Header Image


Op-Ed Column

Thanks Taking and Dinner for Two

by David Yeagley · November 26, 2009 · 55 Comments ·

The white man was the first guest at the Indian’s table, if uninvited. What white people say about American Indians is therefore more important than what anyone else says. If Indians must consider anyone outside our own tribes, it should be the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is the one people with whom we have to do. The others make only a dark, dreadful drone of discontent, a hackneyed hounding from an international consortium of degenerate racists. Today we would honor the strength of the great ‘pale-face’ who first shared our fare.

The English also shared their thoughts about Indians from the beginning. These historical impressions have not changed, even three centuries later. The WASP defined the Indian image—like a historical ‘Kodak moment.’ This image affects the way the Indian relates to the white man even today.

Indians can think positively even about tragedy. Here is a wonderfully stylized “Chickasaw Removal” jacket, woven and designed by Margaret Roach Wheeler (Chickasaw), commemorating the great walk from the Southern woodlands to Oklahoma, in the 1830’s. The Indian spirit is still strong, in all ways.

The Indian let the white man set the table manners. The Englishman was apparently unwilling or unable to accommodate any other. The Indian hero, gracious as he always was to visitors, if uninvited, indulged the white man. The Indian spirit was grand. It could afford the foreigner’s neurosis.

But consider the English reaction to this Indian behavior. The Englishman’s soul was divided asunder.

Cadwallader Colden, a Scot (born in Ireland) was a “British” governor in New York in the 1760’s. In the colonies since the 1710, the physician Colden made reports to leaders of the entire English province. He wrote to Governor William Burnet, later publishing reports of 1727 and 1747. The reports were called The History of the Five Indian Nations Depending on the Province of New York in America. He addresses the five nations the French had previously identified: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca nations—essentially, the Iroquois Confederation.

Colden reveals the fundamental, classic double mind with which the civilized, English Christian regarded the Indian. The Indian was both superior and inferior—equal to the most noble of the world, and yet crippled by vice.

“The Five Nations are a poor Barbarous People, under the darkest Ignorance, and yet a bright and noble Genius shines thro’ these black Clouds. None of the greatest Roman Hero’s have discovered a greater Love to their Country, or a greater Contempt of Death than these Barbarians have done, when Life and Liberty came in Competition. Indeed, I think our Indians have out-done the Romans in this particular.”

Then Colden singles out the vice of “revenge” as the Indian’s dominant crippling disposition, and chides the English Christian for failing to change it.

“These Infidels…are become worse than they were before they knew us. Instead of Virtues we have only taught them Vices, that they were entirely free of before that time.”

Colden renders further, detailed accounts of Indians and comments:

“These Stories may seem incredible to many, but will not appear to be Improbable to those who know how extremely Revengeful the Indians naturally are. That they every day undertake the greatest Fatigues, the longest Journeys, and the greatest Dangers, to gratifie that Devouring Passion, which seems to gnaw at their Souls, and gives them no ease until it is satisfied. All Barbarous Nations have been observed to be Revengful and Cruel, and certain Consequences of an unbounded Revenge, as the Curbing of these Passions is the happy effect of being Civilized.”

This Colden says, as the English brutalized their own in the name of their inglorious system of law—for the early likes of which Shakespeare fancied the killing of all lawyers! Thus saith the Butcher, in King Henry the Sixth (Second Part, IV, ii).

But Colden can’t concede such noble law to Indians. “Justice” in the Indian has to be “revenge.” Law is vice.

So the Englishman sees himself in the Indian, if acknowledging only the half.

The Englishman met his match in the Indian. It was ironic, but fortuitous. No other guest would rightly have sat at the Indian’s table. The Englishman alone was worthy. If the noble savage is forever in “darkest Ignorance,” it is well that he share it with other nobles. The white man is equally proud, strong, and blind to himself, whose philosophical objectivity never exempts him from the same error he espies in others.

The Indian intuitively recognized that from the beginning. Strength knows strength. The Englishman just seemed a bit more wordy when it came to articulating his own, (a ‘legal’ trait which has finally weakened him somewhat).

But we rightfully presume his thanks. And he’s still a great sportster, even right after dinner.

Posted by David Yeagley · November 26, 2009 · 9:57 am CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · American Patriotism · Christianity · Op-Ed Columns · Politics · Race · Religion · Thanksgiving · White Race

Read More Op-Ed Columns »

55 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:26 am   

    Here’s some comments by another Englishman, somewhat later.

