January 31, 2003
Poema del Italia

Frightening report from Italy: Twenty-eight Pakistanis were just arrested in connection with Al-qada terrorism. It was in Napoli (Naples), a large southern coastal city. The terrorists were preparing to attack to the NATO base, the U.S. consulate, and the U.S. naval base nearby.

You'd have thought the men would have been Arab. Why? Southern Italy is swamped with impoverished Arab immigrants. It is a historical problem. In 1994, Allesandra Mussolini's political campaign ran on the idea of "cleaning up the Arab s---t." Liberal Eric Alterman wrote her up as "The New Face of Fascism," Elle, July 1994.

Allessandra, the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, was part of the far Right in Italian politics. She continues to campaign for the rights of the poor, however.

But this is Italy, land of contrasts, land of art.

What's worse, or, I should say, more contrasting, is her personal life. While she protests the abuse of women, and the recent degrading court decision that tight jeans incited an 18 year old man to rape his 45 year old driving instructor, she herself is a famous porno star. In fact, on the basic Yahoo search, nearly all of the references to her are to porno sites, some even with photos on site.

Well, call her a Italian patriot. She bares her body to speak for the poor, a gesture she must have picked up from her aunti Sofi (Sophia Scicolone "Loren"). Sophia has always proudly associated herself with the poor. Two biographies dramatize the truly dramatic circumstances of Sophia's early years during WWII. Sophia, by Donald Zec (1975), and Sophia, by A. E. Hotchner (1979).

Sophia's neice Allesandra (daughter of Sophia's sister Maria and Romano Mussolini, son of Il Duce) has certainly been directly involved in politics, as well as "photography." She's just a little more dramatic about both than her aunt Sofi was about either.

Allesandra thinks Arabs are a problem in southern Italy? I can say she is not alone. I have Italian friends in Connecticut, from Naples, who see it the same way. I asked one of them, Benedetto, a little older guy, what he thought about the whole Palestinian problem. Here was a chance for an old world Italian Catholic to slam the Jews, I thought. But I wanted to know what he felt.

To my complete surpise, at the time, he said, "These-a people...they are-a trouble-makers. They donna work-a! ("They don't work.") He regarded the Arabs as non-productive, socially. He had come from a place where he had seen it. And Benedetto was one hard worker, as were all the other Italians I knew from Naples. They prided themselves in their work. They loved to work.

So now this story from Italy--there is a dramatic irony. L'ironia della sorte! The culprits should have been Arabs, not just "links" to Al-qada. But they were Pakistanis. Ah, but they were Muslims. They were religious, they were Islamicists. They were murderers.

They just hid behind their national identity. Who would have expected them to be hooked up with the Arabs? They hid their Islamicism behind a different national identity.

Our conclusion? Mark Islam. Just watch out for the Muslims, and specifically, the poor Muslims. These are the ones that do the dirty work. All this terrorism gives them significance which they would otherwise never attain. This is the real danger of poverty. It breed desperation, whether baring the body in pornography, or giving up the body to a suicide/murder.

And povery also brings drugs. My Iranian friends tell me that the problem in "poor" Afghanistan is cocaine. The war lords are only gangsters, drug thugs. There no nationality in dispute at all. It's all about drugs.

I wonder how much of this sort of thing goes on in Italy, or in the U.S. for that matter. Or, dare I ask?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:32 AM | Comments (1)
January 30, 2003
Iraqi Oil Held "in trust?"

(Reuters/Vicki Stott) - Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that a U.S. military
occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people. In
an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State
Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying
different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States
invades. "If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of
the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi
people," he said.

Well, is there a precedent for this wonderful plan? Let's see...oh, yes! The American Indians. My, it's worked so well right here at home. The United States government, in holding American Indian resources (land, energy, oil, etc.) "in trust" has set a wonderful example of how to "use" the opportunity.
This is one case where I can't make much of a distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, Bruce Babbitt and the Clinton administration were egregiously fraudulent, but, the Republican adminstration so far has shown no change. Something like 15 billion at this point is still unaccounted for by Washington's Bureau of Indian Affairs. No one has the slightest idea what happened to it.

I wish I could be encouraging to the Iraqi people on this one. Well, I can say this: all eyes are on America now. The U.S. might act more circumspectly in the management of Iraqi affairs. After all, who cares about Indians? What difference does it make to the world if the Clintons ripped off a few billion?
I'm sure the American government has learned its lesson. (NOT!)

But, Iraqi people, look at it this way: do you want to face the future under the leader you let warp your lives and threaten your existence (and everyone else's)--Saddam, or do you want to become like an American Indian reservation, preserve who your are, and, in your case, actually have the opportunity to rebuild? Sure, the sharks will profit, but, you will still have your country.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:21 AM | Comments (6)
January 29, 2003
The Nyack War Continues

Randi Werner, reporter for the Journal News (Rockland County, NY), has just posted a story about the issue of the Nyack Indian logo used by the Nyack High School. (This story was quickly posted on FreeRepublic.)

Werner reveals the aggressive tactics of the anti-Indian activists, tactics which I have referred to as "communist." Why? Why was this a story, and why do I call it communist? Simple. People don't like to be forced, ram-rodded, or denied their freedoms. Werner knows the Nyack community is offended by these aggressors, and refers to my assertion that they are communist simply because they are.

Terms like "liberal," "Leftist," "Progressive," are simply politically correct terms for communism, or the doctrine of Karl Marx, or Marxism. Of course, Marx advocated the advancement of his values through socialism, another pre-politically correct term. He believed he could, in time, achieve his values through democracy. Lenin, of course, said coercion was the key. He didn't want to wait. Communism is coerced Marxism.

Today's communists fancy themselves before the public as Robin Hoods, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. But the key word there is "rob." This characterizes their tactics. They seldom achieve their ends through legitimate means.

I have learned by experience and study that the American educational system is communist to the core. Probably the majority of the educators involved unaware of this. Probably the Nyack High School faculty is to an extent unaware.

You don't have to be aware of communist doctrine to be a part of it, or to promote it. It's all disguised in the purest of American ideals: equality. The poor have been made such by the indiscretions of the rich. If you suffer in any way, it is someone else's fault, not yours. This is the disguised Marxist doctrine of "redistribution of wealth."

Look, this kind of thinking has occurred in my own head in past times. It occurs to anyone who is suffering, and sees no way out. I'm sure many people follow this trend, even if they don't really believe in it. It seems like the only solution.
But the fact is, it is not a solution at all. It only extends and prolongs suffering.

No, the aggressors in Nyack have already shown their colors. They can't disguise themselves any longer. Werner made sure of that. What she didn't reveal is that two of main leaders of the communistic aggressors are emplyees of WBAI, one of the most far Left stations in New York City. WBAI has actively supported efforts trying to obtain the release of Kathy Boudin, responsible in the killing of two Nyack Police officers in 1981. Boudin was a Weatherman terrorist. WBAI seems intimately associated with left wing radical Jews, (which are few), and itself is a target of anti-semtism.

I will also point out that the Nycak school administration has indulged these very activists repeatedly at school meetings, student meetings, and community meetings. I, of course, having openly identified them as communists, am barred brom speaking at the school.

Communism is alive and well in America. Beware, oh innocent dupes. Your failure to be openly, decidedly patriotic causes you to fall into the camp of the enemy. Educators and school administrators are no longer innocent. It is impossible now. Communists force you into an "either/or" situation.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:38 AM | Comments (6)
January 28, 2003
Indian Equality?

Indian equality in American society presents a perpetual paradox. Indians activists and leaders advocate equality, but our reservations and attendant exemptions make Indian equality a hard sell.

Look at the recent case of the Alabama-Coushatta Indians and their court case.

Their petition for certiorari was denied on 1/21/03
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. America Tobacco Co.
Docket No. 02-746 The Indians wanted to sue the tobacco companies for the damaged health of tribal memeber. Sounds a little odd, since tobacco is a major issue on Indian reservations. Cigarette tax is exempted in most cases. It's a big business for the reservations, precisely because of the business "privilege" that comes with federal reservation status.

Holding below: Fifth Circuit--Indian tribe's sovereign status and its allegation that tobacco-related injuries to tribal members injured tribe itself, by adversely affecting tribe's size and health and well-being of its members, are insufficient to establish "direct injury" needed to support tribe's fraud, racketeering, product liability, negligence, and warranty claims against tobacco manufacturers.

National Indian Law Library has the complete Supreme Court report.

