David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
The Indians at Indian Country Today want to be black. Here’s how it came down. First, what does it mean to be black?
With all the recent talk about “Negro dialect” and “light skin,” it might be important to consider black thinking. The black mind. Is there not such a thing? Or, shall we imagine that everyone thinks “white?” To be a real success in white America, you do have to think white, right?
So what are we talking about?
Here’s an example. Michael Steele, famed successful black, being appointed chairman of the Republican National Committee, recently made a remark that illustrates what it means to think white, when you’re black.
On a January 4 appearance on Hannity, Steele emphasized a point he was making by using the phrase, “honest Injun!” Well, wasn’t that cute. Why, Steele is obvously every bit as white as any historical American frontiersman. Steele is as white as any historically white American figure who faced American Indians. Isn’t he? He’s sure trying to sound white. Every Negro knows, the way to be truly equal to whites is to say something belittling about Indians, or something considered belittling, no matter how slight. Show just a little disdain. Just step “off the reservation.” Just offer a touch of aversion, if even in humor. Then you’re white, for sure. Why, you share exactly the same feelings whites do. You use the same words toward Indians. You gotta be white!
What it means to be black, then, when you’re around whites, is that you’re going to be black no matter what you want to be, or try to act like, or think like. It’s just particularly obvious, when you’re black.
The irony was this: later that week, Harry Reid made his “Negro dialect” remark, and Steele immediately called for his resignation! Then, Steele was black, as everyone would expect. Of course, Steele is too proud and circumstantially racist to really “apologize” to Indians. That would mean he might be a liberal, and he’s trying to be “conservative.” He said (January 10 on FoxNews) that he didn’t mean anything derogative by it.
Well, not much more is to be expected from Steele, a monkey-see monkey-do choice of benumbed Republicans when faced with the first Negro presidential candidate, Barry “Obama” Soetoro. We all know how terrified Republicans are of being accused of “racism.” (That word is to them like a crucifix to Dracula, for some reason. Democrats on the other hand are so racist they don’t even respond to the term when applied to them. At least Republicans care something about the word.) Republicans had to demonstrate that they weren’t prejudice. A black Republican chairman. That would do it. (Smacks of prejudice to me.)
Steele, in the last analysis, is simply a black, in office. He isn’t white, and nothing he says can make him white. And it doesn’t matter how many white Republicans there are in America that he’s ‘in charge’ of, this doesn’t make Steele white.
But now, on the “honest Injun” bit, it was the liberal Indians who objected! Having been trained by white liberals to protest, Indians yearn for opportunities to imitate blacks, to find their “Indian” place in the great “You Wronged Me” chorus of American liberalism. The liberal journalist Indians like those who work for Indian Country Today were the ones who protested. These Indians act black! They think black. They want to be black.
So, while Steele, a “conservative” black, wants to be white–by saying something considered belittling to Indians, the liberal Indians want to be black–by protesting a mere name (”injun”) as if it causes cruel agony! “Apologize! Apologize!” cry the Indians. But now, that’s really very, very white, isn’t it? That ‘apologize’ thing? Lily liberal white. That’s positively womanly. How triumphant of those brave Indians. What a coup! “Injun!” How it hurts! How it victimizes! (How it gets us in the news! How it helps our liberal professional career!)
It’s a lesson in how liberalism make fools of Indians, and how conservative blacks think they are white. Or, at least, they want to be white. So it seems.
Imitating blacks (–blacks who were trained by liberal whites) does nothing for Indians. Blacks clearly consider themselves superior to Indians, and when Indians try to think and act black, they consent to this black superiority fantasy. The American black, who is solely dependent on the white man, who wholly identifies with the white man in the passion to imitate him, regards himself as superior to Indians, like whites do, and liberal Indians simply join the chorus.
Interestingly, what I’ve learn is that a conservative Indian has no professional place in the conservative movement. (Yet?) This is a logistical matter, more than anything else. A conservative Indian honors race. A conservative Indian is not trying to transcend race, or to pretend it doesn’t exist, or to annihilate it. Race is not something that must be overcome. A conservative Indian wants to preserve race, particularly the Indian race. That’s all.