    Proclamation of National Thanksgiving

    George Washington

    City of New York, October 3, 1789

    Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

    Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

    And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

    Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

    [George Washington]

  • 2 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:33 am   

    Certainly no “Deism” or “agnosticism” on the part of George there.

    However, a mention of the Indian nations might have been appropriate. Perhaps he intended that the Indian nations be included in “all Nations.” Perhaps it was inclusion by implication.

    My point is, early on, Americans were not able to well-incorporate the Indian into the heart of the American story. The American’s original host had turned enemy, in as must as the uninvited guest had pushed the host out of home!

    Ah, well, our English step son has still to learn some manners. He has a good heart, and we’re proud of him, but, it was a hard situation, to say the least. He does need to listen to his old Red grandfather…of course, that’s hard to do when the old man has refused to learn the language of America all along. He expected the step son to be bilingual!

  • 3 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:05 pm   

    He had a right to expect that. The rest of the world manages bilingualism alright; so should we all.

  • 4 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm   

    Indians suffer from a severe case of pride, which, perhaps would not have become such except as the circumstances dictated.

    Communication became an absolute necessity. But, the real speakers of Indian languages often kept aloof, reserved, and stingy. And many Indian children were taken from homes, put in boarding schools, and beaten if they spoke any Indiad words.

    Many were taught that it was wrong to be Indian. Russell Means calls it the boarding school mind set. They’re “in denial” he says. It is true. There is still a lingering sentiment among many Indians that there’s something wrong, inadequate, or inferior about being Indian. We must be something other.

    Competition, self-reliance, and success in this world does demand that Indians learn a host of other cultural elements–besides English. All kinds of skills and attitudes that are foreign to us.

    But, no one else has to learn anything Indian. We are the ‘underdog.’ To fight, we have to learn the ways of others, namely those of the race who conquered us.

    The rub is simple enough: Indians simply prefer being Indian. Indians are content with being Indian. That’s all Indians want to be. This tends to insult the white man, though it is no insult at all. The white American is used to everyone wanting to imitate him. The Indians were never really interested in that.

    Indians are content with who we are. This is very different, and it happens right in the heart of the American psyche!

  • 5 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm   

    Content. Hmmm. So why are there so many interracial marriages? Why are Indians, men and women, so quick to marry non-Indians?

    Caught myself on that one.

  • 6 John Sandusky // Nov 26, 2009 at 4:03 pm   

    Thanksgiving, a Holiday like no other, anywhere.

    Thanksgiving … A Different Kind Of Holiday And Unlike Any Other In The World.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm   

    Wow, I didn’t know you had such a blog, John! Great! Thank you.

  • 8 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:37 pm   

    That line of Washington’s “To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue,” just makes me grit my teeth in anger. Sorry.

  • 9 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:41 pm   

    @ Yeagley,

    What are you doing NOW? I remember those “Welsh Not” signs the English used to put up too. Now it’s to be Nu mu tekwapu Not?

  • 10 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:53 pm   

    Is Thanksgiving not supposed to be about very divers peoples sitting down together? And when the host invites them, does he insist on lopping off odd pieces of each one to fit his own tastes? Does he not allow each one to come in as the whole person, complete with his own culture?

    Have you noticed that the English never mind if other people who are not English learn this language? To the contrary, they expect EVERYBODY to speak English! We have given it our American voice and perspective and speak our own version too. Should not our Indian languages be allowed to claim all this territory also? Do they not have a right to a mainstream American voice? Why shouldn’t Japanese speak Navajo and Italians speak Cherokee and Welsh speak Comanche?

    Why can’t I write in the [edited] on a Comanche blog?! Should I not be making an effort to do this just to honour the blogger? Were it a Vietnamese blog, I’d write in Vietnamese, even though I don’t know so much of it, but I would surely try. So I bring it here just like a dish I have taken a while to cook and what does the blogger do? Knocks it right off the table in a fit! Why?

    Look at all of us here using American English only and we’re all part something else. Is it not natural for us to at least learn some of the various languages in our blood, to honour our elders if naught else? We don’t have to become experts but at least we could learn a little something, ia? And did our mothers not teach us that it was good manners to try to greet a foreigner in his own language, just as he tries to greet us in ours?

    Every day on this blog, or at least every article, there should be one Comanche word. All the readers are going to learn that word from hanging around in here. One more mouth to speak it, one more heart to hold it, one more mind to teach it to someone else, so the spirit of the language grows bigger and stronger and then she’s going to survive for the future, with a place of honour. That is all.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 10:20 pm   

    Awen, it seems to me you no sense of boundaries, respect, or even common decor. I will not attempt to analyze or argue.

