October 31, 2007
The Chief Is Back

There is hope for the white man! There is hope for America! Chief Illiniwek is back!


"Chief Illini," in February, 2006. Photo by Seth Perlman/Associated Press

The University of Illionois Chancellor Richard Herman lifted a prohibition on the use of the Chief Illiniwek logo on homecoming parade floats. In the name of free speech and free expression.

Well, that's a bit of a let down. How about, in the name of the American Indian!

And, the decision to reverse the ban on the Chief (February, 2007) is applicable only to the Homecoming Committee and the homecoming float guidelines. The Chief ain't back in the game, yet. The mascot isn't on the field, or on the court, yet. But, we certainly have our hopes up now. Thank you, Richard Herman!

The New York Times reports,

But even after Chief Illiniwek was banished, he never really went away. “It’s still everywhere, on clothing and merchandise, people have it and it’s still around,” said Yael Dvorin, a senior from Des Plaines, Ill. “It’s not taken away. After years of having that material, chief paraphernalia is everywhere. It is still very visible in that sense.”

Charlene Teters, the Spokane Indian woman whose original efforts resulted in the ultimate banishment of the Chief, had only this to say: "the effort to remove Chief Illiniwek was never about the mascot, it was and remains to be about racism." (So quotes the NYT. I cannot find the quote on her web site.) This is a fairly academic fabrication, a rather obvious and useless bit of hair splitting. How can you condemn the mascot as racist, then say removing it isn't about the mascot? Why remove the mascot? Why a "documentary" film about it? Well, such is the mind of the professional protester, advised by other professional protesters (like Clyde Bellecourt, brother of the late Vernon), advised by Communist whites like Kenneth Stern--all as virulently anti-American as can be--all using the Marxist blue-print of "racial agitation" as a means of social disruption.

Ah, but the Indian race endures beyond its abuse by protesters. The Chief lives!

I had announced by disapproval of the university's decision to ban the Chief last March. I plan on appearing on the campus soon to breath more life into the resurrection.

The New York Tiimes continues:

Robin Kaler, the university’s associate chancellor for public affairs, said the nature of the event, a public parade, overrode concerns about the university’s sponsorship.
“We wouldn’t ban a member of the campus community from wearing chief paraphernalia to class or work,” she said. “We’re not going to ban them from doing that in the parade either.”

So, the university should not ban the Chief from the games. How can they? The emblem is all over the campus grounds, and students wear Chief clothing to the games. The Chief is there. Why not the "mascot?"

But the spokeswoman, Dana Thomas, said the University of Illinois would be invited to participate in N.C.A.A. championships only if it did so without American Indian references on its uniforms and associated athletic program activities.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Banning the Chief didn't make sense from the beginning. The notion that Indian mascots are offensive to anyone is a an academic fantasy. It is something the 60's Communists invented on campus, and really only makes relative sense there, in an the environment of methodical discussion of artificial issues. But, the fact that so many universities were honored with Indian names and mascots gave the professional protesters a great and lucrative opportunity to create their comic ruckus.

The two professional surveys on the subject both show that Indians either don't care one way or another about mascots, or simply aren't offended (--even at "Redskins"). Sports Illustrated (March 4,2002) and a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2004), both reported that the vast majority of Indians are not involved in the issue. Sports Illistrated said 83%, the university study said 94%. As Betty Ann Gross reported to Sports Illustrated, "There's a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the Native American population on this issue."

So, how did the National Collegiate Athletic Association get such power over the universities? Bowl games, the post season routines created by the NCAA. Why would the NCAA think mascots were offensive? They claim to be quoting the US Commission of Civil Rights statement (2001) which itself is the most 'disconnected' statement of all time. (The way in which this statement was put together, and the basis upon which it was made, are the subject of another blog.)

The Chief lives! That's the important thing. May there be many more chiefs! May the Indian emblem dominate all depictions of power, strength, courage, and greatness throughout America. And I'd like to correct a statement attributed to me by the Daily Illini last March. Of the images and their power, I said, "Indians share the honor of representing that." Change that to: "Indians own the honor." We have the corner on it, in American culture, throughout America's history. The Indian warrior image represents all that is masculine and triumphant.

Who in his right mind would ever want to change that?


Posted by David Yeagley at 01:05 PM | Comments (12)
October 28, 2007
The Human Binary Operation

Religions of civilization has anciently divided hunanity into but two categories: good and bad. We could say rich and poor, high and low, or even light and dark, but, the division is basically the same: they that rule, and they are are ruled. "Middle class" is not a fundamental concept in history, but rather a newly deigned category for those supposedly 'on the rise.' Perhaps this is an illusion, a relative thing that entertains the aspirants.

In any case, Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, claims that the human race is about to split into two different species--"an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist." So reports Niall Firth of the Daily Mail, October 26, 2007. This we are to regard as "news," since a "scientist" has proclaimed it.

In the mean time, the US government is also and feverishly classifying human beings into two categories: non-suspect, and suspect. The "terror watch list" has expanded to more than 755,000 names since September 11, 2001. So reports Mimii Hall in USA Today, October 23, 2007. Of course, the Muslim murderers are already considered "an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures," right? On the 'dark' side of things.

Then there is the matter of human trafficking. Now, that clearly has to be a case of evil, that human beings would use race, sex, and slavery as a marketing item. Not that it's new, by any means, but, it is permeating the world--the great civilized, modern, Judeo-Christian world! Roman Catholic churches in Spain were recently targeted by police investigating such abhorrent trafficking. It seems the church was arranging marriages for under-aged Nigerian girls who had come from the Netherlands (Holland) where they had been smuggled in the first place. It was all through fake documents, passports, licenses, etc. (Now, who would pay money for an under-aged Nigerian girl? Who? Why? For what? I suppose the church things is it is the lesser of two evils: finding a place for the girls in the western world, out of the clutches of abject poverty and starvation in Africa.)

The binary theme is evident: the rulers, and the ruled. That's really all there is, apparently. Whether it is good or evil, light or dark, it doesn't matter. The description is superficial. The reality is rock solid. Our American society has forgotten the basic binary situation. In our glorification of "middle class," we ignore the fact that there are only two states of human existence: a position of independence or a position of dependence. The long and lurid quest for total independence is illusive and delusive, and apparently unsatisfying and actually unattainable anyway. It merely lures and captivates (enslaves?) those in pursuit of it. There are no kings. Just wealthy jousters. But there are plenty of subjected dependents. Perhaps it's all a matter of degrees, but, most people are obligated, financially, at least to the government of state and nation. Taxes are like paying rent to live in the country. We are in constant need of money. We work, we invest, we speculate, etc. This is not independence.

Now, we have learned to store all conceivable information in binary form. That is the computer world. We can communicate information endlessly, infinitely. But, the rather obvious binary form of human existence, the rulers and the ruled, is something we profoundly deny in our "middle class morality." We think of ourselves as free and independent. That's the American way. But, verily, it is illusory at best. It is relative.

I'm think that, until we can admit certain inevitable conditions, and recognize our part in them, humble as that part may be, we are prone to find the plague of perversion ever spreading among us, be it Muslims murderers, sex slave traffikers (and consumers), or even politicians!

