presented. Anyone familiar with
    his writings knows he was way brighter than Clintoon.

    His actions in the 1973 war are the true measure of his thoughts. When the chips were down he did the right thing.

  • 22 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 8:33 am   

    CDIB, out of curiosity, let me ask, Are you Indian? (Not that any kind of ID can be any too trusted on the internet…) I assumed that you were black, from the beginning, because of your “CDIB” handle. All Indians know that means Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood. On the internet, there are so many black people who pretend to be Indian. “CDIB” seems kind of obvious.

    But, if you are any Indian at all, what is the bases of your disposition against Jewish people? Personal experience? Prejudice? What? What have Jews ever done with, to, (or for) Indian people? Why would any Indian have a disregard for the Jews? I’ve never understood this. What is the basis? It is an obviously and extremely un-Indian or non-Indian basis.

    This is another reason I assumed you were black. Or, at least non-Indian.

    No offense indended on my part. You are the one who seems offended–at Jewish people. I’m just asking why.

  • 23 whitetrash // Jul 21, 2009 at 9:51 am   

    >> Nixon was more
    complicated than presented…. His actions in the 1973 war are the true measure of his thoughts. When the chips were down he did the right thing.<<

    Did the right thing for whom? Israel? American Jews? Or America? This is the kind of thinking among Jews and non-Jews alike that puzzles me. I don’t see how affection for, or hostility toward Israel reflects one’s disposition toward Jewish Americans. I love loyal Jewish Americans and am grateful for their contributions to this nation, but I regard Israelis as over-rated, arrogant punks. My point is Nixon’s support of Israel means nothing to me if he was hostile toward Jewish Americans.

    I don’t see how affection or hostility toward Israel reflects, for bettor or worse, one’s disposition toward Jewish Americans. I have no affection for Israel at all. I consider it to be an illegal and arragant state, but I have affection for American Jews, even if the support Israel, so long as their first allegieance is to America.

  • 24 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 10:53 am   

    Now that’s interesting. What is illigitimate about Israel that isn’t illigitimate about any other country? Every country was established by force, maintained by force, and invested in force. What’s different about Israel?

    The accomplishments that have come out of that little country are relatively astonishing.

    The idea that the world would be at peace if there were no Israel is the delusive ire of the Arab world. When Iraqis kill other Iraqi’s, blame Israel. When hired Arabs kill Iranians in Tehran, blame Israel!

    I don’t know if you can picture yourself surrounded by a billion Arabs–all of whom hate your very existence, and then wonder why Israelis seem like “arrogant punks.”

    But the distinction between Jews and Israel is a valid point. There are many Jewish web sites dealing with that very issue: Jew first, then Israeli, or Israeli first, then Jewish?

  • 25 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 11:22 am   

    By the way, here is a typical example of precisely the kind of behavior of the Negro which earns disdain.

    Top black scholar arrested in Mass., claims racism

    Charges dropped against black Harvard scholar

    This cocky man’s behavior brought this on. He is a typical, “affirmative” disgrace.

  • 26 whitetrash // Jul 21, 2009 at 11:32 am   

    >>Now that’s interesting. What is illigitimate about Israel that isn’t illegitimate about any other country? Every country was established by force, maintained by force, and invested in force. What’s different about Israel? <<

    That’s a very good point. I really don’t have a comeback for that one.

    My main point is that dislike of Israel does not imply dislike of Jews, especially American Jews. That’s why I am puzzled that Beakerkin would conclude that Nixon’s support of Israel negates Nixon’s remarks about American Jews. I would suspect Nixon was fine with Jews as long as they don’t have influence in America. If I was an American Jew, I’d have a real problem with that.

    I find it very easy to enjoy and admire Jews in America while disliking Israel. The problems with Israel aren’t really about Jewish issues anyway. It’s about land.