    You obviously know absolutely nothing about Comanche, and it is nearly ridiculous that you should attempt to act like you do. Just leave it alone, please.

    I appreciate your concern, but, you have no understanding of how Indian language works, what it means to Indians, or how to handle the subject. You’r not Indian. I don’t expect you to.

    So, again, just leave it alone, please.

  • 12 David Yeagley // Nov 26, 2009 at 10:26 pm   

    Of course, there is in fact debate over this subject. There are two reactions: 1) teach Comanche only to Comanches (or “Indian” to “Indians”); 2) let everyone in the world learn Comanche (or, “Indian).

    Most Indians don’t appreciate every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there acting like they can speak or write Comanche, like you are trying to do. This is offensive, in case you had no inkling. This is very offensive, in fact.

    On there other hand, there are those in the university circles who think that American Indian languages should be included as “language” courses, as legitimate as any other “foreign” language.

    I am aware of these things. But, you, of course, in your rush to display supreme knowledge and authority over Indians, continue to presume I don’t know anything about being Indian, or being Comanche.

    Again, this is offensive. This may be an abject circumstance, but, I’m not sure who can learn what from it.

    We don’t believe in “white woman saviours” here. We respect people who sincerely care (and I believe you do); we respect people who have sincerely tried to help Indians. However, there are ways to do this, and ways that have proven ineffective and offensive. Times change. Methods change. Attitudes change.

  • 13 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:21 pm   

    @ Yeagley,
    You are on the defensive and prickly as usual. I’ll tell you what: before they’re gone, I’m taking both of these posts to some others in a position to know and ask them to express their opinion here. Let’s let some schools and Chapter Houses speak for themselves about how much they want to retain cultural invisibility.

    Kids now in America are learning the language of their ancestors with software manufactured in China and funded by Bill Gates and who knows who else. You can now translate a web page into Catalan, when in the days of Franco it was illegal to teach it. For the first time in 700 years, Welsh has equal status with English as an official language in Wales. (that was the Deddf Iaith passage in 1993)

    How are you going to save nations without saving languages, however you can? As the Welsh say: cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon
    nation without language, nation without heart
    The plight is the same for all of us who speak minority languages.

  • 14 Awen // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:42 pm   

    By the way, you haven’t said what side of that language debate you are on yourself. Which? Getting the opinion of the Tribal Council might even be easier to get than yours. Whichever of them I don’t know personally, Mother does. She deals with them all the time for one reason or another. Which is the bigger concern here to you? Ego or survival?

    (Now will you say goodbye, please and send me off? You are driving me up the wall with your bloody attacks and I have had it! I did already send your posts though….)

  • 15 John Sandusky // Nov 26, 2009 at 11:57 pm   

    You’re entirely too kind Doctor. I am the thickness of a piece of paper above a rank amateur, and know it.

    Starting a blog and actually getting people to read it has not turned out to be the easiest thing to accomplish. It gets old looking at your stats graph flat-lining at zero, which explains my crass use of your blog for self promotion.

    I do enjoy trying to “turn a phrase,” and present a thought coupled with a link (when possible),
    that is somewhat different, and therefore press on.

    And speaking of, “enjoying different” . . . Margaret Roach Wheeler’s design is tastefully different, and looks exactly what someone would need to wear on a long march in the cold.

  • 16 Awen // Nov 27, 2009 at 12:41 am   

    is where I started, at the Language and Cultural Preservation Committee. I have written to them now. I just sent the posts to Mother, so far and she knows people in that neck of the woods.

    I’m interested because she is a lobbyist and does a lot of fund raising and gets federal money for various cultural projects. It’s not so easy to get much if people don’t want a place at the table and the amounts are usually based on population, popularity and presence in the media. I’ve been interested for some time because my husband had Comanche blood on his mother’s side and I had a habit of asking about them whenever minority language support was brought up over the years.

  • 17 David Yeagley // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:09 am   

    Awen, I think there may be a misunderstanding here, typical, I might add.

    All Indian tribes obviously have a vested, critical interested in preserving our languages. All kinds of efforts have been made in this behalf. Again, for some reason, you continue to talk as though you know everything, and I know nothing. This is incredibly offensive, but I’m attributing naivete and natural, innocent arrogance to you, otherwise, you would be completely intolerable.

    I know all about the programs. They’ve been operative for years. You’re jumping in like you are discovering something. This is just borderline insufferable. But, it comes from your missionary spirit, your responsible spirit, your heart-felt obligation to do something for someone else. I think that is exceeding noble. That is virtually sacred. I don’t mean to offend you, or anyone else, in any way, regarding that.

