BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Op-Ed Column

The Best On Bad Eagle

by David Yeagley · August 31, 2009 · 29 Comments ·

BadEagle.com was recently noted by an Ethiopian artist on her website, Camera Lucinda. Her remarks about BadEagle.com are a milestone, and deserve serious consideration. Why?

Kidist Paulos Asrat, known as “She Designs,” is a highly educated and elegant woman, who expresses herself beautifully in words, as well as in textiles, graphic arts, film, and photography.


Kidist Paulos Asrat,
woman of the world.

Asrat is a native of Ethiopia, but was educated in Canada, and has lived most of her life there. She studied textile design at the Ontario College of Art and Design, and also studied drawing and painting under Toronto artist Michael Jenzen and botanical artist Leslie Staple. She studied film and photography at Ryerson University under two of Canada’s most renowned artists, Bruce Elder, an experimental filmmaker, and Don Snyder, a photographer.

Asrat’s films and photographs have been exhibited in Toronto, Montreal, Prague and Lille (France). She has served on the Board of Directors for Trinity Square Video, a non-profit video art organization.

As a young child, Asrat was trained in ballet and piano. More recently, she has been a performing member in several dance groups, including a modern dance ensemble. She has also given many public piano performances.

Kidist Asrat was attracted to BadEagle.com.

That in itself bespeaks her sense of adventure, experimentation, and creativity. Not that every conversation on BadEagle.com was something worthy of her interest, but Asrat’s view of the American Indian patriot website is most worthy of our interest.


Canadian “natural” supplements for joint
relief using the Lakota as the mystical,
spiritual healer, Kidist tells us.

She says, in “Indians Will Be Indians,” that BadEagle.com has failed to work the magic it professes. She admits that, in her fascination with the scope of the site, she often forgot that it was in fact an “Indian” site. When considering the purpose of BadEagle.com, American Patriotism, she reflects:

“Is there really an Indian who is at peace with America and willing to swallow the bitter pills of defeat? I thought so for a while at Bad Eagle, but I think I was asking for a superhuman feat.”

“Despite a professed love for America, I think David, naturally, loves Indians first—and best. So he has to find ways to incorporate the defeat of his people with their uncomfortable and humiliating lives in modern America. Hence, his strange and constant discussions of the subliminal effects of Indians on America, and even the world.”

Asrat, as indeed the world, sees Indians as a defeated people. However, she is not a liberal, so she doesn’t see Indians as victims. Rather, she sees in Indians the failure to respond to the modern world. She sees my attempts at reinterpreting these present circumstances as a failure to address the problem. BadEagle.com works no ‘medicine’ for Indian people, therefore.

“I’m afraid that David, cleverly and sincerely, is using psychological tactics to give Indians the importance they don’t have. We have some magical properties, we can heal your ills, he says.”

Yet, BadEagle.com doesn’t spend time addressing the obvious problems Indians have.

“Unfortunately, David seems more interested in giving Indians a false sense of their position in the world based on feelings and emotions rather than provide recourse for actual achievements. He is acting like any other (leftist) Indian in this case, who professes magical, spiritual qualities, which unfortunately have not been proven yet.”

Unfortunately, perhaps, Asrat does not understand the value of being Indian, to an Indian. Indians chose to be Indian, rather than adapt to a new culture they did not value. In a sense, Indians are the one people whom America has never and will never defeat, psychologically. To make this Indian mind set applicable to the modern world is the point of BadEagle.com. Ethnicity and nationhood are one, in the Indian. Indians cherish our nationhood. The problem in much of the world today is the fact that ethnicities do not value their nations.

The leftist craze for immigration, integration, and intermarriage is precisely what Indians eschewed, historically, and why Indians still exist as Indians today—beleaguered as we are by white leftists and leftist-trained Indians. I am ever the opposite of a leftist.

Now, the issue of the treaties is related, but only as the historical foundation of the blood-bought right to be separate, or, to be Indian, forever.

But I can’t really expect any non-Indian to understand this. The only thing that really singes me about Kidist is the fact that she trashes Ilana Mercer! Ilana was the first noted writer to take the Bad Eagle Interview. But Kidist sees things I don’t see. Therefore, I take note when she “sees” BadEagle.com.