  • 27 Troy // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:18 pm   

    I’m a little perplexed as to the knee jerk defensiveness of Bearkerkin’s take on the fact that Richard Nixon and Billy Graham held antisemtic views. I don’t mean any disrespect Beakerkin, but your take almost is sorta robotic. I mean, here you have two important figures in U.S. history (a president to boot) saying flat out that Jews are pretty much anti-American, looking only to control our media, politics, and financial institutions and you don’t bat an eye. Is the fact that these two fools supported Israel for selfish, politically expedient reasons all that matters to you?

    Could I say horrible things about Jews and say I’m happy that they almost were extinguished in the Holocaust and before that in the Middle Ages, provided I supported Israel as the lesser of the Middle East evils?

    Mr. Yeagley, I am also unsure why CDIB is black in your eyes. No offense but that seems not only a knee jerk reaction, but purposely brought up to avoid what they posted. Not everyone that disagree with you is automatically a black or antisemtic, though it’d be nice to able to organize the world in such a neat and tidy way. You’re like Beakerkin on this point. You’re willing to give a free pass to people that say antisemtic things so long as they support Israel? Do the reason for supporting them matter, like maybe Bill Graham and other fundamentalist dispensationalists seeing Jews as a necessary expedient to get to the end times and nothing more? Lastly, how is CDIB (weird name) being antisemetic? I think they’re just pointing out how the right supports antisemtics just as much as the left, albeit in different ways and that Jews like Bearkin are gleefully supportive of it so long as Israel gets supported at any and all costs.

  • 28 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm   

    Troy, I’ve had a lot of experience on the internet with so-called “Indians.” Many, many people like to fake it. They often think up grand Indian names, only to hide their real status. Perhaps you’re wholly inexperienced and unaware. Trust me. Many people try to be on the internet what they cannot be in real life.

    Talk about knee-jerk reactions. Do you really think Jews are out to control America? And this is a bad thing, if it is true? I mean, do you think Jews are anti-American, inevitably? I don’t have such a reference in my personal experience. Perhaps you do. I’ve never heard any Jew say this–as a Jew, or as an Israeli. I find that Communists have said it. Some Jews were Communist, yes.

    But, beyond this, I think you’re overblowing the case. Also, I must add, I have no evangelical understanding or expectation of Israel, or of Jewish people. I know that’s popular, but it is not, nor has ever been, part of my theology or eschatology. My regard is strictly personal.

    Sounds like to me you’re condemning Jews for their survival techniques.

  • 29 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm   

    I do realize that some people find a profound inconsistency in my position as a American patriot and my affections for Jewish people. I don’t feel this, but I know others do.

  • 30 Troy // Jul 21, 2009 at 3:22 pm   

    Mr. Yeagley, you misunderstand the reasoning behind my post. I have no problem with Jews or with Israel. In fact, I personally respect that country amidst so many cruel, murderess countries in the Middle East. My point is that many American Jews and yourself seem out to lunch when so-called conservatives say and commit acts of antisemitism. So long as they support Israel, again for less than benign reasons, you guys are fine with it. That’s not logical nor consistent thinking. I get the impression that Beakerkin would give a pass to a serial killer or someone that tortures animals, provided they supported Israel in some fashion.

    Furthermore, while I’m not an expert on Indian related matters, I still don’t see why you automatically assume that CDIB is black. Who knows his race or if he/she is Indian, but to go with “must be black” is quite peculiar. I guess your post here demonstrates a continuity between your upbringing and views of skin color and such. From my outsider point of view, you seem to only like nonwhites that emulate your values and beliefs. To the extent that they don’t, your go back to viewing them as your father did. Am I accurate on this point? At least it seems so to me. From what I’ve read so far, you seem to mirror your father’s disdain for every race other than whites and Jews. In any event, that’s your prerogative.