    However, there is also a kind of ‘cultural ownership’ or ‘cultural theft’ that often accompanies such strength and aggression. This Indians resist, always. It is less and less effective, and more and more counterproductive.

    So, support all the Indian language programs you want.

    But, beaware of the fact that there are Indians who don’t speak our own language, and instead, get their simple works translated, and published in their Indian language, and pawn themselves off as more authorative in the matter than they are. Even white people can do this kind of thing.

    Some Indians have been lucky enough to have retained their family Indian name, or sometimes they just re-marry into an Indian with an Indian name. These are often zealously cultural, and can easily fool others from the outside, like yourself.

    In any case, I’m all for the preservation of language. However, there are very critical dimensions in language teaching that haven’t even been touched! That is a topic for a private discussion, perhaps.

    In the mean time, I don’t think Indians want everyone else in the world speaking their ‘private’ language. I think you’ll find that to be the case. This denigrate it, corrupts it, and actually endangers it.

    People on the outside are always trying to invade, own, and control Indian culture. I’ve seen it, even in our own Comanche circles. I have no reason to trust you in this matter. I’m not looking for a reason.

  • 18 David Yeagley // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:11 am   

    Stop trying to “inform” me. Please. You make a fool out of yourself when you do that. You are welcome to write me privately, through the “contact” button at the top of the site, etc.

  • 19 keyboard jockey // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm   

    Revenge? So what was it they called the Italians, for their “Vendettas”

    “Arrogance” they decide they will define what I would attribute to justice and self defense.

    I may not be Indian but I have enough indigenous genes to be insulted by the critique of Colden. A Culture Clash took place but who gets to decide they are the superior culture? I don’t remember anyone abdicating their culture?

    How have I viewed American Indians on my life journey? American Stoics, how else can American Indians keep on keeping on?

    Human Beings have such a deep ability to adapt to survive. I just don’t think surviving is good enough, I want to see some Thriving :)

    The Angles, lived at the tribal stage themselves.

    God Bless America.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Nov 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm   

    Good, KJ. I think it is important for white conservatives to get a handle on the nature of their own regard for Indians. Notice this:

    Limbaugh vs Indians

    Conservatives often deal very blindly, even negatively toward Indians. the Indian story is an embarrassment that won’t go away. The strong among the whites feel they must cover up the Indians, eliminate him, psychologically, and undercut, undermine, denigrate, or otherwise steal what little dignity might still be glowing in the heart and soul of the white man.

    Rush is guilty of this, as are most of the other major conservative talkers and writers. I have a great responsibility to ‘educate’ them on these matters! Ha!

    Alas, the ones that really need it are not of a mind to listen. But, someone like Ann Coulter was happy to talk about it!

    Ann Coulter: The Great White Woman Speaks (the Bad Eagle Interview).

  • 21 Walksthrough // Nov 27, 2009 at 11:05 pm   

    Thanks to the World According to the Great American Redefinition Project, though, “There is [growing] sentiment among many [Whites] that there’s something wrong, inadequate, or inferior about being [white]. [Whites] must be something other.”

    Weak meeting weak at the table now. Delusional sitting down with delusional.

    Have some pie!

  • 22 John Sandusky // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:21 am   

    Happy Thanksgiving, non-Indu Indians, from the Protestants.,2933,577366,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r5:c0.000000:b0:z5

    “The church plans to sponsor educational activities and exhibits to teach children history — including the Indian reverence for preserving the purity of the land taken over by the Dutch colonists.”

    Preserving the purity of the land?

    Where did I file that source showing that pre-Colombian non-Hindu Indians were actually environmental terrorist? . . . burning trees for kicks to hear them, POP! . . . . starting forrest fires to drive out the prey for easy killing . . .

    Not to worry all, I’m sure I can find it somewhere.

  • 23 John Sandusky // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:35 am   

    Oh yes, I remember another something I read about non-Hindu Indians.

    They completely changed and destroyed the original North American prairies by lighting grass fires every spring to drive out large game and prevent the concealment of other non-Hindu Indian enemies.

    The eco-friendly Indians is a myth.

  • 24 Phyllis // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:08 am   

    Dr. Y.: The Ann Coulter interview was excellent!