Posted by David Yeagley · August 31, 2009 · 5:16 pm CT · ·


Tags: American Indians · Op-Ed Columns · Politics · Race




Read More Op-Ed Columns »

29 responses so far ↓

  • 1 John Sandusky // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:51 pm   

    The esoteric nature of all this leaves me speechless. I’m simply not cut out for all this.

    I have to say though, “Doc, you’re pretty thick-skinned.”

  • 2 David Yeagley // Sep 1, 2009 at 7:40 am   

    I appreciate your honest take, JS.

    I think there is a genuine issue about BadEagle.com. What am I trying to do? Have I communicated it clearly? Is it appropriate?

    Kidist dosn’t see the patriotism thing. She thinks as long as I prefer Indian sovereignty, Indian separateness, I can’t really be an American patriot, and that I’m really just another Indian. And that would be a “leftist” Indian, since I don’t support Indians absoring into the greater America.

    I disagree. I want Indians to be understood as exemplary. We have preferred our nations, no matter what sacrifice. This is what it takes to maintain nationhood–especially nationhood that is based on ethnicity. I am essentially a paleo-conservative, therefore.

    All the western countries these days feel obligated to host the world. Immigration, integration, and intermarriage (or interracial sex and children–with or without marriage), is what the western world is all about. The Third World resents the success of the West, and react by immigrating, participating–everything but improving their own countries.

    I’m probably “thick-headed” as well….

  • 3 keyboard jockey // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 am   

    Is it fair to lump all American Indians together? For instance I wouldn’t compare the Sioux experience (kill the Indian save the man) to the Cherokee experience (trail of tears). I can’t look out of other people’s eyes so I am not going to weigh in on the experience of other people.

    I do remember when the Ward Churchill issue was in the news. I believe it was a segment on CNN, they had a guest who identified himself as Apache. He resented Churchill’s description of an American Indian Holocaust. He insisted we did not go to our deaths like the Jewish people, lambs to the slaughter, we fought back. I don’t know if it was that segment or another, he stated the people to the south have invaded this country before. No one is listening to American Indians. The Tonoho O’odham Indian Reservation officials, were guest on Bill O’Reilly’s the factor a few years back. They were bringing up the same issue, they asked the federal government for help ,they had a limited number of sheriffs, they couldn’t stop the illegal immigration streaming through their land.

    I know about the Old North Trail, An Ancient, Sacred Highway, carried travelers from Canada to Mexico. The trail is sacred to the Blackfoot. They would walk from Montana to Mexico “It took them 12 moons of steady traveling to reach the country of the dark-skinned people” this is from the Smithsonian magazine.

    My Great Grandparents settled in a little place called Bonita, Montana back in 1894. Bonita means beautiful in Spanish.

    I guess my point is the history of this country doesn’t start with colonization. Does Kidist Paulos Asrat, really understand the history and culture of American Indians? The contributions to this country? The Colonials were able to adapt by grafting themselves onto what was already here. There are some good books she could read by Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers and Native Roots how the Indians enriched America. I know, I see American Indians through different eyes than Ms Asrat. Is she dismissing all the contributions, and seeing only the depredation by the U.S. government?

  • 4 David Yeagley // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm   

    Perhaps. I think her point is more about me specifically, however. I think her main attack is on what she (and others) see as a fundamental, impossible contradiction: American Indian/American patriot. This seems a mountain that cannot be climbed. She thinks I have attempted to changed the view of the Indian, without changing the present state of the stereotypical reservation ills. Like a magic trick or something.

    My response is basically this: change begins with an idea. With a different point of view. There is no other place ot begin, or no other way for inner change. There has to be a new way of looking at things, to have a new attitude, to think positively of oneself and one’s circumstances.

    That she would find fault with that only means she’s willing to find fault. That’s all. If I have made any difference through BadEagle.com, it would be difficult to measure anyway. Her criticism is almost as theoretical as my idea. But she can point to the lack of substantial evidence that there has been any sigificant change in Indians country since BadEagle.com started! Then again, she hasn’t not offered practical criteria for measuring that change, either.

    It was just an interesting observation. Curious textile of thought. I grant her that.

  • 5 Kidist // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm   

    Some points here:

    1- We were invited in the open forum of Bad Eagle to participate and to contribute our ideas and opinions. I was just following in that tradition.

    2- I never said you were a leftist, I said you were acting like a leftist, in this particular incident. One of the favorite tactics of the leftist Indian is to present himself as some spiritual, ephemeral presence. I just say that Indians are too real (too human) for that.