So, it looks like Indians can't have it both ways. We can't take advantage of citizenship, and at the same time maintain arrangements other citizens don't have. Sounds equitable to me.

Of course, I've public stated that I would like to see statehood for Indian reservations, or something along the lines of full, competitive participation in America. I would like to think that Indians can earn our reservations. Yes, our ancestors earned them. But does this mean we descendents have to need or obligation to win them again? Are we barred forever from war? Are we morally weakened by our pride in our ancestors?

Somehow, I'm not sure they would be happy if they saw the way we suffer today. They would ask, "Where are the warriors?"

Why smoke? Why drink? Why use drugs? Why gamble? Why produce illegitimate, uncared-for children? Why aren't we fighting these battles? Have we utterly failed here? Is this why our activist leaders are trying to remove the Indian warrior images all over America? Are they ashamed of themselves? Are they embarrassed before their own ancestors? Maybe the activists think they are fighting different wars. Then again, maybe they're not even warriors at all.

Like the Alabama-Coushetta, they bite the hand that feeds them.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:45 AM | Comments (13)
January 27, 2003
The Irish Wise Up

We noticed the Danes starting to tighten up on immigration. Well, the Irish are getting even tighter.

Last week's AP WorldNews.com story reports that Ireland can now deport immigrant parents of children born in Ireland. It's the law. In other words, just because you are born in Ireland doesn't mean you're an automatic citizen, or that your parents then have a claim to be in Ireland. Ireland's Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that illigal immigrants who have children in Ireland can be shipped out along with their newborns.

The decision appears rather sweeping, and Irish liberals naturally fear mass deportations and warn against abuse. (So, it's not abuse for diseased foreigners to leaved their failed countries and illegally sponge off the Irish?) The most frequent immigrants are single pregnant mothers from Nigeria
claiming "assylum."

This is not surprising. Nigeria is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and has developed nearly an entire population of the most dishonest, crooked, swindling aders in the world. The name Nigeria bespeaks fraud.

I get probably half a dozen emails a week, from Nigerian con artists trying to transfer money into an American bank account. I got mail from one man claiming he was a Muslim, and had a miraculous conversion to Christianity, and wanted to transfer several million dollars into a truthworhy Christian bank account. Now, that's really pushing it, wouldn't you say? Imagine, preying on religious emotions of some sincere Baptist widow out in Podunk, Kansas. The crook takes the bank account number, and instead of putting money in, he simply cleans it out. These scams are international, and so well known that it's disgusting at this point.

Ireland has the right idea. Keep scum in the sewers of their own countries. If they can't manage their own problems, let them suffer the consequences. They will never rebel against their leaders, they will never change their own countries, if all they have to do is leave. If all they have to do is immigrate to a white country, that's all they will ever do.

But no country is obligated to clean up the messes of another. Of course, Ireland, and Denmark are making these decisions against immigration because they are smaller countries, and stand in a very real peril of having their culture and ethnicity corrupted beyond repair. In the United States, however, our brainless liberals think we have unlimited recources, and we're soooo big! We really have no culture to begin with, and we owe our advantages to ever loser in the world.

History denies such foolishness. No nation, however large, can't exist long without definition. America is in just as great a peril as Ireland or Denmark. Proportionately, our immigration problem is just as threatening. We need to make the same sorts of laws to protect ourselves as Ireland and Denmark have done.

American Indians don't seem to get the picture yet, but, Indian Country too is fast losing its traditional identity through intermarriage and assimilation. BadEagle.com hopes soon to begin a statistical report on this process. Unless we take care of our own, they go elsewhere. The difference between Indians an Nigerians is that Indians are few. Africans are countless. They have no fear of losing tradition or race.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:29 AM | Comments (13)
January 26, 2003
Former Marine, Former American?

The U.S. Marine Corps is known for producing fine quality men. Perhaps there are exceptions to every rule.

Ken Nichols O'Keefe is reported to be a Gulf War veteran Marine. The news of his experience there, and the details of his service are not yet public. We here in Oklahoma City already know that military service is not necessarily synonymous with American patriotism, nor are all the thoughts of a veteran thus validated by his service. Look at Timothy McVeigh, a fine quality soldier who, it is commonly known, was involved with Iraqi subterfuge as he bombed the Murrah federal building in 1995.

Ken Nichols O'keefe somewhere along the line got into the notorious "peace" movement, a global network of quasi-religious/political subversives. The Universal Kinship Society , Ahisma, Yoga for Peace, and a host of other associations are all gathering volunteers (as well as money) to travel to Iraq and act as human shields in a grand international "sit down" demonstration. (Who said the '60's were over?)

Not really an original (or cool) idea, since Saddam used western citizens as sheilds in the '91 Gulf War. 1,800 British citizens were used as human shields when Saddam invaded Kuwait. These Brits can tell a terrible tale of trauma, which these current enthusiasts do well to hear.

Peace at any price? This is what the peace-niks seem to be saying, yet this is precisely what leads to dictators, tyranny and oppression. This is why, as David Horowitz is saying, the peace movement is wholly suspect itself. I say war rather than that kind of "peace," any day.

Who wants war? None but the maniacle drugged-up fanatics really want war for war's sake. War is the worst thing that can happen to anyone who has anything valuable in this world. My sources tell me the Afghan war lords are all bound up with cocain and heroine operations, and that is behind all their "noble" fantasies of tribal identity. They have no real national identity. It is a land of drug gangs.

Ken Nichols O'Keefe is, I'm afraid, greatly mistaken. We don't know his background yet. We don't know if he is married, has family, if he had a distrubed childhood, etc. We don't know what would lead him to such an irrational position.

America is nowhere near perfect, but, what we have is worth protecting. It doesn't sound like t me that Ken Nichols O'Keefe loves America any more. Love always means taking into your very bosom rip-roaring error and fault in that other person. Love takes it all in. It has to, else there is no love. Humanity is a most faulty thing.

I'm sad for Mr. O'Keefe. I'm really sad. If he and all the other human shields are destroyed, which I believe they will be, I can only hope the rest of the world learns the lesson that suicide for what you believe is not the same as fighting for what you believe. The human shields are really the same as the suicide bombers, morally. Dying for what you believe doesn't automtically make it true or worthy, as Jonah Goldberg notes in his article on O'Keefe. All these shields are saying is that their lives are as useless as the terrorists. They have nothing valuable to live for, so they'd rather die in a desperate attempt to achieve significance.

I'm just really bummed that a Marine would come to feel this way about himself and his country.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:50 AM | Comments (5)
January 24, 2003
Danes Are No Dummies

Denmark wised up. The past June their Liberal-Conservative coalition Parliament made some interesting and pertinent new rules that make immigration into Denmark a much more precious privilege.

It seems that the 7.7% foreign population are going to have a much harder time dragging all their friends and relatives into Copenhagen. 5.3 million Danes apparently have had their fill of interntional riff-raff. Denmark is one of the smaller countries in Scandinavian Europe, and Danish leaders are worried about the preservation of their national identity. They don't want to lose their nation to global homelessness. They don't want to become to become just a depository of global waste.

But the failed countries of the world all think that the propserous nations owe their population runovers the right to immigrate. The poor of the world presume they should live where the wealth and productivity are.

The Communist/Marxist media of the world continue to preach this message. Sydney's Sun Herald put out the headline: "Denmark's image as free-minded country eroded." After all, the Left is all about image. What greater tragedy could there be than to lose the image of being "righteous" (in Communist terms)?
That a country should want to preserve its race, religion, culture, economy, and borders is just unthinkable to the self-ordained Communist dictators in the world. The globalist tyrants are outraged at the thought of national pride, anywhere, for any reason. They don't want separate nations. They simply want to rule the world, all the world, every nation.

The Sun article (AP June 2) quoted the lamentations of immigrants, of course, and ends with a quote from a university professor, a sure image of omniscience and wisdom. Jacob Als Thomsen (associate professor in the Minority Studies Department of Copenhagen University) said this law hurts rep in the international community. Genuine globalist rhetoric always shines through university professor. "Denmark has now definitely lost it position as leading country when it comees to integreation."

Horray for the Danes! At last, they have shaken off the shakles of globalist tyranny. May their country be blessed for so doing. May other countries not so wise, like the United States, take a lesson from the Vikings!

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:40 AM | Comments (4)
January 23, 2003
The Odd Couple: France & Germany

What's up with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder? What kind of countries are we looking at in France and Germany? Are they a couple of modern cowards? Their shared anti-war rhetoric is remarkably ironic. France is incapable of anything anyway, and Germany is dissembling--as if it has no taste for war. Both are presenting themselves as peace-loving, righteous nations, but France is totally fake, and Germany is being deceptive.