    When I discovered this web site, I was struck by your patriotism and conservatism. I think I wanted to keep returning to the site to understand this. I am familiar to some extent with the history of the Indian in this country at least since the arrival of the ‘white man’. I have been appalled and ashamed of the treatment of the Indians by the ‘white man’. It was incomprehensible to me that the ‘white’ man could be forgiven and to discover that a descendant (you) of the atrocities could actually hold this nation in high regard.
    I will continue to enjoy the expression of your perspectives and embrace that which we hold in common (it is not 100% agreement). I also enjoy the points of view of the other contributors.

    I do wonder how the Indians came to be called Indians. At the time of Columbus’ arrival, India was called Hindustan…so some argue that it couldn’t have been from that misconstrued association. Has anyone any theories on this?

  • 25 Awen // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm   

    @ Phyllis,

    Nice to see you here! Lady, the history of the world is the history of war. It doesn’t matter what we might ‘feel’ about it; it is simply a fact. And to the victor belong the spoils. Surely there is not one piece of land on earth that has not been run over repeatedly by one tribe after another. We all do it and we all have done it from the beginnings of human history.but for some reason the only people on earth who feel compelled to beat their breasts over it are white Europeans. It’s silly. Humans are predators.

  • 26 David Yeagley // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm   

    John, I’m strong enough to take the insults of the conquering race. I’m disappointed that they feel they have to cover for themselves, and try to be condemnatory and insulting to Indians. I think that is a sign of weakness.

    Nevertheless, humans are only human. It’s your country. I think it is the greatest one. I win no advantage by saying this. If white people react with incredulity toward a “conservative Indian,” as if they’re somehow being robbed of something prescious, then just let me say, again, I find no advantage in being a conservative Indian. Conservatives don’t like to talk about Indians. This I have learned, the hard way.

    But, I’m conservative because I’m conservative, not because of any professional advantage it brings me.

    If whites what to think conservatism is a white thing–allowing for a few blacks and Filipinos, and even a Hindu, to joing their voices, fine. I need no place in the great white show. This is not my goal. That’s a media thing. I’m interested in what’s best for Indians. What’s best for America is best for Indians.

    I realize white conservatives will never bring themsevles to thankM Indians for anything, at least not directly or openly. They just use Indian names for their states and football teams. That’s why I titled this article “Thanks Taking.” Indians have to accept the thanks by osmosis.

    Yet, the Indian names and images across the country are thanks enough, really. Now, if you can just keep your white liberals from removing all those glorious images!

    Fighting Sioux!–Forever!

  • 27 David Yeagley // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:46 pm   

    Phyllis, “Indian” is from the Latin, Indus. It was the Indus River, instead of the Persian “Hindu” River, instead of the original sanskrit “sindhu”–which means “river.”

    In the Tartar (Mongol) Relations manuscript of 1247, the word “Indos” is used of people from “Indiam.” “Indi” is used in the same paragraph. This is Latin. “India” referred to the territory of the Indus River, but, “India” was actually a later Spanish designation.

    Obviously, when Columbus landed in the New World, he thought the people were Indos, “Indios,” in Spanish. “Indian” is the English corruptiong of the Spanish corruption of the Latin corruption of the Persian corruption of the sanskrit!

    My poin is, in English, the first people referred to as Indians were the people of the Americas. North American Indians have a very special relationship, due to our formative influence on the United States.

  • 28 Awen // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:22 pm   

    Any assertion that ‘white conservatives’ will or will not do anything is completely racist. Is it not usually liberalism that promotes group-think? One of the things we on the Right hope to ‘conserve’ is the right to think, live and act as free individuals, regardless of ethnic background.

  • 29 David Yeagley // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:29 pm   

    Good luck.

    Part of the reason white people have nearly blown America is their self-imposed fantasy that they are above race, that they are some how not a race.

    Thus, you’ve generated the “white supremacist” phenomenon.

  • 30 Awen // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:40 pm   

    Nobody forced to live in a divers human society can hold onto the fantasy you mention indefinitely. If the rabble-rousers in government and media succeed in bringing on the race wars to keep our eyes off of their own antics,our uniforms will be our skins and we won’t be able to take them off. We either have a future together in this land or we have no future. We cannot just wish one another away, can we?

  • 31 David Yeagley // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:35 pm   

    America IS different from any other country in the history of the world, indeed. The demographic circumstances are different. In the old days, there were “empires” over the different countries.

    In America, we have all the different countries inside our borders!

    This is proving a great and dangerous weakness. A liability, seems to me, re: Ft.Hood.

    Think White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, with a couple of variations, like some Jewish, and, these days, a lot of Catholic. Judeo-Christian, they call it.