I simply extend this privilege to other races and ethnicites. They have a right to preserve theirs. But, for this cause, the general conservative movement cannot accept a conservative Indian. The big professional conservatives, the show talkers, the Republicans, are, as we know, terrified of being accused of racism. And Indian who wants to preserve his race simply doesn’t fit into the conservative political mechanism. It is political suicide and professional anathema should any white conservative want to preserve his race. The jargon is crashed. The campaign talk is confused.
I know I’m Indian. I know I’m conservative. I’m not worried. I’m not in this for personal, professional success. I’m not trying to be white, or black. I just have a notion of what’s good for Indians in the long run.
14 responses so far ↓
1 geronl // Jan 26, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I cannot disagree with any of that except to say that you can be a part of the conservative movement, you might have to push some people out of the way. John McCain comes to mind =o)
2 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I am part of the conservative movement, just not professionally. I don’t mean to sound like I’m complaining, either. I’m not. I just thought things were different when I first got into it. Novelties wear off. Only real values remain. I’m conservative because I’m conservative, not because it brings special opportunities for life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness to me.
I’m thinking McCain is not a maverick. He’s just inconsistent. Unpredicatable, and maybe unreliable, therefore.
But, the same could be said for a lot of “Republican” leaders. Why, there’s even a Democrat or two who vie for ambiguity, like Joe Lieberman…
3 Thrasymachus // Jan 26, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Republicans have ruled out any racial or ethnic interests of whites (maybe of American Indians as well?), in perfect harmony with the Democrats. Some great fear on this issue has seized them. They play the game according to the Democrats’ agenda and take the “white vote” for granted. This policy has failed them recently and will likely forever fail them.
Steele’s demand for punishment of Reid is childish, to say the least.
Somehow, I believe that to repudiate all racial or ethnic interests in politics is something “un-conservative”.
In any case, Colin Powell ought to be a lasting lesson to Republicans. Placing Martin Luther King Jr. (real name: Michael King) on a pedestal and publically bowning down to him does not really inspire true conservative Americans of any race, I should imagine.
4 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I had a wonderful blog prepared for MKL day, but, I just couldn’t get it done. He equated equality with integration. He thought equality meant material parity. He was a racist, basically, and a negative one. I mean, I don’t think he thought much of black people. The American Communist Party certainly used him to their greatest advantage. The holidy is a disgrace, from this perspective.
What it should be called is Civil Rights Day. But, even then, it’s about Negroes. American Negro Day would have been the appropriate title. Blacks have difficulty acting individually (except when it comes to sensual creativity. They are deeply social and group-oriented. If a national holiday helps them, fine. I support it. But, to make a holiday for King is simply wrong and insulting. He isn’t what the holiday is about.
5 John McNeill // Jan 26, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Mr. Yeagley,
The problem with modern American conservatism is that it is beholden to the ideology of civic nationalism; the belief that a national identity is based on loyalty to a State rather than being born into an ethnic group or tribe. It also preaches that culture exists in a vacuum, and has no relation to the people who built the culture, meaning that anyone can participate in any culture, and thus belong to the culture, irrespective of genes or heritage. And as you probably know, civic nationalism is dangerous for Indians, because there’s plenty of liberal whites who think they are like Indians because they own a headdress or their apartment is adorned with posters of noble howling wolves, and if it wasn’t for Indian tribes often having blood requirements for membership, scores of liberal whites would no doubt sign up for Lakota or Comanche membership.