France has accomplished nothing since Napoleon. They have displayed nothing but interntional incompetence. Their vote on war is meaningless. Germany, on the other hand, the most monstrous war-monger of modern times, now decries the very idea of war. Further more, the two countries have had horribly adverse relations toward each other for the last millenium. (Germany crushed France in the last two world wars.) But now they find it advantageous to unite against the United States against the war on Iraq.

What are we to make of this? Both France and Germany have oil interests in Iraq. They don't want to see the United States move in or get an advantage over there. France is so overrun by foreigners, particularly Arab, Hindu (India), and Pakistani immigrants, France hardly has a useful identity any longer. In modern times, France can not be depended on for anything.

My father, a WWII veteran, said France would wave the German flag when the Germans marched through the towns, then turn around and wave the American flag when the Americans came through. This is France. No commitment, no honor, no reliability.

What's worse, the United States inherited French political messes in the world, particularly Indochina, and specifically Vietnam. Yes, these were French messes. America sought to keep the Western Way respectable, and to keep alive the idea of democracy. The weak French pulled out of Indochina in the late '50's and early '60's, and the U.S. took over. We paid for their mistakes.
France never paid her war debts to us, either.

Germany is also wholly ungrateful for all the rebuilding and reunification which America has brought about in Germany. Now, Germans are so anxious to come across to the world as peace-loving people, as wonderfully forgiving and compassionate folk, that they are overly quick to accuse the United States of everything Germany has been historically guilty of: racial prejudice, and global war-mongering.

When I was a Special Student (grad. level) at Harvard, I got a good dose of this attitude from a fellow grad student. "Look how America treated the Negro, the Indian," etc., he would complain. This is such a naive and stupid angle that I never dreamed it would be advocated anywhere but on a university campus. I never thought it would become an articulated national political position.

But, if the truth were known, it's probably their anti-semitism that is dictating similar positions in Germany and France. The Arab influence in France is the obvious, dominant political influence in French government now. This can only mean anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Jewish political positions in the national government. These positions are sometimes covert, but they are becoming more obvious now.

Germany, of course, has always hated not only Jews, but all Eastern invasions of Europe. Friedrich Heer says, "It was the people living to the East who were main objects of German mass hatred and hysteria, a legacy of hate which has bedevilled Germany's relations with her eastern neighbors down to our own times." The Medieval World (Mentor, 1961).

Germany espouses Iraq now only because of the anti-Jewish nature of Iraq's Islamic society. The oil connection is a mere convenience.

One thing you can count on in this world: hatred of the Jews. This maniacle disposition shapes world events more than most people realize. This satanic hatred can united such constitutionally adverse cultures as France and Germany.

I say drop them both. They are not friends. They are not worthy of America.
They are a couple of poisonous snakes.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:26 AM | Comments (5)
January 22, 2003
Casinos, Coercion, and Corruption

An interesting announcement has recently been posted on the website of the Northeast Chapter of the American Indian Movement: It is a call for the removal of Ray Halbritter, the modern Oneida Chieftan of Oneida Nation, Inc. (New York).

"Ray Halbritter, self-proclaimed Nation Representative and CEO of the Oneida Nation, Inc. owns and operates the Turning Stone Casino, plus numerous other enterprises. The casino was opened by secret negotiations with New York governor Mario Cuomo, without the knowledge of the Oneida nation. He created a 54 member non-Native police force to consolidate his power on the Oneida territory. Halbritter has been removed from his position as spokesperson for the nation by his clan mother and the Iroquois Grand Council and yet still is recognized by the BIA and the state government. His latest attempt to gain control over the 32 acre territory resulted in the terrorization of Danielle Patterson, daughter of Masie Shenandoah, clan mother of the wolf clan. Danielle's trailer has been condemned and maybe demolished any time by Dec.15th. Halbritter has also:

1. Locked the doors to the Long House allowing use only for his appointed non-traditional men's council

2. Stripped the traditional Haudenosaunee of their voice and removed them from tribal roles, unless they agree to publicly accept his non-traditional dictatorship.

3. Banned photographers and reporters from the 32 acre Territory.

4. Used a 5.1 million-acre land claims suit as a bargaining chip to build more casinos, and filed lawsuits against landowners without the traditional people's knowledge or consent. This list could go on and on, but for those of you who would like more detailed information visit: Oneidas For Democracy. "

The post calls for a complete boycott of Indian Indian Country Today, the largest American Indian newspaper in the country. This is because Halbritter has become the sole proprietor of the newspaper. He apparently made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

So, what we have here is a real irony: AIM condemning the Casino of Halbritter. One crooked agency condeming another. The pot calling the kettle black. The coercions of Halbritter are a great opportunity for AIM to attempt to whitewash itself from its own reputation for total subservive activity, anti-Americanism, and illegal coercions in the past and well as the present. The naivete of this recent AIM tactic against Halbritter is, I'm afraid, typical of Indian politics.

I don't know what the effects will be on Indian Country Today, a very liberal newspaper itself. I do know that casinos, as managed so far, are a gigantic threat to Indian people everywhere. Halbritter's case illustrates that all too well; but I certainly don't want to see a left wing Communist group like AIM try to come out smelling like roses. People in both camps have done nothing for Indian people. They have made personal careers of it, one way or another. They shoot for the publicity, and for national legislation, and never represent Indian people. They just like to play with power.

Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians. I'm afraid that's the story. Indians are victimized by our own so-called "leaders."


Posted by David Yeagley at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2003
Indians, Alcohol, and Gambling

As early as the 1720's, English colonial leaders had observed that Indians were prone to severe effects from European vices, particularly alcohol. (See, e.g., CadWallader Colden, The History of the Five Indian Nations.) Ben Franklin later realized that the Indian could only be subjugated through alcohol. The reckless use of alcohol by Indians diplayed a complete lack of ability to manage it, and it was finally declared illegal to serve or sell alcohol to Indians. That law was in effect until it was repealed in 1954.

Can we say that Indians then achieved "equal rights?" Was that a good law, to allow Indians free access to liquor? Has that proven a great social advance for Indians? Hardly. Indians today have the highest ratio of alcoholism among any group of people in the United States. This was no achievement.

Now, can we expect that the gambling industry is going to bring "love and piece" to Indian country? Can we expect Indians to show a self-control in the practice of this vice?

I'm not sure Indians should be allowed to gamble. I would pass a law imposing severe restrictions. Why? We Indian people have enough social problems. Gambling away what little we have left will only bring about our final demise. We will lose our land, and be forced to become inner city vermin, and finally intermarriage will eliminate our identity.

Of course, I realize that most people don't care. The Democrats and casino bosses certainly don't care. They will use Indians until we are used up. The Republicans don't seem to care either, because, without reservations and Indians, the Democratic party will lose votes, not gain them. It is in the Republican interests that there be no Indians.

I say to Indians what Sharon says to Israel: "We can depend only on ourselves." (Fortunately for Sharon, the Jews are a lot more dependable.) Perhaps Indians should develop our own political party, independent of other American parties. We need to define ourselves in this modern world. So far, we are just here to be used by the other forces. We are bought and sold, continually. There is no future in this for us. We must break loose from this pattern.

I can't imagine that anyone can stop the casino invasion of our people and our reservations. I can only hope that each tribe will re-write its own constitution, and that legal protection can be provided for Indian people.

Otherwise, I give Indians one or two more generations, maybe 20 years, and we will be gone. Our identity will be only theoretical, and our existence will be a fantasy. Club Indian, it will become. Anyone with the money can by membership in the fantasy. Like "fantasy football," it will become "fantasy Indian."

Posted by David Yeagley at 03:26 PM | Comments (3)
January 20, 2003
The King Dream: America's Worst Nightmare

Martin Luther King was a disaster of a man. That he should be held up as a hero for black people is a terrible mistake. There are so many other black people that are so much more worthy. That there should be a national day in King's remembrance is a shameful blight on American history, as horrible a distortion of reality as was the very institution of slavery--to which it is but reactionary.

While it is true that African Negroes never ever asked to come here, once they were here, they did not have many options of action or thought. Their main course has always been to imitate the white man. This they never would have done, had they not been juxtaposed to the white race.

King's sole mission was to procure that imitation as much as possible. He preached that the black man was full of fear, and needed the white man to help him overcome those fears. (Pittsburgh Speach). Thus he saw no other way except integration. He would not address the fact that non-black people generally don't like being around black people. This was not at all his concern.
He desired to force black people into the face of white people. The key word there is force.