But even recognizing these things won't change much. "The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2. I suppose the whole point is to be morally sound, never mind the economic condition, or the ruler/ruled relationship concomitant. That's only the set up. Morally is not guaranteed in either socio-economic status. The rich are not damned to immorality, nor the poor exempt from greed. Perhaps the binary operation in human conditions is a mere tactic to make all aware of the objective value: morality. Morality would not be so visible were all economically equal. (So that means Marxism is a mean disguise of immorality.)

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:07 PM | Comments (12)
October 25, 2007
Serbia: Lessons in Journalism

NASDAQ posted a piece (unidentified author) from some BELGRADE-AP wire entitled, "Serbia Nationalists: If Kosovo Splits,So Should Bosnian Serbs," October 25, 2007. (The tail says "Down Jones Wires.")

It offers the captivating position offered by what it calls "Serbian Nationalists," which is basically that they want the Kosovo treatment. If the world is going to take Kosovo from Serbia, simply because Albanians live there, then those same powers that be must take the "Serb republic" in Bosnia from the Bosnians, since Serbs live there.


Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica,
2006. Kostunica has not formally advocated
the idea of secession for the Serbs in Bosnia.

Be the issues what they may, there are some basic elements which are so totally and typically ignored in this simple article, and they are so crucial to understanding the situation in Kosovo that they must be noted--again. (BadEagle.com has faithfully pointed these issues out, but, alas, with apparently no effect.)

Kosovo is Serbia. It is a state, or a 'provice,' historically always belonging to Serbia. To speak of it otherwise is like saying UN has decided that California should be an independent country, because most of the people there are ethnic Mexican. Everyone knows California is a state in the United States. But everyone does not seem to know that Kosovo is a state of Serbia. Apparently no journalists know, and they continually speak of it as it is some odd, unidentified territory of dubious ownership, that happens to be filled with Albanians--and therefore is supposed to be an Albanian state.

Well, that's gross error No.1. Kosovo is a Serbian state or province. Let's get used to the concept for a change. (Hard to do when the media refuses to acknowledge it.)

Gross error No.2 is the fact that the Albanians living in Kosovo are Muslims--a religion foreign and hostile to Serbian Orthodox Christianity (and every other form of religion, Christianity or otherwise). This is universally hidden from media. Reporters simply refuse to consider this critical fact. Muslims have moved into the territory, and want to claim it as their own. The NASDAQ article is blissfully blind to this stark, raving reality.

The constant reference to "ethnic" Albanians is essentially racist. What other kind of Albanian is there? Okay, many Turks and Arabs. (That's how Albanian became Muslim in the first place.) But, it is as if the reporters feel that by saying "ethnic" Albanian, they some how are not obligated to say "Muslim." The "M" word. "Ethnic," racist oriented as it is, is more acceptable than "Muslim." And "ethnic" implies a studious, intelligent, educated assessment of the circumstances. "Muslim" on the other hand would imply religious intolerance, and the reporter is loath to offend the mighty and paranoid Muslim.

Gross error No.3, which occurs early in the short article, equates socialism with nationalism. As an American patriot, I highly resent such an overt "communist" association with nationalism. It is true that Communism in Serbia, under Josip Broz-Tito, was the dominant force that held the newly formed Yugoslavia after WWII, and that the Partisans did most of the fighting against Hitler's forces. But it was a region of kings and dictators of one kind or another. A democratic Republic was unknown, historically. The "Socialist Party" named in the article, seems to have been the Milosevic continuation of Tito's vision, but it is not the kind of socialism decried here in America by patriots. In addition to the Socialist Party, there is The Serbian Radical Party, the New Democratic Party, and Yugoslav Left (run by the wife of Milosevic, Mirjana.) There is also now the Movement of Veterans of Serbia. There are no less than 21 parties in Serbia today. This sounds a lot more "democratic" than the current two-party system in America. (Nationalism and Communism are a bit confused, historically, let alone journalistically, in Serbia.)

Nationalism in Seriba amounts to preserving borders, preserving the Serbian Christian orthodox religion, and the "ethnic" Serbian people. Certainly, in included preserving the Serbian language, which is dominant in the deep Balkans. What American patriot, or any patriot of any country, would not heartily support such values?


King Peter I, of Serbia, 1844-1921

The simple lesson here, really, is that journalists write with loaded language. More accurately, they write with usurped, deleted, or otherwise abused words. They deny gigantic facts, as in the matter of Albanian Muslims--full of terrorists, KLO, Al-qaeda, mafia, etc., and the fact that Kosovo is a state in Serbia simply overrun with foreigners and their hostile, threatening religion. Finally, journalists hold the position that nationalism is communism, that patriotism is racist, (while they call Albanians "ethnic" instead of "Muslim"), and are generally willing to validate and support the national theft of Kosovo from Serbia.

Fine example, these modern journalists. Virtually, they are liars. Anti-nationhood, globalist liars.


Posted by David Yeagley at 11:09 PM | Comments (4)
October 23, 2007
Tahchawwickah: A Comanche Family Online

Something interesting has happened on the net. And American Indian family in Oklahoma has decided to proudly identify itself online, to America, to the world. Nick Tahchawwickah decided it was time to own his own family name. It's called Maruawe--"welcome," in Comanche. BadEagle.com announced it as the first of its kind, October 7, 2007. It is now being announced by the CampCrier, a popular Comanche news site, with a link. Probably, it will find more and more exposure in the near future. BadEagle.com is proud to have first announced it.

The Tahchawwickah family name first became nationally known when Rudy Gonzalez "Youngblood" decided to use it as his own family name. Rudy was the star of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (2006). BadEagle.com (September 25, 2006) of course immediately challenged Rudy's claim to be Indian at all, since he boasted of being a member of every major tribal group in North America, and even Mexico. It just didn't make sense, especially when he sported Negroid hair in posed photographs on his web site (--which was closed down after Rudy could not sustain his claim to be American Indian). It seemed he wanted to be 'Mr. Indigenous' of the Western hemisphere. We pursued his questionable identity further, and he then claimed that well-known Comanche Preston Tahchawwickah was his father. He had waited, however, until after Preston had died before he used the name. He later had to confess (to the LA Times), however, that the claim was a lie. "Preston Tahchawwickah was not my biolgoical father," he was quoted as saying.


Real Tahchawwickahs, Deya and Nick Tahchawwickah

I had defended the Tahchawwickah family name--even though I did not know any of the family personally. I knew it was a large and honorable family. I didn't think Rudy was Indian at all. It struck me as borderline bizarre that typical "hobbyist" from Texas would blatantly borrow (or rob) such a grand name. Some people thought I was out of line. Rudy's former manager Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk") was incensed against me, and created a MySpace site called "David Yeagley," numbering herself with the other frauds who use my personal name and family name (Bad Eagle) as their site names--since they would otherwise have no hope of traffic.