    Again, I have nothing against Jews or Beakerkin. In my opinion though, I refuse to put them above absolutely any other race of human beings. Period. If not treating or viewing Jew as exceptional is antisemetic, then what? I go about assessing them like I do anyone else on this planet. Some are great, others are assess. Same with Israel. I do see much of their Biblical history as on par with most other ancient peopels–namely that it’s not historically accurate but gives a people a sense of who they are and how they came to be. Again, most of it never ever happened as it’s written in the bible anymore so than with other ancient peoples. But to come across as if anyone that supports Israel is okay while perhaps harboring hatred of actual Jewish individuals is bizarre and inconsistent.

    Also, no offense, but unless you yourself are Jewish, what makes you think you have a scintilla’s worth of business claiming what constitutes antisemitism?

  • 31 beakerkin // Jul 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm   

    Here we go again

    Nixon was far more complex than presented and his actions towards the Jewish community are not reflective of those remarks. The support for Israel at a key moment offsets those stupid remarks. The support for a Cold War ally without using any troops was a stoke of genius.

    Nixon stupid remarks were unfortunate but other than Ronald Reagan he was the most pro Israel president ever. Monica Crowley worked for him as an intern and never heard any of this stuff. It did happen but he was a war
    time President acting in the manner President’s acted.

  • 32 David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 7:55 pm   

    You make strong points, Troy, to me. I must point out to you, though, I am not a skin-ist. Just because someone is non-white, I don’t automatically hook up with them. That’s precisely racist. I am an independent thinker, I hope.

    I don’t, moreover, believe Indians are to be identified with other skins. Indians are completely separate and independent, or should be. We lose, again and again, when we allow ourselves to be associated with hispanics or blacks, or Asians, or even south Americans. This is grave error, I believe.

    We are the great skin. Everyone wants a piece of us. I’m jealous for Indians. I won’t share one drop of our honor.

    But, you are right about the anti-Semitic thing. I have no authority on that matter. It is likely I have brought a head-ache or two to Jewish people, notwithstanding my personal regards.

    My regards are based on the Bible, I must say. It is natural, to me. It isn’t really based on experience, although I have had much, with Jewish people.

  • 33 rebnatan // Jul 31, 2009 at 11:36 am   

    Why do people hate Jews?:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI5ZjY2NTk3YWU2Yzk3NTk5ODliYmNjYjMxOTBjZDk=&w=MA==
    Choosing the Chosen People
    Anti-Semitism is essentially hatred of capitalism and excellence.

    KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What’s the Israel Test and who is administering it?

    GEORGE GILDER: Do you admire and emulate excellence and accomplishment, even if it excels your own? Or do you envy and resent it? And try to tear it down?

    That’s the Israel Test and it is administered by cosmic law — the law of capitalist success: The good fortune of others is also one’s own. The people who admire and emulate excellence thrive. Those who resent and envy it gnash their teeth and tear their hair and never accomplish anything worthwhile.

    You can see the Israel Test play out in the Middle East and in Washington….

  • 34 Clytemnestra // Aug 1, 2009 at 10:50 am   

    I’m new to this board. I am White without a drop of Indian blood that I know about. I just thought I would let the board owner know that Indians are admired the world over as great warriors, free spirits, and resistance fighters.

    I thought I would share a childhood memory with your readers. My tenth summer in 1967, we had moved from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada to Tucson, AZ. In Ottawa, we had lived in a neighborhood surrounded by foreign embassies and made friends with people from many countries. One family came down to visit us and the only thing they were curious about was Old Tucson where the western series, High Chaparral, was being filmed.

    The highlight of the trip for them was meeting the Chiracuhua Apaches who worked as extras at the time. They were thrilled beyond belief to actually meet and be photographed with Nino Cochise (who played his grandfather, the great Chief Cochise whose guerrilla warfare tactics are still being studied at West Point).

    You see, our friends were from Punjab, India. Their country had had their own run-ins with Anglo colonialism and the exploits of the Amerinds were already well-known to them.

    I have to admit that Nino didn’t interest me that much, because he struck me as a very old man with one leg and I was too busy happily splashing in the shallow end of the pool, ogling all the nice looking young male Indian extras. They were gorgeous.