As a result, enormous social ills have become predominant in the country. Crime, frustrations, abuses, all come with integration. A few blacks have behaved wisely, and benefited from their opportunities. Even fewer excelled without legalized opportunities. So, for the benefit of the few, the whole country suffers. Well, again, blacks didn't ask to come here, or to be slaves. Now that they're here, they sure don't want to be slaves.

King wanted a man judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Character, however, is precisely what the black man has always lacked. A black skin almost guarantees certain attitudes, and presumptions. This is all because of the unnatural juxtaposition of the race to white society. The black man is foreigner to western society, but one who absolutely craves a place in it.

But, at least he's honest about his desire. Many foreigners today also crave a place in America, but are critics of America instead. Look at the Arabs, particularly the Saudis. These are obvious enemies of America. Yet, with their American money, they buy up American business, property, and even places in our government. This is a very strong manipulation, not an imitation.

Yet, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King represents weakness, not strength. His personal life was more immoral than the Rev. Jesse Jackson's. His oratory was entertaining to many, and he will be remembered for that. But he should be remembered for preaching weakness to black people, for misleading the whole race into a desperate imitation of the white culture. His religious style was also bent to this same purpose. To imitate the white man, not Christ, was his message.

Now, to all those independently minded black folks out there, why doesn't America ever hear from you?! You're like Republicans, too busy being responsible, making a living and just being normal. Ah, yes, I fear this is case for too many "conservative" people. The trouble makers rule, just because they are dedicated to making trouble, rather than building a house. They want to protest, rather than produce.

Well, there may have been apparent unity among black people during the King days. In the sixties, there was a moment when being black was a big thing.
But no more. Too many blacks are independent. This is truly progress, but, this silent sector of black America needs to speak up.

Being poor doesn't mean you're not conservative, not productive, and not responsible. Poverty has nothing to do with it. I believe we can be poor, and conservative. I know I am. Don't mistake material success with ideological, or spiritual success. Let black people imitate Christ, not the white man.

The world will be better off.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:18 AM | Comments (5)
January 19, 2003
Take It Easy, Condoleezzi!

So Bush says "Affirmative Action" is over. I'm not sure what Ward Connerly would think, but Condoleezza Rice seems to be trying to be consistent: she thinks considering race is an important element in achieving diversity.

At first, I thought she was entirely out of place to say anything. Obviously, she is in the nations White House because she is a black female. I don't see how anyone could deny that, when there are so many others equally or more qualified than her.

But, for her to support Affirmative Action only means that she realizes that it has made a difference in her own life. For this, I respect her consistency. Unlike so many other "conservative" blacks, she has not forgotten how she rose to success. She did not sail to success on the Liberal ship, then abandon it and suddenly fly the Conservative flag.

With the talk about her running as the vice-presidential candidate in 2004, she has to work out a political position for herself that suits her predicament.

Positions of power and prestige, positions of economic superiority, are not attainable by most minority students, even with education and talent. There are simply too few such positions. To make a law that is designed, not really for "diversity" but for assuring economic parity and social status for some minority students, is I think embarrassing for the country, because it implies that, without the law, no one would give the minorities a chance.

It's all about the Clintonian "stupid economy" really. Socialist (i.e., theoretical Communist) equality means economic and social parity. In this country, it implies that something's evil or immoral about not being rich and famous, or not being middle class, living in a white neighborhood.

As an Indian, I've always considered America to be white Christian country, like it or not. It's not a black country, it's certianly not a Muslim country, and it's not a Mexican country. Laws to make it something other than a white Christian country amaze me. What is the motivation? What is the purpose? And where will it leave Indian people?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:43 AM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2003
Prayer in Time of War

I think we could all agree that we are living in a time of war. Terrorism is the coward's war, but, it is definitely a war. And now as we approach a war with Iraq, there is no question that this is a time of war.

I'm amazed that , in "public" schools, Americans are not allowed to have formal prayer to "the God of our fathers. " As an Indian, I can only look on this with wonderment. No Indian people would ever think of going into battle without appealing to the spirits.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia thinks the "separation of church and state" thing has gone too far. He doesn't think the founders ever intended to strip religion from public life.

Anyone who knows anything about American history would agree, since all the founders were very religious, very Biblical, and included their beliefs in all the educational material used as the foundation of American public school texts. In fact, in the beginning, the government had nothing to do with schools or education. It is precisely when the government stepped in, that American education began to decay, to the point of even becoming fundamentally anti-American and Communist.

This is the subject of a different article. For now, I just want to note how perfectly odd it is that American public schools are void of faith, and the government has declared it so. Scalia says that if all the people wanted it that way, then it would be democratic, or legitimate. Put the people don't want it that way. The people have never had opportunity to vote on it. The removal of religion from public schools was decided by courts and judges who played a legislative role, instead of their proper judiciary role. Robert Bork described how this impropriety and confusion of powers developed. He said the courts were all "politicized," and followed trends of the lawyers, rather than sticking by their appointed judiciary task of referencing the Constitution. This is all in The Tempting of America he (New York: Touchstone, 1990).

The US government, in many issues, is not of, for, or by the people. Instead, it is the instrument of a chosen few, bent on changing America into something it never was, nor ever intended to be.

Take Nyack, New York, again. In the gradeschool, there was an issue over the Hallowe'en parade back in 1993. One Haitian woman, who had one child in the school, objected to the celebration of Hallowe'en. What an irony. A woman from a culture universally known for "spookism" beyond most others, was offended by the gradeschool Hallowe'en parade. The school promptly discontinued it, and banned it ever since. The Haitian child is of course long since gone, but, a permanent mark was made.

In the name of the most unreasonable, illogical, and perverted "equality," America has become a place of minority rule. "Public" doesn't even mean the people anymore. It means the fascist state. Public school means state school, and state school means a place of no freedom of thought or action. It is a total dictatorship of the mind, and values. It is a place of anti-American indoctrination.

Public school means anti-American training. Can you believe it?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:25 AM | Comments (5)
January 16, 2003
A Lesson In Leftist Tactics

Something classic just happened in Nyack, New York. Last night, at 8:00 pm,the students of Nyack High School met at the school for a one and a half hour public debate over whether or not to keep their "Nyack Indian" logo. Those wanting it removed showed arch-typical imbalance and gross misrepresentation, together with unfair procedures.

The school committee, knowing full well that the community is well over 90% in favor of keeping the Indian logo, decided to let their "educated" students have a "public" debate. This way, the puppetized students could mimic the Leftist, race-based agitation their Communistic teachers had so carefully taught them.

There were four students involved: two in favor of the logo, Kimberly DeLorenzo (16), and Tainia Fernandez (17); two against the logo, Seth Flaxman (17) and Lillian Bueno (17). Over 100 students attended, and some twenty parents.

What was totally out of order was the distribution of "propaganda" literature opposed to the logo. This literature (a two page flyer with small printed matter) was brought to the student debate by none other than Tiokasin Veaux and Amanda Holmes, two of the three activists present at the community meeting January 13, two nights before. (Neither are from Nyack, or New York. My guess is they may be temporarily hangning out at the American Indian Community House, 708 Broadway, NYC. They produced the First Voices segments for WBAI there in New York. Who knows? They were able to pop up in Nyack twice in one week.)

As their ultimate evidence condemning the logo, the Flaxman and Bueno called upon Veaux and Homes to stand, and then pronounced, "See? These Indians are offended at the use of this logo." After the debate, students flocked to Veaux and Holmes, and there was much discussion.

Why is this significant? There was a student vote to be taken! The Leftist school committee was determined to make their perspective known, at least through this particular class of students (who of course will be graduated soon). The presence of a well known Indian activist against the logo was really a terribly inappropriate gesture for a student debate. DeLorenzo and Fernandez knew nothing of the activist presence, nor the distribution of their literature before the debate. DeLorenzo and Fernandez faced that in complete surprise.

It was clear case of adult manipulation of young highschool teenagers. Veaux taped the debate. If Dr. Lee (Science deparment) were a little more firm in principle, the debate would have been declared nullified, and the parents of the students ought to consider suing Veaux and the school for invading the privacy of minors. DeLorenzo and Fernandez were never clear on whether the debate was actually "open to the public." Inviting parents of students is one thing. Inviting professional activists with propaganda is quite another.

Well, there were 102 students voting. 53 voted to keep the logo, 49 voted against it. But it's anticlimactic. How many of those 49 would have voted No had not Veaux and Holmes been there, handing out propagana before the debate, and discussing things with them after the debate?