It appears that the Tahchawwickah family (at least part of it) has now assumed the honor of its own name. Nothing could be more appropriate. It is a great and unusual thing they have done. Preston, I understand, was Nick's uncle. Nick himself is the nephew of a Pastor Nick, still living in southwest Oklahoma. Perhaps other Comanche families will follow suit with family sites. When BadEagle.com was first created, I knew the matter of family geneology was crucial. I was prepared. Most Comanche families are well prepared. I am proud that the Tahchawwickahs have stepped forward and made themselves known to the world. I congratulate them whole heartedly.


Top: Neal, Nicholas; Middle: Deya, Demi; Bottom: Nathan, Nick II, Nick III

I'm proud that it was a Comanche family that came out on the internet in this way. BadEagle.com has had all kinds of family information on it, from the beginning, from Bad Eagle (1839-1909) down to his great, great, great grand children. But this information is in fragments, here and there, throughout the site. BadEagle.com is about a world view, an American patriot view, and American Indian view, and yes, a Comanche view. But it is not specifically a family site. The Tahchawwickah family site is indeed the first of its kind that we know of, in all of Indian Country.

Uda!

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:26 PM | Comments (316)
October 21, 2007
When Scots are Indians

It's happening again. A Scotsman has turned Indian! (Actually, he was Injun all along!)

Michael Forbes, a fisherman on a 23 acre plot at Balmedie, Aberdeenshire, on the east coast of Scotland, that sits between Donald Trump's planned 18-hole golf course and a 450-bedroom hotel, won't sell the land Trump. Trump offered some $700,000 for the piece of land, which is obviously dismally below the value now. The 55-year-old-old Forbes said to the press, "It's mine, and I'm keeping it."

Trump has planned the largest international golf coure/resourt in the world, on a remote and beautiful "virgin" coast of Scotland. Same old story. Those developers just can't leave the land alone. They have to cut it up.


Donald Trump plans to turn to sand dunes at the Menie Estate,
15 miles north of Aberdeen, Scotland, into a golf resort complete
with a pair of 18-hole courses, a luxurious 450-bedroom hotel,
950 vacation homes, 36 golf villas and 500 upscale homes. Here
he pleads his cause before a special meeting at Aberdeen.

Now, Trump has already surveyed the land, decried the state of Forbes property, declaring it "disgusting," and in a state of "total disrepair." So, is Trump going to try to get Scotland to enforce some kind of 'eminent domain'? That would be interesting. Then Trump accused Forbes of purposely making the property look bad, with rusty tractors, oil cans, etc., in order to get Trump to pay more money! Trump's ego seems galactic and blind sometimes, but, he's generally a good sport, and most people like him, and even admire him. But, that restless and ruthless American developer's syndrom is coming out rather strongly in Trump right now. Bury the little guy--if he gets in the way.

That was the story for American Indians. We were just in the way. Not really an enemy. Sometimes I think Americans really didn't have anything against Indians at all, but just had to demonize us in order to attack us, in order simply just to get us out of the way. Nothing any more complicated than that.

The irony in Aberdeen, of course, is that Trump's mother was a native Scot, a Macleod from the Isle of Lewis.

Ah, but it's not just Scotsman Forbes standing in the way of another Trump dream. The conservationists have stepped in. The Menie Estate, 15 miles north of Aberdeen, which Trump wants, is home to some of Scotland's rarest birds! Skylarks and breeding waders, particularly Lapwings and Redshank, as well as local human residents, see the resort as a total destruction of their bucolic, Edenic homeland. Who would want that?

Of course, Trump vouches for his own environmentalism, promising great expense and care to be invested in the golf course resort, the same as he has invested in his other developments. (Developers always have to at least say that.) And, naturally, the arguments for the developement run the same gamut: control of the environment, economic prosperity, jobs, etc. It's the same line given when the non-Indian developers want to put in a new "Indian" casino somewhere. And there are always concerns about new water supplies, electricity, new transportation systems and roads, etc. These projects always have inavoidable and significant impacts on the environment.

And there's more Indianness in the story. Like gambling was a great sport among most Indians, and casino advocates like to use that as an argument in favor of more and more casinos, golf is an element of national pride to the Scots, and Trump proposal presents a terrible temptation. Golf was invented in Scotland! But, it's like, their own custom is being used over and against them, just like the Indian casino thing.

I'd like to predict that the Scots will be true Indians in this matter, but, I cannot tell. I'd like to think they will resist the temptation, but there is economic need in the Aberdeen area, and golf courses are certainly the nicest way to touch the environment--a far cry from the devastating casino process.

At the heart of the matter is Michael Forbes. It's his land. He owns it. Who has the right to take it from him? Bad Eagle shall keep an "eagle eye" on this situation. It focuses on all that is dear in the Western world: private property versus the government--in the name of public prosperity. As fate would have it, an American "Scot" and a native Scot are the key players in the contest. As an Indian, I support Forbes, and the Aberdeen natives. As an American, I can only hope that the individualism of Trump, and the quest for new creations doesn't trespass against the land, and the ownership thereof.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:23 AM | Comments (27)
October 14, 2007
Jane Goodall, Chimpanzees, and Indians

Another case of white women and apes? White women saviors and, not dark species of the human race, but the black monkeys? That's what it appears on the surface, but, there's a different story behind the Jane Goodall story.

In 1960, she went to study the chimpanzees of Tanzania at the age of 26, with no academic background whatever. (She had attended only secretarial school.) She first made a boat trip to Kenya when she was 23. She was following a childhood dream to study animals in the jungles of Africa. It so happens that she met the renowned Dr. Lewis Leaky, who hired her as his assistant! What a break. No qualification necessary, just a few organizational skills and a pretty face.


Jane Goodall, in Tanzania, ca. 1960.

Little did she know that she would be assessed as part of a feminist movement that wanted primitive, anthropological evidence to show that human society was profoundly flawed, and strayed from our primate origins. Why, studying the chimpanzees would provide just the data they wanted. Goodall was perfect for the job. She wasn't educated, she would see the obvious. She could not be accused of prejudice or preconceived motives. She was just an innocent young woman, full of curiosity and enthusiasm.

She saw the obvious, all right. Chimpanzees were vicious, male-dominated, practically rapists, and all too willing to reap the reproductive benefits of dominance. Not exactly what the feminists were hoping for.

Well, after all her "research," Jane did enter Cambridge University in 1962--as a Ph.D. candidate! (I'm not sure what that says about Cambridge, to accept a student as a doctoral candidate, with no formal college background.) By 1965, she had the degree, and her career sky-rocketed thereafter.

According to Goodall's "research," chimpanzees were all too human. Science had failed once again to support the ideology of the Left, the ideal creature, the Marxist, egalitarian dream entity. Yes, Goodall's work contained the requisite denigration of humanity--via the exaltation of the animal, but, that little animal, the chimp, just wasn't as perfectly free of prejudice, hate, visiousness, and general paranoia as the academic Marxsists has supposed.

The point here is the profound level of anti-reality that is conceptualized and promoted by the university. Marxist egalitarianism is all about building prejudice, all about denying reality. The David Horowitz Students for Academic Freedom program must also consider and address the deeper dispositions of Marxism in the university, and not just the current and constant battles over free speech, or balanced presentations in the classroom or courses offered in the curriculum.