    In any case, as I grew older, I have found that the Amerinds have struck a chord within me. I see a lot of parallels between them and Europeans. The Picts painted their faces and engaged in savage batttles against the invading Romans, for example. Like America, Europeans also engage in a lot of tribalism, even to this day, I saw a flame war between a German vs a Pole on one board, revisiting that old Teuton vs Slav divide.

    In any case, people the world over identify with the Amerinds as a symbol of freedom, resistance and defiance against an oppressive force which was only made formidable by superior technology and resources at hand. It is not hard to imagine oneself in such a situation and ask oneself how one would counter such overwhelming odds in such a position.

    As for Jews, historically they don’t have a reputation of playing nicely with the other kids in the sandbox. They have been kicked out of different countries throughout the centuries for good reason. However, I have big problems with Antisemites, because they scapegoat the Jews rather than taking responsibility for their own culpability in the destruction of their culture. Most abortion clinics and porn shops are owned by Jews, but are patronized by the very populations complaining about them. It’s a paradox that I have no use for.

    As for Israel, God bless her, but the United States would be far better off if she had heeded George Washington’s advice about avoiding entangling alliances, staying out of the internal affairs of other countries, and simply doing business with whoever is in charge.

    I agree with your belief that the Ashkenazi Jews have the same right as other peoples to invade and take over territory to create a nation. However, they have no right to expect other countries to aid them in this endeavor. I want to scream and throw something at the television every time an American politician has to get on camera and swear allegiance to Israel. To me, Israel has no more or less a right to exist than any other country and America has no business giving Israel preferential treatment.

    Part of being a sovereign nation is the ability to independently defend one’s borders, language and culture. America is so preoccupied with defending Israel’s, that she has neglected her own.

  • 35 rebnatan // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm   

    “As for Jews, historically they don’t have a reputation of playing nicely with the other kids in the sandbox. They have been kicked out of different countries throughout the centuries for good reason.”
    What pure Antisemitism! blaming the victim again. Dr. Yeagley, although you have a close relation with Jews, your board has become a magnet for Jew-haters, apparently from a variety of races and ethnicities.

  • 36 imarealndn // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:53 pm   

    David Yeagley // Jul 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Troy, I’ve had a lot of experience on the internet with so-called “Indians.” Many, many people like to fake it. They often think up grand Indian names, only to hide their real status. Perhaps you’re wholly inexperienced and unaware. Trust me. Many people try to be on the internet what they cannot be in real life.

    You would have since ur one of them.This whole history of you is just plain bullshit! The only true statement you have said is “Many people try to be on the internet what they cannot be in real life.” You have no concept of what it means to be an indian. A piece of shyte you are.

  • 37 Yochanan // Sep 19, 2009 at 5:39 am   

    Hi,
    I just happened by this site. Very interesting.
    My wife is part Maliseet, I have a Passamaquoddy brother-inlaw, neices, and one Penobscot Nephew.
    Interestingly, my people on my fathers side were most likely Hebrews, and originally came from Lithuiania, and fled from Czarist Russian occupation just prior to the Revolt. My mother is French (landed in Canada 1600′s), so who knows what is in this side?
    My father has 3 birth certificates with different names, and told me we were most likely Jewish prior to their coerced Roman Catholic conversion, (please release the forced conversion records mr. pope).
    I find it fascinating that I have noticed that there are quite a few Hebrews who marry those of American Indian descent?

    Also, There was a genetic study a couple years back on Mitochodrial DNA (California), which showed that not all American Indians crossed the Siberian land bridge. Some had Eastern European and Middle Eastern genetics (it was determined this was centuries prior to colonization).
    So maybe Dr. Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis University (Boston) was really correct about ancient Hebrew traders coming to America?