This all shows how unorthodox, unfair, and desperately forceful the activists really are. They have a goal. The end always justifies the means. Even though they lost the vote, the school administration/committee showed its true communistic colors, as do nearly all American educational institutions today. I'm sure they will not give up, either.

They want to remove Indians, in the name of respecting them. They want to take away American freedoms, in the name of preserving them. Many of these people really don't know what they're doing. They're following cultural fads, and like to keep on the cutting edge, no matter who it cuts. And for sure, the lasting thing institutions want is to be cut.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:37 PM | Comments (5)
January 15, 2003
Et Tu, Reuters?

Reuters just posted a report on the bio-terrorist incident in Manchester, Endland. The investigation of the highly toxic ricin led to a flat (apartment) which police raided and found three men there. During the investigation, one of the men broke free, grabbed a knife, and killed one of the British police officers.

Britain is full of terrorist cells. This incident appears to be well connected.

However, note that Reuters refers to the men as "North African." Now, here's a term we haven't heard in a long time. What is North Africa? Libya? Morocco? Egypt? Algeria? Tunisia? Tripoli? even Arabia? Why don't we just say they were from the eastern hemisphere? Why make such a useless suggestion of specificity?

Has political correctness affected even Reuters? Can't we say the men are Arab muslims anymore? Is that a problem?

Four other "North Africans" were arrested last week over ricin. They were all "recent immigrants or asylum seekers" Reuters says. So then we even want to call them something other than just immigrants. They are poor persecuted folk, seeking safety. They must be made to appear appealing to all the decent Englishmen (who, of course, have never persecuted anyone in the world!) We mustn't call the rather obvious terrorist influx "immigrants." They're poor persecuted people, and need our open arms. We want them to be able to stab us without resistance. We want to welcome homicides.

I'm sorry, but the terrorists have ruined it for every Arab Muslim in the world. Every Muslim in the world. Since 9-11, indeed long before, immigration should have been outlawed. If the corrupt oil-rich countries of the world cannot solve their own problems, this gives them no right to ship their poor, criminal, or even talented types, to the greater countries of Europe and the United States. They have no right to ship their unwanteds anywhere. This is international irresponsibility. How foolish the world is for accepting these unwanteds. This leaves the corrupted countries in worse condition, for they are now enabled to continue their corruption.

Notice, too, the English police (bobbies) don't normally carry guns. This has always been an anomaly in the civilized world. But the Arab Muslim terrorists will perhaps change that quaint old English tradition. The Arab Muslim terrorists are simply not civilized. To give them free reign is to invite slaughter, which they love.

They must first be eliminated, then we can all be civilized again.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:06 AM | Comments (13)
January 14, 2003
Ahenakew Had A Point

David Ahenakew, one of the biggest names in Canadian Indian country, made a big stir when he said Hitler was right to get rid of Jews.

Obviously, he offended Jews. But, I think he had a point to make, which really has nothing to do with Jews. This point, I dare say, is well worth making.

I posted a piece on VDARE.com
back in October about the "dim view" of American Indians on immigration. I think this is really what Ahenakew was thinking about.

It is reported that his grandson, attending public school, had been subjected to prejudice from immigrants. They called the boy "a dirty little Indian." Grandpa was outraged, of course. Ahenakew reacted they way any Native American would react to such an attitude from foreigners: kick'em out!!

I think when Ahenakew remarked about Hitler and the Jews, he was basically saying, "This is our land. This is our race. You foreigners go back where you came from. You have no claim here!" That's all. I think the Hitler/Jew scenario just popped up in his mind as a ready reference. I really don't think he was thinking anything about Jews. It was the homelanders vs. foreigners that was one his mind, especially the foreigners who have a prejudiced attitude about Indians.

I don't have to say how I feel about Jews. I've published several articles in defence of Jews and of Israel. I will ask this question: how is it that Jews are considered a threat to the well being of a country? Hitler inherited a Germany demolished by WWI. What did the Jews have to do with that? Nothing. He used Jews as a means of focusing on the German nationality. by contrast. They were "foreign" in his view.

Jews are such an incredible minority in the world, I'll never see how any nationality could feel threatened by their presence. This is paranoia of some kind. Indeed, fear. If Jews excell, in any culture, by superior talent, intellect, cultural finesse, I still don't see how that in itself threatens anyone elses culture.

Considered separately from political correctness, Ahenakew's sentiments, again, really have nothing to do with the Jews. Ahenakew was being rightfully defensive of his people and his homeland. I understand what he was really saying. Too many immigrants come to America, and Canada, with a presumptuous, arrogant attitude, and are actually here for subversive purposes. These can go home. No, I would "fry" only murderers. The rest can go home peacefully to their own corrupt, failed countries, however oil-rich.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)
January 13, 2003
The Faith of Indians

Traditional Indians, that is, Indians who observe their old Indian ways, sometimes cause great frustration to white people who don't understand these ways. There is a marvelous, "educational" example of this in the early life of Shirley Temple, the movie star.

In 1938, Shirely (then 10 years old) starred in Susannah of the Mounties, a Canadian film with twelve Blackfoot Indian 'chiefs' who had bit parts. (The film was released by Twentieth Century-Fox in 1939). Shirely says the Indians arrived on the set, everyone hushed in their "commanding presence." They were as "a picture-book Indians, leathery skinned, hawk-nosed, regal beyond expectation. During introductions they stood quietly looking ahead, arms folded, avoiding eye contact."

Shirely remembers the situation well. "The yawning cultural chasm betwen the reservation and Hollywood was recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian affairs, which threatend to impose a fine on the studio for any abuse to the Indian sense of pride." The studio purchased a $25,000 bond to assure that the Indians would be treated with dignity at the studio, and that they would be presented to the public in a way consistent with their traditional ways.

There were some major problems. The Indians wanted steak every day! They were insulted by the staff fare of sandwiches and potato salad. But when there was a death in the family, back on the Blackfoot reservation, that really brought the movie production to a costly standstill.

The Indians had shown up on the set every day in full regalia. Then suddenly, they all came in wearing long, somber, black coats, and broad brimmed black hats. For the next three mornings, the Indians came in black, sat in a tight cirlce in the middle of the set, remained silent and totally non-communicative.

After the movie was finished, the Indians made their pact with little Shirely. Chief Yellow Kidney made Shirely a literal "blood-sister" to the Blackfoot Indians. He took a knife, poked his own finger, then hers, and pressed them together. Shirely's mother was horrified, and took Shirely to get a tetanus shot. The Indians gave Shirely the name "Bright Shining Star."

This is all in Shirely's autobiography, Child Star (New York: Warner, 1988). It is a rare glimpse of early twentieth century reservation Indians, all but two of whom were well past forty. Five had never left their Montana reservation before, and only one, Chief Coward, spoke English.

Today, there are many Indians in America who retain traditional ways. It should be understood as religion. It is religion, not "tradition." For Indians, as for Christians, Jews, Moslems, or Budhists, these ways are connected to eternity, to the "other side." No one would reprehend anyone for paying heed to his beliefs about eternity.

Now, whether to make pizza on a pie or on French bread, that's a matter of tradition!

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:13 AM | Comments (0)
January 12, 2003
The Red Men of History

There are a variety of explanations of where, when, and how the term "red man" originated as a designation for the American Indian. Some origins seem rather innocent, some are clearly derisive.

By the 1920's, Compton's Encyclopedia (Chicago) had it distilled into an innocent origin. The title of Compton's 1922 article on Indians is "Our Red-Skinned Cousins, The First Americans." After noting Indios, the term Columbus used for the people he first encountered in the islands, Compton's says "They are also called the red race, redmen, and redskins, though really there is not so much red in their faces as there is in the pink-cheeked white men."

The early editions seem to find a great admiration for the American Indian, and with a minimal but honorable reference to the great warrior days, the Indian is presented in a most cherishable light. The Indian is an American. The Indian is a relative, and a relative whose role is at the foundation of American society. The Indian is something America is actually very proud of. The Indian represents the mythical, mysterious, other-wordly roots of the human race, but roots which the White American society very proudly claims as its own.

The closing paragraphs acknowledge the assimilation developing even by the 1920's, when the article was written. Yet, even so, the sentiment of Compton's is telling:

" The picturesque Indian has disappeared to a large extent. In this sense the redmen are a "vanishing race." But they have left their traces behind them. Along their forest trails are now built great railways of this country. At the posts where they brought their furs to the early traders large cities have sprung up. And Indian names dot the map of the whole country from Massachusetts to California."