As an Indian, I have a stake in this. For decades now, the university has been trying to promote the idea that the American Indian, and the western hemispheric indigenous peoples in general, were all peace-loving non-combatants, like all the '60's hippies of America. Why, Indians were actually anti-war folk, deeply into love, trees, and flowers--and wore beads, by golly.

Well, academics aren't so completely duped anymore. Science itself is lending a hand, inevitably, to clear up the false reality Marxist academics have created. In the recent works put together and edited by Dr. Richard Chacon and Ruben Mendoza, we can see a historical moment in science: the true adacemic is obligated to considere the true. That science appears for once to be supporting a "conservative" political position is really a coincidence, or a happenstance outcome for many of these scholars involved. They are simply trying to consider the facts.

As BadEagle.com earlier noted, "in the last decade, scholarly anti-noble savagery has burgeoned. There is a new book series on the subject, with a fourth volume coming: North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence (Eds., Richard Chacon and Ruben Mendoza) University of Arizona Press. 2007; Latin American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence (Eds., Richard Chacon and Ruben Mendoza) University of Arizona Press. 2007); The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians (Eds., Richard Chacon and David Dye) Springer Press, 2007."

This work pertains to the American Indian, and his way of life. It is abundantly clear that he was the "blood-thirsty," heartless savage everyone always thought he was--as well as the fatherly, loving, naturalist, family man that most human beings are. I don't see the Indian as better or worse than the European, really. The European was well into the concept of dominance, however. The Indian was not. That is the main difference. Of course, the European created the Great White Throne which apparently rules the world. That is the outcome of that difference. Though the Indian may correctly be thought of as somehow more of a romantic, spiritual man, and the European/American may continually look to the Indian as some kind of guide, some kind of validation, some mysterious answer, they will not find in the Indian a reflection of domination over other Indians, or over any other people.

Men and apes, eh? I have to say, the white European tradition is more of an ape act than the Indian ever committed. However, the European is in power. The European ascended above and beyond all alse. And yes, I'm sure it's a lonely place, the top. However, I don't know exactly what kind of comfort the Indian can offer.


Black Coal, Arapaho, ca. 1882


Posted by David Yeagley at 03:17 PM | Comments (23)
October 12, 2007
Natural Prejudice

Is a person prejudice if he doesn't know it? Is a person guilty of prejudice if he is not conscious of it, or has no such intent? Perhaps there is another question to be asked as well. Is it possible to be conscious at all, without prejudice, preconception, natural aversion, and discretion? The science of psychology says certainly no. It is not possible. Prejudice is part of what it means to be conscious at all.

But now, most of just think of racial prejudice when we hear the term prejudice. That, we avow, is something no one should consciously harbor, and no one should act upon, even if it seems natural. Even if it is an instinctive defense mechanism, or, as in Gestalt psychology, it is simply a neurological process of visual perception, we should carefully retrain ourselves, discipline ourselves, and cleanse ourselves of all racial prejudice.

As I am becoming more involved in professional anthropological concerns, I observe how in the most careful, academic elocutions, there is in fact prejudice. Racial prejudice. However, I don't think it is intentional, and I don't think it is inimical. But, it is still prejudice--of the most unconscious kind. I note something in North American Indigenous Warefare and Tritual Violence (2007) edited by Richard J. Chacon and Ruben G. Mendoza. (BadEagle.com has mentioned this work before.) In the seventh of eleven chapters, "Iroquois-Huron Warfare," Dean R. Snow elaborates on the idea of "revenge" as motivating factor in the Iroquois tribal approach to reality--particularly toward other Indian tribes. Of course, as in most 'case studies,' the subject is singled out and magnified, as if it is significantly different from any other sector of humanity. This is the inevitable illusion of academic concentration (or another kind). But the evidence of prejudice seems a bit deeper than the choice of the word "revenge."

Snow is writing of a concept that was presented by Cadwallader Colden in 1727. In The History of the Five Indian Nations, which he presented to the Governor of New-York and New-Jersey, he dramatized what he called "revenge" in the Indians. They "resolved at all hazards to march through ... vast unknown Deserts [wilderness], to satisfy their cruel Passion [revenge, mentioned earlier in the same sentence.]" In his introduction to the book, a letter addressed to the Governor, he said:

If care were taken to plant in them, and cultivate that general Benevolence to Mankind, which is the true Principle of Vertue, it would effectualy eradicate those horrid Vices occasioned by their Unbounded Revenge...

"Injun revenge," it's been called ever since. Even in movies as late as Nevada Smith (1966), the exact term is used to describe a blind, maniacal sort of motivation that causes its subject great hardship until it is satisfied.

Our great white brethren, writers and scholars, obviously like to think this is a negative trait. As they see it, Indians had a peculiar obsession with revenge. I see this as intellectual prejudice on the part of our white brethren.

Why not use the word "justice?"

Here we are, in 2007, in the midst of the left-overs of Puritan America, where the hottest shows on TV are all about courtroom drama, and the legal profession in our society is at an all time high profitability, and in fact, even in 16th century England, Shakespeare wrote "Kill all the lawyers!" (Henry VI, Second Part, IV, ii)--so frustrated had the practice of law made English society--in the midst of a society which is clearly obsessed with "justice," and we find our dear academics and writers want to accuse the Indians of obsession with "revenge."

This is prejudice. Is it not?

Is justice some 'sacred cow' of Judeo-Christian society that Indians must not be allowed to touch? Must Indians be called vice-ridden, but white society not? Indians want revenge, but whites want justice? Is that how it goes? Revenge is bad, but justice is good, therefore, Indians must not be associated with the word justice? Why, it is a concept they couldn't possibly know anything about? In order to think of Indians as bad, they have to call our sense of justice "revenge" instead? Like, European nations never had a problem with revenge!

Well, this is a simple example of how prejudice can work, but I think it is very clear that it is actually unconscious in the academics and writers. They are simply looking at Indians as different from them. They use their negative terms. I honestly don't think they are consciously aware of the nature of their perspective.

On the other hand, Colden also said this about the Five Nations, (keep in mind, this is in the 1700's):

They are the Fiercest and most Formidable People in North America, and at the same time as Politick and Judicious as well can be conceiv'd.
But what have we Christians done to make them better? Alas! we have reason to be ashamed, that these Infidels, by our Conversation and Neighbourhood, are become worse then they were before they knew us. Instead of Vertues we have only taught them Vices, that they were entirely free of before that time.

Pretty honest opinion there, wouldn't you say? I didn't say true, but honest. Colden is saying what he really believes. Is not prejudice found in one's honest opinions? It is a kind of schizophrenic opinion, but that's probably natural, too. The whites were foreigners here, taking homeland from Indians. It was an instinctively wrong but daring thing to do. There were self-congratulatory and self-condemning at the same time. To justify themselves, they had to think of the Indians as bad. But, for cultural penance, they ended up putting the Indian's image on their money, their buildings, their beloved sports teams, and left every other mountain, river, and state with an Indian name!

What a story. There is none like it in all the earth. There's only one America. And there's only one Indian. Forever bonded.


Adam Beach, on Law & Order, SVU. Ironic triumph!