    3- My blog post is directed at you because I think you have come up as a leader of sorts. So, what you say would be considered as representing some view (however minor) of Indians which non-Indians are asked to follow, and agree or disagree with. So, it is not personal.

    4- In that context, whatever is written about Indians (by Indians) is of importance to non-Indians, because it helps us define better our relationship with them, in terms of social, legal, cultural, economic and, of course, land rights issues. So, I’m taking all this very seriously.

    5- Yes, change begins with an idea. But I’m saying that spending too much time on the idea, which is what my non-personal critique of your method is, relegates other pressing issues to the sidelines.

    6- I think it is indeed my “textile of thought” that gives me my perspective on things. I like to make things – which usually originate from an idea. An idea left in my head remains invisible, and impotent. But, my idea on my textile becomes a blanket, or a tablecloth, or a beautiful silk–painted blouse, or simply an artistic wall hanging. That is the extent of my “textile of thought.” So, maybe my fault is that I haven’t given you enough time to concretize this idea, or perhaps I missed the proof that is out there. I stand corrected if this is the case.

    7- But please do show us the formalization of your ideas – what you expect other than, as I wrote “[To appear to be] more interested in giving Indians a false sense of their position in the world based on feelings and emotions rather than provide recourse for actual achievements.” And I don’t mean achievement in just political, or even economic power and status.

    8- Finally, I’m not trashing Mercer. I am putting forth my arguments as to why her libertarian mode of thought doesn’t work for the catastrophes our countries are facing these days. There is nothing personal there, and no trashing.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Sep 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm   

    Kidist, I numbered your points, for easier reference.

    2- So, you don’t allow any special spirituality in Indian people? Do deny any special power or significance in the way of psychological archetype or underlying reference in the Collective Conscious of American society (or the Collective Unconscience, I should say)?

    This is a serious affront, mind you.

    4- I’m happy that you take it seriously. That is the very most I could ever hope for. So that means you do in fact attribute some kind of importance to American Indian people.

    5- The Bad Eagle Foundation has not found the kind of funding needed for the vision. I cannot offer more than ideas at this point. Action is based on dollars.

    8- Hey, trashing someone’s ideas is the most personal kind of wrecking possible, isn’t it? I think it is for those who invest themselves wholly in their ideas. Smashing heads is very good, though, because it reminds us all that, in the end, ideas are only ideas. The person is more than his ideas.

  • 7 Kidist // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:07 pm   

    2 – Spirituality is part of life, like many other human traits. But it isn’t the only trait, or the overwhelming trait. I think that is where you’re taking this, where spirituality rules. But, it is part of the whole – just part.

    4 – Yes, of course. Partly because they are human beings, and partly because here in Canada they kind of define the rules of engagement, whatever they may be. So, in some sense, I think they’ve been given too much power. I actually think this is not good for either party – the Indians (who expect too much) and the non-Indians, who at some point have to capitulate on their promises.

    8 – Well, if every contradiction or critique of an idea is considered a trashing of the person, then forget about debate, about discussion, about arguments. So, I disagree.

    One more thing, “trashing” implies a low-level of argument – in that sense you are right. But, like I said, I didn’t “trash.” I merely, forcefully, argued my points. If someone is too sensitive, or his ideas are too weak, and takes this personally, that is not my problem.

  • 8 Indian Leftist // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:12 pm   

    “In that context, whatever is written about Indians (by Indians) is of importance to non-Indians, because it helps us define better our relationship with them, in terms of social, legal, cultural, economic and, of course, land rights issues. So, I’m taking all this very seriously.” – Kidist

    If this is your starting point in your quest to understand Indians then you have put the cart before the proverbial horse.

    You seem to believe that you are capable of determining the authenticity of Indian people.

    “One of the favorite tactics of the leftist Indian is to present himself as some spiritual, ephemeral presence.”

    The study of Leftist Indian Tactics would make a great propaganda leaflet but declaring such doesn’t reassure those of us who are Indian that you have any more than an anecdotal knowledge of leftist or any other Indians.

    If you are “taking all this very seriously” I would suggest a bit of research. I understand that determining authenticity of almost any bit of information on the web is, well, like life. Most of the time we trust our judgement. But what if there was a tool or guideline to follow, wouldn’t that be cool?