    I don’t think the retreat to “ideology” is going to cut it. It isn’t strong enough. It lets enemies in the door. Only race, language, religion, and culture watch the doors. Ideology is the same as no doors.

  • 32 Awen // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm   

    A couple of variations, eh? I’m amazed to hear that Louisiana’s Catholic history just got started ‘these days,’ too, not to speak of all the Irish. So which races, languages and cultures are going to watch the doors and how does that affect all those who are too small in number to be chosen for that role? Second-class status? Again?

  • 33 John Sandusky // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:48 pm   

    I’m glad Doctor you feel the way you do about white liberals. True conservatives must never be afraid to confront them with the truth, no matter what mythology is debunked.

    “that business of the noble savage, a child of nature, living in an unspoiled Garden of Eden until the discovery of the New World by Europeans is apparently untrue, since the destruction of the fauna, if not the habitat was far greater before Columbus than any time since.”

    The Ethological Indian: Myth and History

    I wonder if this book is a part of those superior Ivy League libraries?

  • 34 John Sandusky // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:59 pm   

    And speaking of the different Indian languages:

    “The Innu of Labrador and northern Quebec use a verb that expresses their relation to the natural world as “attending to” or “paying attention.” The land is meant to support them in return. They have used this traditional philosophy to argue in court that they should be given sovereignty over their lands. However, some of the Innu use the same philosophy to justify intensive mining exploration in pristine wild territories. They too see resources where others see unbroken fabric. They want to cash in.”

  • 35 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:09 am   

    To tell you the truth, I was asked to write the forward of a book, fourth in a series, about this business. I’m familiar with Krech, and many others. I read a ton of material, as ecology and sociology are not my field. But, I was asked to write the forward, which I did.

    So prejudiced were the publishers that they did not wish to have an Indian included in the publication.

    So, you see, I have no expectations from white conservatives. And that’s okay. It just took me a while to learn that. It doesn’t change the way I think about conservativism, or white folks, or American patriotism, or being Indian.

    This is just a hard puzzle to put together. I’m working on it!

  • 36 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:54 am   

    Putting ‘white’ and Christian together might well have outlived its usefulness and this unmentionable problem is already causing a split among conservatives of European heritage. Unfortunately, and thanks largely to Southern Poverty Law Center, nobody can suggest this in public without being immediately linked to radicals like Matthew Hale and World Church of the Creator.(WCOTC) As he put it:
    “”I realized Christianity was bad for the white race,Turning the other cheek and loving your brother is fatal. Every time whites try to lift up other races, they end up pulling us down.”

    A Judeo-Christian set of ethics is just fine for a people in the vast majority and already in power but for a minority or a people soon to become one? It’s about not resisting evil, seeing others as fellow ‘children of God,’ forgiving injuries instead of avenging them, abolishing cultural and racial boundaries in order to collect more souls for the faith. It is Communism at its purest.

    I think here is where we find the real seeds of liberalism rather than in the rejection of organized religion. The general failure of American conservatives to take this into serious consideration and their continued coddling of church leaders is at least as much a threat to American cultural identity as our open borders have been. It is as well to keep in mind that Christianity has Semitic roots and is every bit as foreign to Europeans as it ever was to Indians.

  • 37 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:57 am   

    In summary…
    I just say that I believe God ordained nations. I do not see the religion of the Bible as meant to dissolve nations. Particularly, I do not see Christ as the hero of Communism. This is an abuse.

    In the larger picture, however, there is always opposition, tension, conflict, and competition. Communism is Christless Christianity. Coerced, and antithetical it is, to the spirit of Jesus. Free will is prized by biblical religion.

    Of course, in a sense, an Old Testament Hebrew person may beg to differ, somewhat.

    So, is Communism some long awaited Jewish revenge? Ha, ha. I’m only teasing. The true believer understands these things, with dignity, courage, and hope.

  • 38 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55 am   

    Sometimes teasing gets one closer to the mark than one expects. Just to put another twist on it, from a professional victim that can’t stop putting his foot in his mouth:
    “The New Testament is a lying, hateful, harmful book, ultimately responsible for the deaths of six million Jews in WW II.”
    Abe Foxman, Anti Defamation League

    “The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself.” Abraham H. Foxman, (New York), writing in ADL On the Frontline (January 1994, page 2)

    “Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, especially the New Testament.”
    Talmud (Shabbath 116a)

    “The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear…the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy, will become only a memory.
    1/12/1952 Rabbi Marcus Eli Ravage
    author of The Jew Pays, 1919, A Narrative of the Consequences of the War to the Jews of Eastern Europe

    Now what’s this about ideologies letting enemies in the door? The ‘true believer’ is at best, just another mark for clever con-men to strip bare, seems to me.