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:12 PM | Comments (11)
October 10, 2007
Rage on the Reservations

Are some Indians feeling confined these days? Socially, psychologically, even physically? Is that what Indian anger is all about? Being used and abused?

We need to be really careful about how we present this issue. There are many conservatives and liberals who wish to see the reservations abolished. They think the reservations are the crippling element, and Indians would all be much better of without them. They say Indians should stop being separatists, and join the rest of society. Is this true?

Was Gen. William T. Sherman right?

But the more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war. For the more I see of these Indians the more convinced am I that they have all to be killed, or be maintained as a species of paupers.


General William T. Sherman (1820-1891)

Now, based on the whole treaty concept, it seems to me that Indians have the perfect right to be whatever they want to be. That sounds a bit ideological, but, consider the history: the government says, You stop killing white people, you stay here, in this area, and we'll take care of you forever. "As long as the grass grows and the wind blows" sort of thing. We'll give you whatever you need. Just stay there, and quite killing white people. Most unfortunately, the US never did keep a treaty. For Indians, it was one lie after another. Of course Indians 'battled on' after the so-called treaties. Things didn't settle until the Indian population was greatly reduced, and there simply were no more warriors. Enter: the reservation days.

Okay. So then, times went modern. Dental, electricity, plumbing, gas, insurance, etc. Were those all covered in the treaties? I'm afraid the cost of maintaining Indians has gone up, greatly. The government certainly can't keep up with it. And the Indian population has increased a bit--with all the "casino" tribes popping up all over the country. Speaking of casinos, it seems that this business still provides the only open door to Indian country financial improvement. But the fact that the national Indian casino "revenue" is approaching nearly $30 billion a year, and the BIA allotment is less than $3 billion, one has to question either the revenue figure (--and whom the money's really going to, like, the non-Indian owners), or question the government commitment after all.

In any case, in almost every tribe, there are customs and values that simply don't fit into modernity, into modern society here in America. There are certain social, familial customs that seem simply inappropriate. Early on in the reservation days, Indians learned how to "rent" out their own wives and children to perverts simply for a bottle of whiskey, or a bag of tobacco. Yes, yes, there is a deep, dark side to some reservations.

Yet, Indians have preferred the reservations. Our fathers bought them for us, with blood. The great social changes, the technology, the economy, etc., they did not anticipate, or plan for. They did not imagine living all that differently from the way they had always lived. That was the whole point of the reservation--a place where the Indian would be left alone. It seldom happened, of course; the treaties were seldom kept. The white man was after every blasted foot of the country. Every last inch! Nevertheless, the reservations still meant then and mean now--everything to the Indian. The reservations must never, ever be dissolved. America itself will dissolve when that happens. The states will dissolve. The word of the federal government, the word of the United States, will be forever broken. The United States cannot and will not ever let that happen. (Or, am I dreaming?)

Abolish the reservations--in the name of helping Indians? No. The reservations are not the problem.

The problem is human behavior. Human values. Human denigration. Now, some Indian "spokesmen" can scream in anger at America. They can blame America. They can say wrong is perpetuated, today, by white America. This may be true, at least to an unmeasured extent; but how is it that white America is still able to do this?

Vice. Plain and simple. Vice, and immorality. I should say, incorrect morality. There is in Indian country (as well as in all America) a certain lack of family values. A lack of respect for marriage. Sex itself has become a vice. The context of marriage is but a temporary playing field, abandoned easily enough. There is a simple absence of honor.


Sioux medicine man, a much needed entity, only with
moral medicine.

Historically, maybe the Indian "family," particularly the plains Indian family, wasn't such a tight thing. Men of age were gone often weeks at a time, hunting, raiding, or exploring. There were wars, with other Indians as well as whites. Who looked after the kids? Grandma. Grandpa (if he was alive). Mom was way too busy preparing food, clothing, shelter, etc. When the reservation days started, and so many of the men were dead, extended families took care of children. The "one mother, one father" concept was very much obliterated. It was aunties, uncles, and grandparents all the way.

Today, Indian men--and women, are absent not because they're out hunting or slaving for a living, but because they are drunk, out of state with some other sex partner, or just don't care. Grandma will take care of the child. And when a single Indian mother (with legitimate or illegitimate child) does work, someone else does have to take care of the child.

Agonizing as it is to talk about this, I think many Indians face a double weight of sin against the family--the historical sin of losing a way of life to another that was foreign and unwanted, and the sin of simply not wanting to adapt to new ways. Perhaps these things are beyond redemption. Then we would echo Sherman's words. But perhaps there are solutions--which simply haven't been tried, solutions which Indian leaders need to devote themselves, quickly and entirely, to devising.

As I said, technically, Indians have the right to do nothing, be nothing, to not care, to not be responsible. That is the heritage of our fathers' blood.

On the other hand, do we not owe something to our fathers? Do we not owe them the same kind of devotion to our people that they showed? They laid down their lives. Can we lay down a bottle of whiskey? Can we show respect and love for one another? Can we care?

I think so. We just need to outline some basic rules to live by in this modern age. I say it all starts with marriage. Yes, I know many Indians were coerced brutally into an abusive form of "Christianity," but, the fact is, monogamy, one man, one woman, forever, is the foundation of lasting social cohesion in today's world. Anything else is bound for denigration and disintegration. Yes, it may be a bit of a different concept for some Indians, even today, but, I think we do well to consider it. We don't live on the plains anymore. We don't hunt or gather our own food. We don't make our own clothes. We're part of a different world, like it or not.

In a way, some Indians could say, "Our fathers would rather die than be different." It could certainly be seen that way. Some chose death, rather than change. Nothing is more important to an Indian than being Indian.

So, is death the alternative? Is this what Indian suicide is all about? Well, I would believe that, if it weren't connected to alcohol and drugs, and those vices weren't connect to promiscuity and indiscriminate sex. I think there's a real deception, an cultural illusion going on here. Vice is the white man's heritage to the Indian. Vice causes the denigration, not poverty. Suicide by vice is giving old Sherman the win.

I say no. Let's live. Let's face new enemies, new challenges, new values. Now, media hypes up the lowest of the low, because media loves outrage. Media is not the solution. Decrying injustice in the media accomplishes nothing in the way of personal morality or behavioral change. We have to do it ourselves. Change comes deep from within. Perhaps it is the power of the Creator we should seek. That is the real medicine. Do we know how to do that? Do we know what that means? Do we know what we're asking for?

Do we know what we want?


Sioux war party, something that should fight for the family today.

Posted by David Yeagley at 05:27 PM | Comments (32)
October 09, 2007
Russell Means, Indians, and Anger

Was Russell Means right to be rageful on KHOW Denver radio? When he denounced white people, Italians, Columbus, etc., was he justified in the theatrics? Was his crude passion appropriate? If it was an act, it far exceeded any abilities he has ever shown in acting roles on TV or in movies. It was in the KHOW radio studio, not on stage, or even on camera (to my knowledge). The deep 'wisdom' roles he's always cast in, no doubt due to his deep, winsome voice, never involve energy or drama. I haven't followed his career all that closely. I don't know if he commonly blows up like he did October 5, 2007, on Denver radio.