I remember watching a video in an anthropology class on the New Age movement and how real Indians felt about dopey white liberals masquerading as Indians. They naturally felt outraged and viewed the whole New Age movement as some feel-good movement that was a threat to their very existence. Back then, I was a civic nationalist, and didn’t understand their fears. Wasn’t the celebration of Indian culture a compliment to them? And how would it threaten their existence? But as the years went by and I became more racially aware (something I once feared and denounced as evil), I noticed the civic nationalist propaganda used to justify the Third World invasions of both Europe and America. Oh have no fear, the Third Worlders will inevitably assimilate into our superior civilization and become just like us! That mantra is still used by most conservatives in both the US and Europe, even in the face of mounting resistance to assimilation despite whites in both America and Europe bending over backwards to accommodate the immigrants. Some civic nationalists oppose multiculturalism, but even in a “monocultural society” the immigrants show no interest in adapting to another culture. Central Asians resisting both Russian and Chinese cultural imperialism is a good example of this.
And now I understand why. Genes and culture are interrelated. Science is discovering that genes play a bigger role in our lives then we would like to believe, and if that’s the case, then wouldn’t the genes of the people who built a culture, whether it’s Comanche or English, have played a role?
And I also understand why Indians feel threatened by the New Age movement. Besides the bastardization of Indian beliefs that are modified by liberals to legitimize liberal beliefs, New Age liberals inevitably feel a “connection” to Indians and thus try to immerse themselves in Indian culture by attending tribal powwows and other such events. If civic nationalists have their way, Indians would open up their tribe to these Indian-loving liberals, and take them in. This will of course lead to a degradation of Indian culture and identity, as white liberals, besides injecting their genes into the Indian blood pool and altering the genetic makeup of Indians (including physical characteristics), they would also inject their own cultural values into Indian society. Thus authentic Indian identity would be gone, which is why civic nationalism is a threat to Indians.
But civic nationalism is also a threat to whites. I remember in the discussion of the video where we talked about why whites felt the need to identify with Indian culture; one girl proclaimed it was an example of white privilege; whites are privileged enough to “shop for cultures.” Were I a white nationalist back then, I would have argued that American whites do not think they have a culture, because in recent times it has been defined as a civic identity, rather than an ethnic one. Anyone can be “American” according to the civic nationalists, and therefore we whites don’t have a culture that belongs to us, in that paradigm. We only exist when racism is discussed. And that’s what leads whites to pretend to be Indians; because of the lack of ethnic identity, something that is natural for humans. This is destroying us, as it is destroying Europeans.
Mr. Yeagley, I support you in your efforts to preserve both your people and the culture that your people built. Just as I fight for my own peoples existence, albeit in tiny and insignificant ways for now. Sadly though, most conservatives at the present time are married to civic nationalism and race denialism. To them we are fascists and hatemongers; thus we have no place on either the mainstream Right (The GOP, Fox News, National Review) or the “alternative RIght” (American Conservative, Lew Rockwell, The Ron Paul movement, the Libertarian Party).
I believe that it would be in the best interests of all ethnic groups in the US to promote an ethnonationalist alliance that calls for the establishment of ethnostates within the US. A nation for American whites, a nation for American blacks, Atzlan (Yes I hate this idea, but I think Hispanics have successfully conquered the Southwest), and of course, nations for the indigenous peoples of North America. I believe that sovereignty for all ethnic groups is the best course of action, as I think it’s the only way to guarantee preservation of all the ethnic groups. And if the flag-waving, “patriotic” Right will never go for that, then so be it; I do not belong with the Right anymore.
To me a nation is an extended family; that’s what ethnos meant in the ancient Greek sense; rather than the modern Western idea of a nation being a set of borders with a ruling government that defines citizenship. And thus I have no loyalty to the current idea of the modern United States; I am an American white and my nation is my fellow American whites.
At any rate, God bless you and your efforts to preserve the Comanche people.
6 Thrasymachus // Jan 27, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The New Age Movement uses a variety of non-European cultures for its purposes. For example, New Age Liberals claim that Chinese Confucianism is anti-New Age because it is “conservative,” whereas Chinese Taoism is the very same thing as modern Liberalism. (No joke — I read this in a New Age book).
This is, of course, utterly false and a total bastardization of Taoist (Daoist) philosophy as well.
The whole problem is that white liberals have jettisoned their traditional white identity and are totally a lost people.