  • 39 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:22 pm   

    Well, as long as you allow for the vast majority of Jews who don’t advocate these things…

    That pesky minority of them is truly a power to reckon with, apparently.

  • 40 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 pm   

    “I love strong opponents! It’s such fun to break their backs! said the Leningrad interrogator Shitov. And if your opponent (e.g. your prisoner) is so strong that he refuses to give in, all your methods have failed and you are in a rage? Then, don’t control your fury! It’s tremendously satisfying, that outburst! Let your anger have its way; don’t set any bounds to it. Don’t hold yourself back! That’s when interrogators spit in the open mouth of the accused! And shove his face into a full toilet! That’s the state of mind in which they drag Christian believers around by their hair. Or urinate in a kneeling prisoner’s face! After such a storm of fury you feel yourself a real honest-to-God man!”

    —Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    The Gulag Archipelago

    Who ordered the dragging? Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel

    Interesting that tens of millions of Russians don’t have a Holocaust Memorial of their own.

  • 41 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm   

    Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For, indeed, that’s all who ever have.
    Margaret Mead

  • 42 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm   

    You’re an interesting operative, Awen. I can’t perceive whether you actually believe in God, or, I should say, in the Bible. I do. This affects my interpretation of history…

    Alternative views are not so kind. If you’re trying to say that the horrors of Russian Communism were a Jewish invention, I’d say I disagree with you.

  • 43 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm   

    Coincidence, then. Marx, Engels and Lenin fit the profile. Totalitarianism is far older than that and appears to be an ‘equal-opportunity’ concept. The Muslims, in their own blood-thirsty way, adhere to the same one. The subsumation of individuality and free will and the forceful subjection, or extermination, of all dissenters. My point is not that anyone has a patent on this idea; rather to the contrary, that no tribe is innocent of same and least of all those who weary us all with endless ululations of victimhood.

  • 44 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:00 pm   

    No “tribe?” Do you know of any Indian tribe that ever tried to eradicate another Indian tribe? Do you know of any Indian tribe that ever tried to force another tribe to become part of it, tried to coerce its own culture on a different tribe?

    No, no. This is a white, Mesopotamian, European thing. Tribal people don’t do this. They don’t think on that level, sociologically. Empires are a thing of white invention (Semitic in the beginning.)

    Youre point is understood, however. Just don’t forget that Semites (of Shem) are white, if we’re going to talk race.

    To my knowledge, Lenin and Stalin were not Jewish, by religion or birth or ancestry. Marx was. But his was merely the rebellious theory, I think invented in fear of the industrial revolution and the horrible phenomenon of “factory” labor. It was an odd thing, when it came about.

  • 45 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:03 pm   

    By the way, we shouldn’t go too far afield on this particular blog, but, I think your Jewish quotes appear apocryphal in origin. Not accusing you, mind you, just noting somethings, and doing some quick research. I am not an expert in anti-Semitism, believe me.

  • 46 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm   

    Apocryphal? I hope not. I suggest another quick perusal of the Iroquois wars and the extermination of the Huron for at least one good Indian tribal reference. Closer to my own neck of the woods, you may ask any Hopi or Pueblo about their experiences with Utes, Navajos and Apaches. A lot of unpleasantness in the past. In Africa, you don’t even have to go back at all for their tribal warfare continues today with deaths in the millions.

    Mesopotamian and white are not synonymous, no more than Semitic and white. The Khazars are not Semitic but Turkic converts to Judaism and their DNA markers have added to the historical diversity of over 90% of today’s Jews, who are Ashkenazim. For the biggest group of true Semites, look to the Arabs. Rather confuses the anti-this-or-that mantras.

  • 47 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 3:55 pm   

    Just a note on how a quite ordinary word, once the religious get hold of it, suffers complete distortion:
    στά ελληνικά τουλάχιστον / in Greek, at least, the word απόκρυψις means hiding, concealing, and then απόκρυφος, for hidden or occult.

    How did it become ‘doubtful’ or ‘spurious?’ It was because of those books of the bible. The Greek word base is still showing the proper meaning which hasn’t changed at all in Greek usage. Interesting, isn’t it?

  • 48 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm   

    “Extermination” is your word. Being scattered, settling elsewhere, this is something different. Exterminated means, in common, realistic language, no longer extant. That was not the case with the Huron.

    Please read carefully. I used the word apocryphal in reference to your Jewish references, not Indians.