\
Russell Means, Oglala Sioux

Aside from the Means behavioral concerns, was he representing how Indians feel? That is a legitimate question. In as much as all Indians have been dramatically and forever changed by the cataclysmic intrusion of European-American history and culture, is it not a natural expectation that all Indians would be forever angry, forever resentful, and would forever reject all culture but our own? That is certainly the ideological position fostered by the Communist racial agitators who developed AIM and the whole professional protest Indian business. Of course, they had some ready volunteers--a lot of whites and a few Indians. University personalities like Ward Churchill and Glenn Morris are certainly willing to play the role. Of course, they have no cause to protest except theoretical ideology, and to keep that 'tempest in a teapot' going--the university tradition. (Professors do think they are the center of the universe, and the seat of all truth. After all, it is their "profession," to know.)

But what of real Indians? Russell at one point claimed "genocide," and that the Indian plight was like the Holocaust, etc. I don't really understand that. The Dakotas contain some of the highest concentration of American Indian population in the United States. I'd say the Sioux were least affected by "genocide" or "annihilation." I'm thinking it is the experience of the Sioux in the last 140 years that calls for such intense protest. Like other plains Indian tribes, so accustomed to the open country, and big game hunting, the Sioux felt captivity as a devastating depression. As a Comanche, I truly understand that. However, unlike the Sioux, the Comanche were in a crammed in with a lot of other, non-related tribes, all suffering the same fate, and not so isolated, demographically. The Sioux, on the other hand, were left in giant, deserted land areas, with nothing to hunt, nothing to do, and nothing to think about--but loss. Enter: vice. Alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, etc. Hard to snap out of when that's all there is. The worst abuse statistics in all Indian country come from the Dakotas (follwed by the Chippewa). No, not that every Sioux suffers this way, but, enough do so that probably these conditions were what Russell was yelling about.

I just have to question whether anger and yellling about it will help. Yelling about the Columbus parade, yelling at George Vendegnia, the organizaer, seems so wide of the mark, so misplaced. It's really only Indians who can understand Indians. It's really only Sioux who can understand the Sioux. Russell was howling at the moon. He was only offending everyone. No one understood what he was talking about. He wasn't yelling about what he was talking about!

He was yelling about Indian suffering! That's all. It was simply misplaced, in the wrong direction, and I'm afraid it doesn't work. No, I daren't accuse him of grand standing. I'm Indian. I know something about the real thing, believe me. I know about how he feels. I would never express myself in his same words, in his same way. I'm going for the Exocet missile approach. I want to get to the real target, with accuracy. But I can appreciate the outrage he feels. Human denigration is an unspeakable tragedy. In the case of the Sioux, it is quintessentially tragic. Why?


Sioux dancer at the dedication of the
University of North Dakota's Ralph
Engelstad Arena, 2001

The Sioux carry the grandest, most majestic image of bravery and regality of any people in the history of the Americas. This is what modern Sioux Indian inherits. But sometimes I wonder if this cosmic archetype of greatness somehow inhibits the modern Sioux from progress. Yes. Perhaps the past glory is still so glorious that the people are not motivated to replicate it or to out-do it in the modern world. They are not interested in the modern world. Why should they be? It isn't theirs. They didn't build it. They didn't want any part of it. Their fathers died to protect and preserve their own world.

So who is Russell Means yelling at? That war cries of anger should ascend from the northern plains is not to be denied, but against whom is the war? Who will fight? And whom?

I can only say that the Sioux carry Indian country. What happens to them happens to us all. They are the American Indian image. It's about them. Theirs is the public image. Theirs is the image in the American mind, the white mind, the non-Indian mind. I"m not sure the Sioux people, particularly those fallen into disarray or personal suffering, actually see how important they are. They are simply not concerned with the outside world. They know not how powerful they still are.


Jack Red Cloud, only son of the mighty one.

They are as powerful as the "Fightingt Sioux" image of the University of North Dakota! That's still the image. Everyone prizes it. Everyone expects it. Everyone envies it. Foreigners try to cash in on it, and participate in it. It is incredible, the might behind that image. Yes, media and Hollywood have aggrandized it even more. (The only other grand images are those of the Comanche, and the Apache.)

I say it is time to grab hold of the image, to live up to it. The greatest enemy of the Sioux is the Sioux. That's the same for all Indians, really. We're not faithfully facing new enemies. We have to face the enemy, even if it is ourselves. This is what I find faulty in the outrage of Russell Means. He blames others. Thus he weakens the Indian. Yes, there are unbelievable inhibitions in law and social circumstances, particularly in the Dakotas. There is prejudice beyond anything the ACLU or the NAACP could comprehend. Why? The mighty Sioux image. I think people are still terrified of the Sioux--even if they're homeless alcoholics or prostitutes on the street.

We shall see about the future. We shall see if we cannot create a different plan of attack here. It is time for the Sioux to rise again--to the battle of self-empowerment and self-control. Enough of "help" from non-Indians. Enough yelling at non-Indians. Time for the real warriors to rise again. We need to yell at ourselves--with love and aspiration.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:26 PM | Comments (40)
October 08, 2007
Honorable Columbus Day!

Well, "Columbus Day Observed," today, October 8, 2007.

Actually, it was a Friday, October 12, 1492, at dawn, that the Santa Maria made landfall in the New World. How fitting. The sixth day of the week, the final day of Creation, as it is written in Genesis 1:31. The day before Sabbath. It was like a celebration of two new worlds. The Lord just made a new one, and nearly six milleniums later, Columbus found a new one. This was the sort of thing that confirmed Columbus' belief that he was a instrument in the hand of God. It was the precursor to the coming of Spain's Golden Age. Indeed the harbinger. 1492 was the year the Muslim Alhambra of Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella. It marked the liberation of Christian Europe from the sordid shadows of Islam.

It was all part of an apocalyptic vision. In his work, The Book of Prophecies (ca. 1501), Columbus wrote out many of his beliefs, his motivations, and explanations for why he thought things were happening the way they were. It was his religious convictions that drove him. Certainly, that is the message of his own writings. This is not all that well-known in the modern world. Indeed, we are in an age which tends to decry achievement and honor parasitical protests. Some call it "political correctness," which attempts to victimize all non-white races and cultures, and to condemn all white, Judeo-Christian European history and achievement. I call this "political corruptness," and I will no longer use the term political correctness. It is corrupt motivation, a deceptive attempt to wrest power from the achievers. It is the work of the weak connivers, who otherwise have nothing to offer, and no power to create. They only leech off the accomplishments of others.

I am greatly embarrassed to say, such leeches appeared at the Columbus Parade in Denver this week-end (Saturday). Eighty three of them were arrested, including Russell Means and Glenn Morris. They broke the law, and disrupted the parade for nearly an hour. Glenn Morris demonstrated the fact that he is a liar. On KHOW Denver radio, Friday, he said the protesters had no plans to disrupt the parade. When Caplis & Silverman asked him about it, Morris said that the leaders (himself and Means) were not responsible for what would happen. Why, people would be acting out their own conscience, he said! Then we read in the >Denver Post (10-6-07)

Glenn Morris, a member of the American Indian Movement of Colorado's leadership council, urged those willing to face jail to block the parade route. Other demonstrators were told to remain on the sidewalk and out of the way of police.