    Elaine Cubbins (sorry, I forgot her tribe), while at the University of Arizona, wrote the definitive dummies guide to what is Indian on the web. “Techniques for Evaluating American Indian Web Sites” is a simple set of guidelines you can use to gauge the authenticity of any declared Indian website. In fact, many of the guidelines are quite useful in determining the authenticity of any website.

    Go to: Cubbins Indian Library Site

    I also recommend the link to the “Selective Bibliography and Guide for “I” Is Not for Indian: The Portrayal of Native Americans in Books for Young People.”

    So read, evaluate, takes some notes and we’ll chat again. I have one more bit of info for you.

    Oh yeah, am I really Indian? After you visit Ms. Cubbins site it might or it might not matter.

  • 9 Kidist // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:13 am   

    Indian Leftist says:
    You seem to believe that you are capable of determining the authenticity of Indian people.

    You are saying that ordinary citizens have no right to comment on affairs that concern them until they know every single, nuanced detail about their source of argument.

    This is unrealistic, and also a little dogmatic. When you vote, do you know every single nuanced detail about the candidate you’re voting for?

    When you go to a restaurant —- same as above?

    Important matters need to be discussed by everyone, and not the so-called “experts”, who often have an agenda anyway.

    Plus, how do you know that I don’t know more than just “anecdotal knowledge of leftist or any other Indians?”

  • 10 Kidist // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:05 am   

    I wrote : “Important matters need to be discussed by everyone, and not the so-called “experts.”

    I meant to write : “Important matters need to be discussed by everyone, and not just the so-called “experts.”

    Of course, everyone should be invited to the discussion table, experts included.

  • 11 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:24 am   

    “Perhaps. I think her point is more about me specifically, however. I think her main attack is on what she (and others) see as a fundamental, impossible contradiction: American Indian/American patriot.”

    I remember an interview with a member of the Sioux nation, he enlisted in the Military. I can’t remember which cable news outlet it was but the anchor asked him, why did you enlist? The anchor wanted to know why after the way his people were treated he would enlist in the military to defend the country.

    He answered: My country was attacked, just because I am a Sioux, doesn’t mean this still isn’t my country, and I won’t fight to protect it.

    This is something the Left can’t wrap it’s head around.

  • 12 David Yeagley // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:30 am   

    Well, here’s a thought: Might there be something providential that America, such a very great nation, had Indians to encounter, from the first breath?

    Do people of the world have interest in American Indians because of the American circumstance? Is this why Indians are “important,” seemingly more than you would have them be, Kidist? You said I attribute more significance than is appropriate.

    Obviously, the average person in the western world knows far more about American Indians (at least in terms of general concepts and behavior), than he knows about Amhara people. Why is that? Historical circumstances, I would guess. Nothing but circumstances.

    I’m questioning why non-Indian people are first of all interested in American Indians, and secondly, why they do in fact feel there is something important to understand.

    Indians are here, today, as Indians, because Indians don’t want to be anything else. Indians cherish and honor being Indian. Is this an anomaly? It is in the western world.

  • 13 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:33 am   

    “I also recommend the link to the “Selective Bibliography and Guide for “I” Is Not for Indian: The Portrayal of Native Americans in Books for Young People.”

    I tried to click this and got an error message page not found. Possibly the link is broken?

  • 14 David Yeagley // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:35 am   

    Indian Leftist, I haven’t seen Cubbin’s site before. I’ve seen other sites like it, some larger, some smaller. I think hers is unique on the “library” emphasis, though.

    America is great. America forced Indians off our own land, by war. I don’t know if the interest of the world in Indians is some kind of anti-American sentiment, or what. I suspect that’s part of it. People of the world want to cut America down a notch. Always. They often use the Indian as their prick of envy.

    Personally, I don’t want that position. Nobody uses me. (If I have any say in the matter!)

  • 15 David Yeagley // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:41 am   

    KJ, try again. I tried to fix the link.

    The American Indian veteran–that’s the power line! I do feel encouraged. The Left cannot “wrap their head” around even something as innocuous as my web site, either!

    I think Indians tend to equate the word country with “land.” This is our land. We defend it, even through the plaster of the superimposed culture. We’re actually part of that, too, in a big way, really. We’re afraid to admit it, sometimes, because it feels like we’re not being Indian…

  • 16 Kidist // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:53 am   

    Do people of the world have interest in American Indians because of the American circumstance? Is this why Indians are “important,” seemingly more than you would have them be, Kidist?.