  • 49 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 8:11 pm   

    Yes. Indians, Jews or whatever; still I am not certain which usage of the word apocryphal applies to this post. The correct one or the fanciful? The Huron were mostly killed, not simply ‘scattered.’ War is an old and widespread habit. Assimilation is not so much for it implies a desire on the part of the victors to leave alive a goodly number of the conquered, which for some smaller tribes, would have been considered a liability.

  • 50 keyboard jockey // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:14 pm   

    My mother in law is from Quebec, she related to me how the Huron settled in Canada. The Canadians protected them so they were not wiped out. My mother in law is a naturalized American. She told me that there is a big difference how they treat the Huron back home, and how she views American Indians treatment. She believes the Huron are treated much better.

    When her brother was a baby, he had a serious brain condition, she described it as “water on the brain” or some condition of the brain swelling. Her mother took her son to the Huron, and they knew what to do to treat him. So obviously there was trust.

  • 51 David Yeagley // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:03 pm   

    Thank you KJ. Let’s hope some people can adjust to new truths.

    Anti-semites I know wish that I were capable of that myself!

  • 52 Awen // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:44 pm   

    There should be trust; they had a tough history together. Those Iroquois were serious expansionists, a century of warfare, driving off or killing everything in their path, including a lot of French and later, English too. The Jesuits kept records of their own martyrs, of course when the Huron villages got hit in the 1640’s. The Erie were completely wiped out; all we have left is that name.

    What did you think, keyboard jockey, of that fuss about the body bags sent to Canadian reservations as a response to requests for flu kits? A simple slip-up or a bit of an insult?
    Chiefs furious after body bags sent to reserves

  • 53 Walksthrough // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:01 pm   

    From 36: A Judeo-Christian set of ethics is […] about not resisting evil, seeing others as fellow ‘children of God,’ forgiving injuries instead of avenging them, abolishing cultural and racial boundaries in order to collect more souls for the faith. It is Communism at its purest.”

    This is actually a liberal’s definition of Judeo-Christian. OT Jews did not learn this from the Law. This fits the Social Gospel (which is heresy) just fine. The closest association to genuine Christianity is that we are not to avenge ourselves, God takes care of vengeance. But in the mind of the liberal, such a God is rejected.

    36, cont’d: “I think here is where we find the real seeds of liberalism rather than in the rejection of organized religion. The general failure of American conservatives to take this into serious consideration and their continued coddling of church leaders is at least as much a threat to American cultural identity as our open borders have been.”

    The seeds of liberalism are borne by the rejection of Christ, not religion. Religion is stuffed with liberals today, and as a result is faltering before its users and enemies. America is a pluralistic society; *that* is American culture, not liberalism, and therefore Christianity is not a threat to the culture, but liberalism certainly is. Liberalism will cheerfully deliver us into the great maw of our enemies even as we simper before them. This is neither the Law nor Christ who fulfilled the Law.

    The Bible says, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.

    The liberals flee before our enemies without a single direct engagement (Russia, Iran), the conservatives consider that freedom isn’t free, and prepare for war.

    The Bible says, the slothful say, there is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets. Liberals, spot on.

  • 54 keyboard jockey // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:45 am   


    I think that’s what you can expect from an over grown government bureaucracy.

    How much do you want to bet some government worker on one end of the request couldn’t fill out the order “requisition” for flu kits? This is logistics. Are they rationing the flu kits in Canada? I am not sure body bags wasn’t a clerical error? Someone at the government level will investigate and find out. If all the requisitions they deal with are for medical supplies it seems to me someone would know the difference between flu kits and body bags. They were not having something new thrown at them to figure out. For example, no one was ordering hibachis or helicopters….

    Here in America there was a dust up over Wall Street Bankers, getting the H1N1 vaccine before everyone else. Turns out the H1N1 vaccine is in short supply here in our country.

    Goldman Sachs Received H1N1 Vaccine Before Several Hospitals (GS)

  • 55 David Yeagley // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:28 am   

    KJ, I just wanted to say, I don’t know “AWEN.” She is new here. She clearly presumes an omniscience which makes any meaningful exchange unlikely. There is a good deal of information to be shared, indeed, but she tends to offer it randomly, pertinent or not.

    I try to keep an open commnet form, as well as the 90-some Bad Eagle forums. This is the home page, and sometimes people never visit any other part of but here.

    For instance, we have health/science/medicine/ type forums under our Forum button at the top of our home page. Conversations there are not filed away so quickly. Some are quite lengthy, and worthy. Your flu-shot issue here is most intriguing!

You must log in to post a comment.