This says it all, really. The sentiment towards the cherishable Indian image, the honor given through the use of Indian names, are clearly expressed in this early encyclopedia. What would the early 20th century Americans think now of the Indian "leaders" who are trying so desperately to remove every Indian image and name from the face of American society? What alien force would cause such a change of sentiment? In the 1960's and '70's it was clearly the Communists who orchestrated and funded such anti-American cultural revolutions. These revolts were not started by Indians. Indians were used by anti-American forces. Allan Stang exposed all this is a huge article in American Opinion, September, 1975.

Of course, today, the Indian activist "jargon" is all refined and immersed in modern socio-psychological professional language, and made to seem prefectly just, and politically righteous. Indian Liberalism represents a powerful emotional validation for all the anti-American forces in American society. This is tragic, in my opinion.

BadEagle.com is the only effort to contradict such trends. BadEagle.com exists to give voice to American Indian patriotism. This website was the idea of a man in South Carolina, who felt that such a site was very much needed. If there is any telling effect of BadEagle.com, it will be very much the effort of this one man.

I can only hope that more conservative Indians will find their voice through BadEagle.com. I encourage such Indians to join me in saving the Indian's place in America, and by doing so, help to save America itself, before it changes completely into a different kind of society that was originally intended by the founding fathers.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2003
Now Look Who's Indian!

Interestingly, Cara Daniel (faculty of Colorado Mountain College), a white woman, has recently written a one-woman play (staring herself) about Cynthia Anne Parker, another white woman: Her Eyes Were Blue, sponsors including the Aspen State and the Native Voices Foundation.

So, what's my point? Cynthia Anne Parker was captured by raiding Comanches when she was nine years old, in 1836. She was spared, and raised as a Comanche captive girl. The Comanches would not sell her back, nor was she willing to leave them. She later married Peta Nocona, and became the mother of Quannah Parker.

According to Juanita Pahdopony, living descendent of Quannah, Cynthia's behavior as depicted by Daniel in her play is almost wholly irrelevant to history, and so wrongly portrays Comanche women that the play is "very offensive" to her.


What I find interesting is the real basis of Pahdopony's criticism (as presented in Jim Kent's review, New From Indian Country, Late Nov. 2002), "Comanche Tribal Memebers Object to Her Eyes Were Blue"): Pahdopony consideres Cynthia a Comanche woman, even though Cynthia was white, with blue eyes.

[I guess then that all the black people that make up the Mashantucket Pequot "tribe" of Connecticut (and other new "casino" tribes), can be considered Indian, after all. That is the extreme end of Pahdopony's position.]

Yet, Pahdopony is quite accurate on the way in which Comanche people regarded a captive, once the individual was accepted as a family member. But I'm not sure about the morality issue Pahdopony raises. In Cynthia's day, the Comanche girl had the privilege of chosing whom she wanted. That was custom. The girl generally made the first moves. She demonstrated, by action, what man she preferred. I don't think that part is inaccurate. Daniel's modern "seduction" approach is probably wrong. I don't know. I haven't seen the play. I'll trust Pahdopony on that one.

I know in the early 20th century some Comanches developed a rather fierce morality, in terms of marriage. A Comanche woman might find herself without a nose, if she committed adultery. My own mother can remember seeing such a woman down in southwest Oklahoma. That was over 70 years ago. But I don't know how this kind of "morality" would be translated in the earlier days of Comanche life. The marriage structure in Comanche society was not at all the same. And, perhaps this noseless Comanche woman was an exception, a personal incident of some kind.

I will agree completely that even the earlier days were characterized by what today would be considered "modesty." That translates very clearly. Pahdopony is perfectly accurate about that, in terms of dress, and even in demeanor. But she must remember too, that Cythia was 9 years old when captured, and the daughter of a strong Baptist, Silas Parker. She would have been modest from the start.

Now that Juanita Pahdopony has expressed herself on the subject of Comanche women and modesty, I wonder what she thinks of the RezDog calendar of Indian girls in bikinis? I've already expressed mine.

Pahdopony teaches at the new Comanche Nation tribal college, just opened this past year. The Comanche Tribal Newsletter recently advertised for faculty. Pahdopony is also on the board of the Jacobson House of Native Art in Norman, Oklahoma.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:16 AM | Comments (272)
January 09, 2003
Was Quannah Parker Chief of the Comanches?

Comanches never had a chief. Comanches roamed the southwest plains in small hunting bands, which had band headmen. There were many such, bands and band headmen, but no one made decisions for all the Comanche groups.

The Kwahadi (Antelope) Comanche, in the 1870's dwelt in northwest Texas. Quannah, by 1875, was leading a group of Kwahai. He led them to their surrender at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on June 2, 1875.

My direct ancestor, Bad Eagle (Quin-ne kash-soo-it) was also a Kwahadi, and also head of a numunukahn (band). My mother published a brief history of Bad Eagle' life in the Oklahoma Heritage Association magazine called Oklahoma, Spring/Summer, 2001. It is called "Born An Eagle."

Quannah became imporant because of his position as a half-white Comanche. He was the target of all the white ranchers and business wheeler-dealers in Oklahoma Territory. They flattered him, honored him, and eventually succeeded in having him recognized as leader of all Comanches, a position Quannah was anxious to have. The Federal Government appointed him "chief" in 1899. The Comanche people never recognized this appointment, and in fact hated him for it (though respected him as a warrior). This government appointment was not the Indian way. In fact, the government had to appoint five body guards to protect Quannah from the Comanches. Quannah cashed in on Comanche Indian land, as he leased and sold it to the white ranchers.

Quannah had seven wives (one which he kidnapped from Bad Eagle, in fact), and many children. There are many Comanches today who identify with the Parker numunukahn. But, they don't represent all Comanches any more than I do. I think it is important to say, however, that claiming to be a Parker is no special distinction among Comanches today. There are no special distinctions. Comanches are not monarchists. Never were. That is only an illusion created by white men's ways of dealing with us.

By the way, To-na-cy, the kidnapped wife, was the sister of Erk-say. Both were the daughters of Horse Back (Ten-e-mahk-i), and both were the wives of Bad Eagle. To-na-cy was considered particularly attractive. Quannah went crazy for her. He wound up paying a big price for her, too. Bad Eagle threatened Quannah, so Quannah paid up with a huge wagon, rifles, horses and cattle. This was the modern equivalent of a Rolls Royce, scud missles, and stock in Texico!

Tonacy had one child by Bad Eagle, Pe-so-vey, who was born blind, and lived to be elderly, around Indiahoma, southwest Oklahoma. Tonacy was baren to Quannah. It is said, nevertheless, that she was his favorite wife (of seven).

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:43 AM | Comments (27)
January 08, 2003
The Indian Disconnect

Sports Illustrated (March 4, 2002) published a poll of Indian opinion on the use of Indian mascots by pro teams. 83% of Indian people approved of the mascots. Shortly after that, the major American Indian newspaper, Indian Country Today, referenced their own poll of their own employees and associates, apparently. (They posted it back in August, 2001, but ICT referenced it the same month as the Sports Illustrated poll, March.)

ICT's poll said 81% of Indians disapproved of any use of Indian names, symbols, or mascots. This is virtually the opposite results of the SI poll, of course. That was the intent of the ICT survey. In their March 22 reference to this poll, ICT admitted that their opinion makers' list comprised their "active readers...college students, tribal leaders, educators and other professionals, perhaps people who are of necessity thinking more deeply about the impact of mascots and other identity grabs on our children."

In other words, the rest of us poor, ignorant Indians have to be told, and taught, agressively, of this horrible abuse of our name, or else we might miss it, we might not see it as an issue! ICT said as much: Native Americans' "self-esteem has fallen so low that they don't even know when they're being insulted."

So, if you disagree with the activists, you have no self-esteem. That's interesting. 83% of Indian people have no self-esteem. Darn! Unless you are a university Indian, and have a white collar job, you're too dumb to know when you're being insulted. Think about that, all you dumb Indians out there.
This is what your "activist" leaders have said about you. This is what the white Communist American universities have taught our Indian leaders to say about us.

Would that such a disconnect between our people and our "leaders" was limited to the mascot issue. Unfortunately, is pervades all our issues. The more successful in the white world our Indian leaders become, the more disconnected they seem to become from the rest of us.