A pretty tired routine by now, this parade protesting--under totally false pretenses. It is so ugly, so immature, and so wrong. Russell Means called the Columbus Parade a racist march, a hate parade, and a celebration of "conquest." Like, the Sioux never had a war with anyone? The Sioux never won a battle? The Sioux never had a victory dance? Means certainly doesn't represent the Sioux on this one, or Indians at large. He represents a pre-fab Communist racial agitation manoeuver, old as the Black Hills, so to speak, and worn as the Wichitas.


Morris being arrested at the 2004 Columbus Parade.


Morris being arrested at the 2007 Columbus Parade.
Aren't two of the same misdemeanors considered a felony?
What a loser, Glenn Morris. An example for students?

The fact is, Columbus never met an American Indian. He never set foot on our land. I pointed this out on the Caplis and Silverman show myself. (I opened the show, Friday, October 5. Morris and Means were on next, followed finally by George Vendegnia, organizer of the parade.) Silverman then suggested "indigenous" unity, like American Indians would automatically identify with South American Indians.

Sorry. Not true. Yes, there is the international indigenous movement, now backed by George Soros, promoted by people like LaDonna Harris, and Robert Redford. But that is strictly racist, a 'politically corrupt' anti-white movement, very much the converse of Hitler's Nazi movement. Real American Indians have no part of that. We are separate nations. We have our own languages, our own religions, and our own territories. If we really thought like that, like a race, we'd have curbed that European immigration right away!

Protesting Columbus is a very dishonorable thing to do. It is really just some political ideology of racist agitation--which identifies it as fundamental Marxism, of course. To associate every ill in Indian country--I mean American Indian country, with the name Christopher Columbus, is academic braggadocio. It is poetic fantasy, and horribly inaccurate. The expansion of Europe is so complex, so vast, and so profound, that putting it all in a name, Columbus, is pure desperation. There is no understanding rendered by such a media-oriented gesture.

I'd say any "professor" who gets himself arrested, purposely, should be fired immediately. Morris may not be the absolute fake that Ward Churchill is, but, he is associated with Churchill, and is much like him. He claims to be part Shawnee, through some remote line by his father. But he has not made public any authentic membership of any federally recognized American Indian tribe. He apparently thinks getting himself arrested on behalf of fabricated Indian causes earns him his feathers. His association with Colorado AIM certainly doesn't earn him anything but contempt.

This is the kind of person who would teach young American Indians to hate, to be racist, to look at the world with ugly eyes. This is the kind of "professor" who would offer getting arrested as a comparable act of bravery. This is the kind of man who would protest, illegally, a parade. This is a joker.

Columbus is like a giant elephant, and Morris is a flea, or the larva of a flea, or microbe on the end of the elephant's tail, so impossibly insignificant. It is an academic hilarity that such an entity would think to ride the elephant in protest. It is pathetic, and borderline mentally disturbed. Yes, I think the University of Colorado at Denver needs to reconsider Morris' position. He needs to be fired, just like Ward Churchill. No question about it.

In the mean time, the Italians of Denver have reestablished their parade for this nobleman, Columbus. Yes, they have tried to expand it into an American parade. Of course, everyone knows, had not the Italians taken up the cause, there would be no Columbus parade. It is really a great thing they created over a hundred years ago. America owes them a fine hat tip, indeed.

Dio la benedice, i miei amici!

__________________________________
ANNOUNCEMENTS

KHOW radio clips. I was on the Caplis and Silverman 4:00 hour. You can advance the button to about the middle of the show. The hosts wisely kept me, Morris and Means, and Vendegnia all separate!

Latest article on VDARE.com: Columbus Day--A Comanche's Philosophy

Also announcing a new Comanche web site: The Tahchawwickahs. It is, I believe, the first of his kind. I hope there is no offense in announcing this site today, Columbus Day. It is coincidence. I want to announce it because I am especially proud of it. Comanches first, again! Also, the Tahchawwickah site is in progess, undergoing various stages of construction.


Posted by David Yeagley at 09:19 AM | Comments (23)
October 07, 2007
Marion Jones: True Champion

2000 Olympic medalist Marion Jones came out of the White Plains court house Friday, October 5, 2007, and confessed before the world that she had not only used steroids, but lied about it. "I lied tofederal agents."


With tears in her eyes track star Marion Jones hangs her head as she talks to
reporters after appearing in US District Court. Jones admitted she took banned steroids
prior to her triumphant 2000 Olympic campaign
.(AFP/Don Emmert)

That's not really the story, though. The story is that she held that confessional press conference of her own free will (to all appearance). She did it to honor her family, her supporters, her fellow athletes, and her country. She humble herself before those whom she wronged. This was a triumph, indeed.

Frankly, I never saw such a heartfelt confession in public, in my life. It was truly thrilling, as well as cleansing for us all. She said what any and every human being needs to say when fallen, and said it in the way it should be said, in the circumstances it should be said, and in the spirit. This was truly a remarkable moment in American cultural history.

As Americans we have been betrayed again and again by our political leaders, our cultural heroes, our athletic stars, our newsmen, and often even our families. That a human being, a particularly a black female, should go out and stand on the steps of a public court, and "fess up" in such a noble, dignified, honest way, should really give some hope to the public. It happened. A person confessed. A person made no excuse, no cover-up, no contest, and no bones. She just said, 'I did it! I'm sorry!'

And I like what she said about her family. Something like, "I have the classiest family person could ever hope for." I believe her. Why? Because of the way Marion behaved. They way she carried herself. She learned that. She didn't invent that demeanor on the spot. It wasn't acting. She inherited that "class." She was taught that.

Well, maybe I'm being "emotional" here. Of course, that always makes for good news stories, right? "Emotional." When a news reported uses that word, that's supposed to be top dollar interest. Notice, however, no commentators got into Marion very deeply. A few noted the contrast between her confession and those denials offered by so many others, like Barry Bonds. Okay, but, that's not really appreciating the heart fo the girl. That's not honoring the dignity of the woman.

Some will say, She got caught. She counldn't "run" away from it. That's true--but she didn't have to come out on the steps of the court and hold a press conference. That was her honor as a human being. I will never forget that. She was a real 'man' about it. And yes, she's headed to jail.

But look at it like this: if you want to say she's just another liar, you have to admit, her confession held more class than all other liars put together. If she's just another untrustworthy star, just another big let down, never did anyone come down to the rock of the soul with such grace and convincing words. It was a glorious finish, indeed.

Maybe it really isn't over. When she's passed the 'retirement' she mentioned, maybe she'll really have influence. It's not just the change of life Paris Hilton vowed for herself when she came out of 26 days in jail. (That story hasn't developed at all, at least not in the media. All we have is a dearth of story. I suppose that's an improvement.) Marion Jones was an achiever. Her failures are much more real, and vital; her social recovery will also be much more tangible, convincing, and effective. So it would seem. So I hope it is.