I have studied some good scholarly books on Chinese Taoist philosophy, and I can assure you that it has absolutely nothing to do with modern liberalism. The closest thing to it, in fact, is the Amish way of life — and even this is quite different from Taoism in matters of religious doctrine.
Whites today: a people totally at sea, without a culture the claim as their own and without homelands they claim as their own as well. All this, not as a result of military conquest, but the result of liberal ideological triumph!
7 David Yeagley // Jan 27, 2010 at 3:39 pm
John McNeill, a masterpiece you have shared. Thank you.
Sovereignty would demonstrate just how incapable and inferior the non-white races are when it comes to management. Indian sovereignty itself has been profoundly undermined by white capitalist criminals (i.e., land developers, syndicate casino business, lying politicians,etc.) Casinos stand as a loud testimony of the liabilities of the “minority” groups.
I salute you for your value and honor upon the white race and its supreme accomplishments. Western Civilization is a culture. Yes, there are sub-cultures, ethnicities, etc., within, but, the whole thing is white. I personally see the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant as the king. Yes, he built on a European white catholic foundation, but, that was in the primitive days. He grew out of that, triumphantly.
Now, if he can just refrain from giving away his empire, like placid old England gave away hers.
8 David Yeagley // Jan 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I believe American whites do have a culture. It’s just not what everyone else’s is, and yet it’s what everyone else craves to emulate.
I believe Alexander the Great triumphed so quickly, so greatly, so vastly, because people of the world saw what he brought with him, and actually liked it.
I think the Japanese, for instance, like European classical music, and suits & ties.
9 Duckys-here // Jan 27, 2010 at 3:48 pm
What did Alexander bring with him?
10 JackInJill // Jan 27, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Alexander was a gay man, like many of the great men of Western Civilization, men such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for example.
11 Thrasymachus // Jan 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Within music alone, I could give thousands of illustrations of white culture — and yes European culture transcends national borders: the French love Beethoven and the Germans love Chopin, etc. (Beethoven is actually a Dutch name).
This music here simply thrills my soul. Pueri Concinite –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhFu7kM7-ao&feature=related
12 Thrasymachus // Jan 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm
John McNeill,
I too was impressed with the high quality of your post. I had never heard the term “civic nationalism” before. Thank you for helping me learn!
13 geronl // Jan 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm
JacjInJill
Thats stupid, the homosexual movement trying to claim every great figure in history as their own is idiotic and even retarded.
14 urchin63 // Jan 30, 2010 at 12:55 am
I hold with the concept that the unique spiritual, cultural and character makeup of the different races are ordained by God and for His purposes.
Consider this: When White settlers arrived in America, they soon saw the need for cheap(slave?)labor. The expanse they sought to conquer was already furnished with an indigenous people that the Whites were already attempting ot overrun for their own gain. Why, then; did the Whites go to the expense and danger of importing slaves from abroad when there was a whole nation of would-be, could-be slaves already living there? The overwhelming numbers and advanced weaponry available to the Whites should have made that task a cakewalk for them.
Here’s my theory. Due to the God-given spiritual and cultural makeup of the Native American Indian, the idea of enslaving them would have immediately been recognized as a non-starter. Whites have always recognized if not always admitted, that the character and bravery of the early Native Americans was exemplary. They would have, no doubt, to a person, chosen death and honor before they would have consented to be owned, therefore making the notion of enslaving them impossible.
Africans that were imported for the purpose of slavery were largely slaves before they were brought here. They were sold to White traders of human chattel by Black traders of human chattel. To be owned was already a part of their ancestry. This may partially explain their present inability to find identity without relying on white handlers.
Because the White race needed to expand, they have bargained with, threatened, crowded, dictated to, bought off and killed the American Indian but never enslaved them. Unless I miss my guess, they have always known better than to try.
Here’s hoping that the recent bids by Obama and his henchmen for the mind and heart of the American Indian won’t be successful. It would be a sorry end to have triumphed as a nation for centuries over all manner of threats just to succumb to an underhanded beguiler and be added to his coffer of “underpriviliged minorities.”
You must log in to post a comment.