    Blessings

  • 38 pipsav // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:59 pm   

    racism is a matter of intent, for sure. my intent in the following comment, then,is intended to honestly reveal my own, and only my own, informed opinion of the Jews’ role in bringing down trouble on their people.

    first, one must distinguish between Abraham, the first Jew and the organized religions that claim Abraham as their ancestor. Organized religion does not allow one to follow Abraham, who was a Chaldean dissenter whose method of getting out of imperialism was to follow the leading of his Maker and his Maker only. This dedication was tested repeatedly, accordingto the Abraham tales, and sometimes he passed them and sometimes he didn’t. But his overall trajectory was this personal following “out of Empire” into a “land that I will show to you”, said his Maker and Guide, according to the story.

    No Jews, Christians or Muslims that I know of follow Abraham today but stay IN the empire and compromise the role of their Maker to the “authorities”, whom I view as criminal.

    Secondly, Judaism is a religion not a race. And Jews are only one branch of “Semites” or “Shemites”. Many Semites are non-Jews. Today one can become a Jew by simply “converting”. One cannot become an Indian by “conversion”, although it is true that I am more Indian in my point of view than many Indians I have known. This fact does not make me an Indian. Although I may have some Indian blood in my “mongrel” mix. And I am steeped in Judaeo-Christian brainwash (first 21 years of my life), but that brainwash does not make me Judaeo-Christian, just confused when I try to relate to others who have accepted the brainwash I have now rejected progressively over my 65 years in this life.

    So anti-Semitism and “racism” against Jews are misnomers.

    Finally, the Jews have brought much down on themselves via their central doctrine: that they are “God’s Chosen People”.

    That claim was taken over by “Christian” con artists who have by now convinced millions that they, with the Jews, are the “chosen ones”.

    this “superiority of religion” doctrine has brought hell down on the Earth (see the true history of the Indians on this Island and all the Americas) and, in the cycle of things, on the perps themselves.

    All persecution of Jews and their false brothers Christians can be traced to this superiority doctrine of “being chosen by God above all others” to be the rulers of this Earth.

    Which is why I turned my back on my Judaeo-Christian background and sought out the “old ways” of Abraham and the fully-realized Indians of old.

    In my opinion, the most misrepresented figures in the history of the world are Abraham, Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth, and the forerunners of all ancient peoples.

    Somehow there seems to be a childish urge to takeover what was originally a “good thing” and use it for “control” over others.

    Many Jews and Christians are wonderful human beings….but they need to renounce the “supremacy doctrines” and the “Manifest Destiny” doctrines and the “God wills the evil that I do” doctrines and the eschatalogical doctrines that consign everyone but them to eternal destruction.

    Wishful thinking. Really selfish.

    Peace.

    Steve Pipkin-Savage
    Clearwater, FL

  • 39 MariaAnastasia // Feb 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm   

    Dr Yeagley, I just now saw this article of yours (forgive the late response, as you know I’m new here.)

    As you know I am Jewish, but in some ways I am like you: a product of two worlds, since my father was a convert to Judaism, and so, his family is not Jewish, This is what I mean when i say we both come from dual backgrounds in a sense.

    I think you are naive when it comes to why so many liberal Jews are active in helping minorities. Its not for the altruistic reasons you (and most Gentiles) seem to assume.

    You see, in Europe where Jews were horribly persecuted for centuries, there was no “diversity” of any kind. Because of this, Jews stuck out like a sore thumb, and hence, became easy targets for persecution.

    Liberal Jews don’t understand/don’t care that America is truly different (as the late Lubavitcher Rebbe himself even pointed out). America was founded AS a nation of many different European nationalities, commingled together into a new nation (E pluribus unum). They don’t seem to grasp this, or maybe they think that its still going to be that way here that it was in Europe, since the founding Americans came from Europe.

    Anyway, liberal Jews think that if they can bring in all sorts of diverse groups to this country, they (the Jews) will get lost in the crowd and won’t be targeted for persecution as they were in Europe, when they were the only minority. They don’t act humanitarian because they truly care about blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc…they do it for their own interest. Yes, this is true. If they truly believed in diversity and integration,l they wouldn’t fight so strongly against intermarriage–yet they do. They believe in diversity and assimilation for everyone BUt themselves. I have seen this myself, and I’m not afraid to say it.