    Indians are in the U.S., Indians are in Canada. I am a Canadian citizen, not a “woman of the world.” Nor am I approaching this discussion as a disinterested party of a “people of the world.”

    I know Canada and the U.S. are different countries, but the issues of Indians are very similar. I’m interested as a non-Indian Westerner who is gleaning as much information as possible to see what the arguments Indians are proposing.

    Consider the Islam problem. The fundamental issues of Islam are the same in Canada as in the U.S. That is why there is cross-referencing between the two countries regarding the solution to those issues.

  • 17 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:56 am   

    I am not Indian. I was raised with an American Irish Roman Catholic overlay (Gaelic) that’s the culture I was raised in.

    I am a family historian and genealogist. I do have multiple Indian ancestry, that doesn’t make me Indian. My “hunt” has taught me a lot about my ancestors, and how some tried to hide their ancestry for survival. Being an Indian on the American Frontier wasn’t a lot of fun. I am living proof their seed survived against some long odds. SEE Walter Ashby Plecker Eugenicist. I descend from Hatchett/Bass families of the Nansemond. Plecker singled out the Gibsons and Collins. Plecker had Indian women sterilized.
    (They say it was Walter Ashby Plecker who helped the Nazis with their eugenics program.) My Collins cousins are of Saponi descent. These are just a couple of examples. I also have multiple Cherokee ancestry, and Penobscot. So far, I am not done hunting yet :)

    It was George A Allen a Republican who started undoing some of the damage that Walter Ashby Plecker wreaked on The Indians who lived in Virginia. George A Allen started helping Virginia Indian’s get back their tribal identification through legislation. George A Allen who was accused of being a bigot for using the slang word Macca.

  • 18 Kidist // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:00 am   

    I’m questioning why non-Indian people are first of all interested in American Indians, and secondly, why they do in fact feel there is something important to understand.
    ——-

    I thought that was clear from my original posts, also it is answered in the post above.

    This is not an esoteric, neutal position I’m taking.

    Here is a repeat of what I said earlier in this blog:

    4- In that context, whatever is written about Indians (by Indians) is of importance to non-Indians, because it helps us define better our relationship with them, in terms of social, legal, cultural, economic and, of course, land rights issues. So, I’m taking all this very seriously.

    Of course, this means non-Indians in Canada and the U.S., where there is an Indian population to have this relationship with.

    But, you can decide for yourself whether you can communicate to Canadians – that is your writing prerogative. But, I have observed and found similarities with U.S. and Canadian Indians, so it is my prerogative to use your information.

    By the way, you are not my only reference point.

  • 19 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:14 am   

    I don’t know what the correct word would be to describe us – we are emmeshed? Whether non Indian people are conscious of their heritage, and possible Indian ancestry, it shaped our country from the beginning. I would add there isn’t a lot of acknowledgment of the contributions. People who have ears, only need to listen.

    There are about 17 different white ethnicities in this country. The ethnicity that has held the most power is WASP. When I was a child without being told, I understood I was different, I wasn’t a WASP.

    I know we all look alike GRIN. That’s a joke.

  • 20 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:25 am   

    This is one of the ethnicties, that I am made up of the Ulster Scots. I think Albion’s Seed, should be required reading in school for understanding the different ethnicties that immigrated early into this country. The Ulster Scots were used to push back the American Frontier. The back country, they would have encountered American Indians first. In fact they say they were encouraged to immigrate into eastern Pennsylvania by the Quakers, because the Quakers didn’t fight so they brought in the Ulster Scots who would fight the Indians. In retrospect as you read this account, you will see they wondered afterward if doing so was worth the trouble one family of Ulster Scots would generate.

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/albion/albion3.html

  • 21 bear // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:16 am   

    Kidist,
    you said, “4 – Yes, of course. Partly because they are human beings, and partly because here in Canada they kind of define the rules of engagement, whatever they may be. So, in some sense, I think they’ve been given too much power. I actually think this is not good for either party – the Indians (who expect too much) and the non-Indians, who at some point have to capitulate on their promises.”

    So is this the heart of your’ debate? Indians given too much power and defining the rules of engagement? (That would be a first!) The only thing that Indians have any control over is themselves, and their culture. You want to know about social, legal, economic & land rights then you need to be talking to the government and those treaty makers not us. We prefer to keep our religions, beliefs, and culture to ourselves. The only rules of engagement we have, are that we refuse to be told who we are and what we should be, we are truly the last of the free Men in this country, even if only in spirit, and that my dear will never be conquered or broken.