They think the casino industry is going to be the savior of all Indian Country. There is evidence quite to the contrary, but, what do they care? We the Indian people have no voice. The interntional dealers deal with our "leaders," not with us.

Indian people, it is time to rise up and make our voices heard. Maybe we have been a little "dumb" about this. We have not shown the vital concern, the care, the initiative that we need to. We will wake up to find our reservations hocked to pay off gambling debts of our leaders. We will pay the price, not them. The price will be our land, our lives, and maybe ever our identity.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:46 PM | Comments (3)
January 07, 2003
Schlesinger on Zionism--and Indians?

I was a Special Student at Harvard in 1982-83. I was starting work on a Ph.D. program in American Studies, specializing in 19th century affairs. I didn't finish the year, for the pressures of poverty, but, I got a lot of work done, and learned a lot.

One of the authors I read was the renowned Arthur Schlesenger, Jr. The course was on the Jacksonian Age, taught by David Herbert Donald. It was Schlensenger's The Age of Jackson (1945) that provoked me. I actually wrote to Schlesenger, asking about his criticism of idealism, absolutism, reform, etc.
He wrote back, January 5, 1983.

"I think in retrospect that I was unduly impatient with the utopian thinkers of the Age of Jackson. I now recognize the value to society of people who bear uncompromising witness to non-pragmatic concerns and values. I am temperamentally of the other camp myself, but I have come to see that absolutists have an essential role, if only to keep pragmatists honest and dreams alive."

"As for Zionism, I do not recall having any positon on it in 1945-1948. In general, I have been sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland in Israel, but I have also regrtted the treatment of the Palestinians and I have no sympathy at all for the policies of the Begin government. Millennial righteousness seems to me more useful as a basis for criticism than for action."

Well, I assume Mr. Schlesenger would support the idea of Indian reservations. Here is absolutism, idealism, non-pragmatic values in a most historically peculiar way. The reservations were to be utopias for Indians. America consented. Things haven't turned out that way, at all, but, the possibility is still there. Indian dreamers like myself still hope to see a triumph of idealism on our reservations. I'm not sure we can do it alone, but, unless we do something, we will lose the reservations to the greed of non-Indians, and selfish Indian leaders.

If we think of Israel as a Jewish reservtion, we might get an idea of how things could work. The difference is, Indian reservations have no Palestinian folks to deal with. All Indians have to deal with is our own weak people, and the murderous, greedy world outside. Jews found strength in their reservation. Why can't Indians do the same?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:11 AM | Comments (5)
January 06, 2003
Do Indian Men Have What It Takes?

Can Indian men become true leaders of our own people? I know it sounds like a crazy question to ask, but, in modern times, I think it's a legitimate question.

I know there have been Indian men, and women, who have made great personal profit by causing a lot of racial trouble out there in white man's land. But I don't call that leadership, at all. And that helps no one but the individual men and women who engage in such profiteering.

I'm talking about life and character. I'm talking about raising a family, showing responsibility, being a reliable provider. Do Indian men have what it takes for that? Modern images make me doubt. Indian men are known precisely for being the opposite of all this. We are known for not caring about family, not being a reliable provider, but instead being careless, indulgent, and being abusers of women and children, of being alcoholics, drug addicts, and general losers. This is our modern image.

And this was our first image, too, in many people's minds. In 1702, Cotton Mather wrote about the famous pilgrim John Eliot, "evangelist" of the Indians.
Indeed, Mather (1663-1728) indulged incredible racial prejudice and religious prejudice, but just consider his assessment of Indians.

"The natives of the country now possessed by the New-Englanders, had been forlorn and wretched heathens ever since their first herding here; and tho' we know not when or how those Indians first became inhabitants of this mighty continent, yet we may guess that probably the Devil decoy'd those miserable savages hither, in hopes that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ would never come here to destroy or disturb his [the Devil's] absolute empire over them [the Indians].

Mather continues: "There way of living is infinitely barbarous: the men are most abominably slothful; making their poor squaws, or wives, to plant and dress, and barn, and beat their Corn, and build their wigwams for them; which perhaps may be the reason of their extraordinary ease in childbirth. In the mean time, their [the men's] chief employment, when they'll condescend unto any, is that of hunting."

"No arts are understood among them, unless just so far as to maintain their brutish conversation, which is little more than is to be found among the very beavers upon our streams." Magnalia Christi Americana (London, 1702) Book III.

Let that all sink in a bit. It is indeed a conflict of cultures. There are other first hand accounts in early literature, which I will post later, that give a different interpretation, indeed. But for now, consider that "abominably slothful" Indian male, who makes his woman do all the work. I don't think that observation was the sole product of prejudice.

I think the Indian ways worked for the Indian, then. But we're not living then. We're living now. The sociological structures of tribal life, in the forest, or on the plains, should have evolved among Indian people. To a great extent, they have not. Therefore, in modern times, the Indian male still has the reputation of being irresponsible, uncaring, and totally out of it.

Those of us who want to change that are regarded as un-Indian, disrespectful, arrogant, and generally disconnected from Indian life. That is the challenge we face.

In the upcoming Sioux Falls conference (January 21-23), Betty Ann Gross, the Sioux woman, has ordained that only men are speaking. Indian women from all over the country, professional activists and grass roots women, have all complained and pressured her. But Betty recognizes the truth: Indian men have not been real men in this modern age. She is nobly trying to give Indian men a chance to start acting like men, to start taking responsibility.

This intention, in itself, is probably the most historically significant move any Indian has made in modern history. Betty will be recognized for this, one day. She will be considered a foundational element in the new age of Indian life.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:31 AM | Comments (24)
January 05, 2003
Are Indians Jews?

Many people have the notion that American Indians are actually the "Lost Tribes" of Israel. This notion was made famous by the Mormons, of course, in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's put forth the idea that the Indians were the evil sons of Laman (Lamanites), pre-Columbian natives who nearly annihilated the good sons of Nephi. Only Mormon and his son Moroni left a record of this history (and buried it in 384 AD--which, after exhumed and 'translated by Smith,' became the Book of Mormon). These folk were descendents of the earlier Jaredites (who fled the Tower of Babel), who came to America via the Atlantic in remarkable round boats.

What many people do not know is that James Adair wrote his History of the American Indians in 1775. Adair was convinced that the Cherokee and Chickasaw Indians were Jewish, both by custom and language.

This theme was again exhibited in papers of the American Board Commission for Foreign Missions. (Indians were of course "foreign" to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant enterprise.) In 1831-37, on Rev. Buttrick offered another detailed study, comparing the Hebrew language with the Indian language. He laid out lists of similar words and sounds. This work is in the Harvard Houghton Library. I've held these papers in my hands. Call Numbers are: ABC:18.3.1, v.9 and ABC18.3.3,vol.3 Buttrick. [I may have some detail incorrect. I started graduate (Ph.D) work at Harvard in '82-'83, but was unable to continue. I have a lot of notes. I complete a book manuscript in '83, called The End of the World in Poe: The Sociological Elements of Adventism in Selected Works of Edgar Allan Poe.]

But what most people don't know is that early Jews in America also thought Indians were Jews, of the "Lost Tribes." The first Jews in this country were part of a Spanish land grant (1579) in what is now northern Mexico and Southwest Texas, and their earliest records indicate their thoughts that the Indians were of Jewish descent.

The famous Portuguese-Dutch Rabbi Manesseh ben Israel published his Hope of Israel in London in 1652. Rabbi ben Israel pushed the idea that since the Indians, as Jews, were the first inhabitants of America, Jews should then be readmitted to England. This was, of course, a political use of the Indian-Jew theory. Of course, two years before, 1650, English religionist thomas Thorowgood wrote Jews In America, to raise funds to support Christian missionaries to convert the Jews (American Indians) in America.

Well, it was Catholic Friar Juan de Torquemada, in Monarquia indiana (Seville, 1615) who first seriously advocated the idea that Indians were Jews. But the idea was not his. He references an even earlier manuscript, nearly one hundred years earlier, which he believed was the work of the famous Friar Bartolome de las Casas, the missionary to Cuba and the West Indies. Casas believed the Indian languages there were replete with Hebrew and Yiddish. He went on to list rather stunning similarities of custom, habit, and practice, which, of course, is all theoretical at this point.

So, the theory has been around since the early 16th century (1500's). And many Jews bought into it, early on. Mostly, however, their interest in the theory was to use it as a polemical tool in securing their own place in the world, which, at the time was quite insecure. In 1825, Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jewish journalist, playwright, and subscriber to the Indian-Jew theory, tried starting a Zionist colony in New York, for Jews and American Indians.