    I do not agree with this strategy, largely because I consider myself an American FIRST. I refuse to destroy the country that gave safe haven to my grandparents, who fled Tsarist pogroms in Russia. I have a debt to pay to this country, and I refuse to do even one single thing to harm it in any way. I understand gratitude; my parents and grandparents taught it to me.

  • 40 calliegal235 // Nov 5, 2010 at 12:07 am   

    Wow. When I was growing up, I never heard any adults make any remarks about any racial or ethnic group; at least none I can remember. I do remember, going to a ladies’ shop once with my grandmother (BTW, all in my family are white). There was a black lady working there, and while we were there, they began to talk, and then they were crying together. I don’t know what they were talking about. I do know my grandmother was a Christian.
    My husband is from Poland, and there is a certain group of people he hates. He says, he hates LAZY people. That’s it! He doesn’t care what color their skin is, or where they are from, the only thing he hates, is if they are lazy! My parents are pretty much the same way. My dad says when he met my mother, where she was working (one of her jobs; she had three) in a restuarant, he had never seen anyone working as hard as she was. He was determined to marry her. I’ve come to the conclusion, that’s a very good way to chose a spouse. I suppose something like Boaz when he saw Ruth!
    I lived in Japan for 3 and a half years. I had a friend who was living in Hiroshima as what we decided was a free lance missionary. When you are faced with that type of task, you are keenly aware (or had better be) that you are facing about 6,000 years of culture and history. This is quite foreign to someone like myself. Not only do I not have a sense of such a culture, for myself, but I grew up in a very small family. The only relatives, other than my father, mother, and one brother, whom I saw occasionally, especially for holidays, was my dad’s cousin, her husband, and their daughter.
    I went to a family reunion with my mother about 20 years ago…I was 40 years old then. She was the oldest of 15 living children. It was such an odd experience for me. This might sound strange, but I don’t know that I want to be buried, cremated, or donated to the body farm in the south. My husband is all for buriel. Of course; he’s from Poland, where they have done things a certain way for hundreds of years! The United States is my country, but I don’t think of any particular place in it as home. For this reason, (and some other reasons, I think) I feel somewhat emotional detached. But I find it very difficult to sing the first stanza of The Star Spangled Banner without crying before I finish. That the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air (the ongoing fight to protect the country) gave proof (hope) through the night that the flag was still there….gets me every time.

  • 41 calliegal235 // Nov 5, 2010 at 12:26 am   

    pipsav – if you return – you, along with a few ohters, post some rather strange, I mean really foreign, images supposedly from your knowledge of the Bible, or history, or Christian teachings. God promised Abraham, according to the O.T., that he would make a great nation from him, and through this also all the nations would be blessed. I know there are what I would call, some fringe teachings from some people who profess to be Christians. I’m not saying they are not in God’s grace, or not saved, but I am confident that those who find themselves in the presence of God, after this life, may be surprised by some things they thought were true, when they were on this side of life. I don’t exclude myself from this category, but actually hope that my salvation is certainly not dependent on having all the correct facts about every little thing. However, in regard to this idea about “chosen ones” it does not mean God has cut all others out of his grace. He’s just working out a plan. It doesn’t mean anyone is superior; more likely, it means they are just going to be put through a lot! Every person has a story; every family has a story, every nation has a story. It’s very grand.
    Since this thread included so much about the Jews, I will share a little thought I got from Prof. Peter Kreeft, which is: the Greeks saw themselves as a people living in a great light, surrounded by darkness; the Jews saw themselves as a people living in darkness, surrounded by a great light.
    I recommend to anyone, Kreeft’s book, Making Sense Out of Suffering. He is a trustworthy guide, for the reader-journer.

You must log in to post a comment.