  • 22 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm   

    Whether my premise is correct or not, I see American Indians as the bedrock (my view point) If they sound an alarm, I listen, my ears are tuned in. Lately the news cycle is all about government health care insurance reform. What is the message getting out “Don’t get sick after June” Message received loud and clear. Just say no to any kind of government run health care. The real question is why do they keep looking out for the rest of the country when the favor isn’t often returned. This view is coming from personal experience.

  • 23 keyboard jockey // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm   

    Correction to above they were encouraged to immigrate to “western” Pennsylvania.

  • 24 David Yeagley // Sep 2, 2009 at 3:17 pm   

    Yes, yes, the bedrock. Whenever liberals become so completely confused they can’t find the toilet of their brains, they consult the local wild man, the local “nature” authority…

    Ha, ha!

  • 25 David Yeagley // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:07 pm   

    “At peace with America.” That was a line that stuck out. “Is there really an Indian who is at peace with America”?

    I don’t even touch that. That’s not the issue. The point is to make a positive move, at least psychologically, for Indians. That move must be based on present realities. That fact is, the American society plastered Indian names, faces, and symbols on its money, its state seals, and kept the Indian names of mountains, rivers, creeks, etc. The American Indian means something to America, for one reason or another. This is abundantly clear.

    At peace with America? Not the issue. Not where I’m coming from, or going. America is the obvious step son its Indian encounters. America bears the Indian image. It isn’t a question of being at peace. It is simply a question of looking at the obvious.

  • 26 Indian Leftist // Sep 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm   

    “You are saying that ordinary citizens have no right to comment on affairs that concern them until they know every single, nuanced detail about their source of argument.”
    and
    “Plus, how do you know that I don’t know more than just ‘anecdotal knowledge of leftist or any other Indians?’”

    First, no one has tried to stop you from expressing your opinion. I only said I can tell your opinion is far less than nuanced with regard to Indians. When non-Indians are questioned by Natives as to their Indian knowledge or their reasoning behind their comments the response is a typically defensive. You are no exception.

    So how do I know you know so little? From the following: “One of the favorite tactics of the leftist Indian is to present himself as some spiritual, ephemeral presence.”

    First, you are viewing Indians through Western eyes. In defining an Indian as “leftist” you are forcing Indians to fit into a broad Western political category that is wholly inaccurate in it’s description of actual Indian politics.

    While a few Native people may actually match this description it’s doubtful their numbers would amount to a full blown movement.

    Second, the description “spiritual, ephemeral presence” is more in keeping with the Western stereotype of the “noble savage.” And as we all know, this stereotype was created and is being perpetuated by non-Indians, not by Native people.

    And third, what you see as a “tactic”, the leftist Indian presenting himself as some spiritual/ephemeral presence, is more a reflection of the West’s spiritual bankruptcy and envy of the Indian’s comfort in his own skin.

    So, I wonder how serious you actually are. You seem content to defend your ignorance rather than learn a thing or two.

  • 27 handle // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:55 am   

    Indian Leftist, you are making a big mistake here. If I were to say ‘The common choice of the selective man’, this WOULD NOT IMPLY that ALL men are selective. THEREFORE, when Yeagley refers to ‘favourite tactics of the leftist indian’ he is referring to an indian who is a leftist; He is NOT implying that all indians are leftists. (I.e. indians who are on the political left have some favoured tactic or other. ) Please reread his commentary with this new understanding.

  • 28 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:11 am   

    Yikes. I thought Leftist Indian was addressing our Ethiopian commentator. I’ll do some re-reading myself.

    Leftist Indian: “And third, what you see as a “tactic”, the leftist Indian presenting himself as some spiritual/ephemeral presence, is more a reflection of the West’s spiritual bankruptcy and envy of the Indian’s comfort in his own skin.

    This is a really fine statement here, for sure.

    I don’t know how “left” this “Leftist Indiani” really is! Ain’t nothin’ “Left” about this above statement. It’s just Indian truth…

  • 29 The Hated White Male « Locust blog // Jul 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm   

    [...] was assessed recently by an Ethiopian seer by the name of Kidist Paulos Asrat (Camera Lucinda). Asrat title her piece, “Indians will be [...]

You must log in to post a comment.