German Jew Herman Bendell was appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1871, by President Grant. Grant wanted a Jew in that office because he didn't want the Indians to be forced into any religion (Christianity specifically), and he wanted someone to care about their physical well being more than their "souls." However, there isn't clarion evidence that Grant had any interest in the Indian-Jew "Lost Tribes" theory.

All I can say is this: in the Indian creation myths and tribal histories, I don't know of a single American Indian tribe that holds any idea that Indians came from anywhere but right here, on Red Earth America.

I also know that there are no "Lost Tribes" of Israel. That is a historical myth. The Jews that were taken captive in 722 BC were taken eastward, to Mesopotamia (Assyria) and Media (Persia, or, western Iran). Their tribes were not absorbed, nor did they lose their religious/cultural identity. I have presented papers on this at the biennial Iranian Studies Conference in Bethesda, MD, and some of this material is about to be published in journals. I will post the information when it is available.

That Jews and Indians had amicable relations from the beginning is certain. But this is due to the Jewish nack for cultural exchange, and the Indians' own love of trading. Yes, there are similarities in the two peoples, but, I don't think there's enough to claim blood kin.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:05 AM | Comments (4)
January 03, 2003
Jews and Indians: The Precedent

Our up-coming Sioux Falls conference (January 21-23) has already been "accused" of racism, when the whole point of the conference is to improve race relations! Not that I take too seriously when Indians criticize each other, for that is normal. But, of late, some Indians are beginning to say negative things about Jews, which tells me the Jew-hating white supremacists are trying to influence Indians who don't know Jewish American history very well.

I recommend M.L. Marks, Jews Among the Indians (1992). Back during the days of the Nebraska Territory, Julius Meyer (a German Jews) immigrated in 1864 to Omaha, at the age of 13. In no time, he was trading with Indians, learned Indian languages, and in a short time established a retail business (an extension of his older brothers' company, Max Meyer & Bro.) which he called the "Indian Wigwam." Julius called himself a specialist in "Indian, Chinese, and Japanese specialities."

No one had to tell Julius about race relations. He was a natural. He became quite famous and appreciated among Indians. There are many photographs of him, but perhaps the most famous is the one in which he is standing next to Red Cloud, and in front of them are seated Sitting Bull, Swift Bear, and Spotted Tail. This was taken around 1869.

This photo is also in another book, Harriet & Fred Rochlin, Pioneer Jews: A New Life In The Far West (1984). Julius became a trusted interpreter for the chiefs, and often an honored guest at tribal feasts.

Not so much is known about Jewish relations with Indians in the colonial times on America's east cost. The Jews had a settlement of fifteen families at Newport, Rhode Island by 1865. They had a synagogue of sorts, Congregation Shearith Israel.

This is how is came about. Some European Jews had found refuge in Holland in the 17th century, and later found themselves participating in the Dutch world enterprises. They found themselves in Redife, Brazil, but in 1654, they had to flee, for the Portuguese recaptured the Brazilian establishment. These Jews came to New Amsterdam (renamed New York in 1664, by the British). That was the beginning of Jewish history in the U.S. of A.

I don't know that anyone has published much material on early Jewish-Indian relations on the east coast. The frontier relations are well documented. The first full length movie ever made in Hollywood was (brace yourselves) The Squaw Man, (1912) produced by Jesse Lasky, Samuel Goldfish (Goldwyn), and Cecil B. DeMille, and yes, they used real Indians.

Well, Richard Poe is scheduled to speak the opening night of the Sioux Falls conference. Poe is universally known as a Jew, in spite of the fact that his Russian Jewish father fell in love with a beautiful Mexican woman decades ago, and Richard (and siblings) was raised Catholic.

I think it's quite appropriate that Richard Poe be the keynote speaker. Richard has served as my "interpreter" since I entered the white man's world of journalism and politics. I have many things I want to say, but it has been Richard that has helped me say them from the beginning. I think Richard Poe is one of the few professional writers out there that truly understands how white people really feel about Indians. I say to Indians, we need such a man working for us. Indians are a tiny, tiny minority in the world. It would be foolish to think we did not need to undertand the mind and heart of the people who have power over us.

Richard has deep and positive things to say about all this. I have learned to understand my own intuitions better, having worked with Richard. I consider him a modern Julius Meyer.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:04 AM | Comments (6)
January 02, 2003
Custer Is Safe From Your Sins

I am amazed at the religious consistency with which modern historical revisionists "deconstruct" the American psyche. They want to undo all the basic American stories on which the nation's pride was built. The most deeply emotional and cherished the story, the more these revisionists attack, calling it all myth.

Recently, (November 17), at the Texas Book Festival (in Austin), a group of authors were filmed by C-Span2 discussing their new books on the Alamo. Now, anyone who knows anything about the Alamo knows how significant the strory is. The very heartbeat of courage, devotion, self-sacrifice, and American Patriotism is felt in that story.

But people like New Yorker Bill Groneman (Eyewitness to the Alamo), Michael Lind (The Alamo: An Epic), and Frank Thompson (The Alamo), all have done their best to usurp the story, assert their own superior authority, and debunk another "American myth." The audience acted so impressed, so awed by these superior intellects. It's a sign of superiority of soul, to rise above any sort of emotional value attatched to some historical story. It's an advanced human being who can lay aside any feeling for the country's origins.

Groneman says, "I don't know where they came up with the idea that there were six to seven thousand Mexican soldiers at the Alamo. There weren't six thousand soldiers in all of Mexico in 1836." Every heroic aspect of the battle was systematically overturned by these revisionists. They hate heroism. They hate the thought of individual accomplishment.

But Custer's story needn't be touched. Whether you're reading W.A.Graham's The Custer Myth (1953), Jeffry D. Wert's Custer (1996), or even Custer's own stories, My Life on the Plains (1874), the fact that Custer was a white man who was soundly whipped by Indians is a fact that revisionists have no incentive to overturn. They're happy with his defeat.

Custer will remain Custer. The communistic revisionists love him right where he stood at his "last stand." A defeated American white man.

And, by the way, the best book on the Alamo, in my opinion, is John M. Myers The Alamo (1948). It's being reprinted these days, in paper.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:08 AM | Comments (3)
January 01, 2003
When America Didn't Want Jews

Once upon a time, (64 years ago, June 6, 1939), the United States would not allow Jews to enter the country. Sea Captain Gustav Schreoder's transatlantic vessel, the"St. Louis," with 937 passengers, mosty German Jews fleeing Nazi abuse, was refused entrance in Miami, Florida. The refugees never disembarked. The ship sailed back for Europe.

There were immigration quotas set in 1924, strictly limiting immigration. The quotas in 1939 were quickly filled, long before the St.Louis showed up. Fortune Magazine's poll at the time said 83% of Americans favored strict immigration law. America knew what was happening in Europe, and apparently wanted to stay out of it. In February of 1939, there was a bill in Congress to allow 20,000 Jewish children into the country (from Austria), but it died on the desk, and Roosevelt never responded to it. At the time, refusing to let in less than a thousand Jewish refugees, in their time of crisis, right when they were at our very shores, was considered the American patriotic thing to do.

How things have changed!

Perhaps the Jews should have divided themselves up, and grabbed innertubes, life boats, or some other flotation device, and just washed ashore, then offered to pick oranges. Perhaps they should have feigned Spanish accents. (Might have been very hard- Yiddish and Spanish never mixed in Hollywood.)

Seriously, this is an unbelievable incident in Americn history, especially considering today's open door policy on immigration. Now we want out enemies to freely enter America and travel to and from their anti-American countries, plotting all sorts of evil against America. What a mess we're in now.

It was a tough situation in 1939. America wanted to stay out of the coming war. The Jews had already been made the center of Hitler's attention. To show a special favor to Jews was to provoke the wrath of the Nazi's. We don't want to offend those powerful dictators now, do we?

America wasn't ready for war just yet. Probably, America was holding off as long as possible. There were already Japanese problems on the other side of the country, too.

I'm not asking the Jews to overlook this St.Louis incident, but I am asking America to reconsider the rather devastating inconsistency and ideological schizophrenia. If immigration is to be based on things like persecution or oppression, then everyone in the world has a right to be in America. Everyone comes here because he wants something better. So, everyone is "oppressed."
When this becomes the norm, we have no country. There is no America. It is a business proposition, and Clintonian "stupid economy" is the only identifying element of the whole American enterprise.


Posted by David Yeagley at 11:01 AM | Comments (2)
Journal Weblog Archives