I may be a sucker for drama, but Marion Jones struck deep in me. I had to admire her ever minute she spoke. Perhaps it didn't mean too much to a lot of people, but I simply felt a lot of family love around her, and, frankly, I was just proud of her. Real proud. And I was happy for her.

Is this okay? So maybe her speech was written by her attorney, Rich Nichols. A hit of some moral steroid! It was the most perfectly formed testimony in modern media. She either had help, or she was inspired, or both. Makes no difference. She did it. She broke the ribbon--in glory. I accept it. It was an archetype.

Actually, the story is long and complicated, and like many black athletes, Marion was caught up in a network of financial problems, legal crises, and a host of critical collateral complexities. When you get into the story deeply enough, it is really sad. She has had nothing but problems, broken marriages, an illegitmate child, etc., etc. She was buried in perplexity. It is a wonder she accomplished what she did. Great physical talent, covered with inescapable personal problems. Yeah, some might say it's just another black athlete story. Just another black heritage thing.

But, let me have that moment, that one moment when she man-upped, and spoke to the world as her friend. (Here on BadEagle.com, we know drama!) Isn't that worth something?

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:16 PM | Comments (14)
October 05, 2007
Bad Eagle Updates

There are a number of items which need to be noted, items which concern BadEagle.com, myself, and the conservative movement. I have elected to list these items separately, with some identification beyond titles. Periodically, until the new face of the site is created, I shall resort to such announcement on the Jounral. Thank you for your interest and patience.

Yeagley on Norman, OK local TV: OK Politics and You, with Steve Byas and Gary Cooper This was an interview with some conservative Oklahomans. Steve Byas is editor of The Oklahoma Constitution.

Yeagley on YouTube: DavidYeagley This is a page devoted to my music, and performances of it. These are not in any particular order, but there are some 14 new video clips--from the "Classical Native" concerts at the National Museum of the American Indian, Washington, DC, October 5-8, 2006. These are live performances of Lina Bahn, Timothy Archambault, Gabriel Ayala, and others (including myself.) Of course, the 2007 concert series is coming up November 8-11. I have an entire recital program November 10, at 1:00. This program features some of my vocal works, solo, choral, and ensemble.

Yeagley on VDARE.com: "Nazism in Israel?" My latest article on VDARE.com. It examines the natural feeling of nationalism, and how it fairs in America culture. Also, we're hoping to post another article on VDARE.com this Monday, October 8, 2007--Columbus Day. The article is entitled, "A Philosophy of Columbus."

Yeagley on Denver Radio KHOW: Scheduled to be on Caplis and Silverman radio show today (Denver KHOW), 4:35 or 4:45 pm, CT. I understand Russell Means and Glenn Morris will also be on. This is addressing the Columbus Day issues in Denver. I will post an audio when and if available.

Yeagley in South Dakota: Sioux Falls Conference, October 17-18, including a public walk, speakers, and discussions. This is perhaps the most meaningful event of all. We are seeking ways to improve the lives of Indian people, socially identified as "homeless." We will address the psychological issues, the social and legal aspects, and most importantly, we will listen to the "homeless" Indians.

There are other items interest, which will be noted as they approach.

We still seek development of the Bad Eagle Foundation, and the establishment of a national conservative movement for American Indians, one what will honor and preserve the Indian nations, the same way the American nation needs to be honored and preserved. I has been my vision that the American Indian can find his true role in American society as once again host of the new nation, guide, and even savior. That was the original image of the American Indian in the minds of the new European immigrants. Would that this grand image can be resurrected. I fancy the future of America depends on it.

Contact me at badeagle@badeagle.com

Posted by David Yeagley at 02:32 PM | Comments (12)
October 03, 2007
Oklahoma Senator No. 1 Patriot

ANNOUNCMENT I : Live performances of classical music compositions by David Yeagley posted on YouTube. (DavidYeagley) Recorded at the National Museum of the American Indian, October, 2006.

ANNOUNCEMENT 2: New Yeagley article posted on VDARE.com: Nationalism in Israel?

Oklahoma State Republican Senator Randy Brogdon, of Owasso, Oklahoma, may be one of the first American patriots to rise up in the state of Oklahoma, and maybe even in the country. The Ardmore native told a full house at OK-SAFE's first meeting in Tulsa, "The NAFTA Superhighway stops here, at the border with Oklahoma."


OK Republican Senator Randy Brogdon

Brogdon, a strong conservative, highly objects to the intrusion of "a new superhighway four-football-fields-wide coming through the heart of our state just so Mexican trucks can carry Chinese containers from Mexican ports to Kansas City." A recent and scintillating aricle in World Net Daily (by renowned Jerome R. Corsi, October 1, 2007) lays out Brogdon's positions with shuddering force and clarity.

Is this what it takes? States rights?

Is this what will finally remind America of its own nationhood, its own identity as a country, as a government empowered and bound by the United States Constitution? Now, paranoid critics will cry "Civil War" again! The states cannot ignore federal mandates! Brogdon will no doubt soon be accused of secession. One Oklahoma senator, standing tall for the US Constitution, will assuredly be attacked for advocating defiance of federal law and sedition--the exact opposite of what he's doing!

Well, here's the meat of the matter:

"Ariticle 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, 'Congress shall have the Power to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,' not the president," Brogdon pointed out. "Yet President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada called SPP that seeks to eliminate our trade and security borders and he has failed to get the explicit approval of Congress."

Indeed, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) web site admits that the super highway project is not based on law. "The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed." (Myths & Facts)

So what it is?

Business. Just global business. Nothing other. Yes, it effects everything else, down to the basic concept of American national sovereignty. But the whole NAFTA movement, and all its tributaries, is simply about business. It is the rule of business over law, really.

And nothing can make a country more insecure than to merge it with other countries. They can never sell the American people on the "security" benefits of this gigantic fiasco--that is, unless they can get enough illegals voting before the American people rise up.

But Brogdon has already risen. I'm thinking sometimes it only takes one man to stand up, and the others--who've been waiting for a leader, will immediately follow.

Well, I'm right smartly proud that an Oklahoman would be the man to do it. Right proud. If we have to assert states rights first, then so be it. Maybe national patriotism starts at the state level anyway. We'll all pretty much lost confidence in Washington politics anyway. The state capital is a little closer to home. Maybe we can all plug in there.

Brogdon led the charge in the defeat of HP 1917, the bill that would allow the North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc., a Dallas-based trade organization of which the State of Oklahoma is a member, to create the world's first 'international, intermodal superhighway' system. (See, this is all in the contract-bidding stages now.) Brogdon has campaigned for legislation demanding Oklahoma withdraw from NASCO, saving the state a $25,000 annual membership fee.

Just protecting the state itself, can mean the foundations of patriotism. Not letting your state be taken advantage of, or bullied, by pseudo-federal law--which is nothing more than global business ambition, maybe that's the path to the rebirth of national patriotism--not letting your nation be pushed around by business.

"NASCO will probably work with legislators favorable to their cause to package the next bill with a catchy name," Brogdon warned. "The bill will come down as something like, 'Economic Development and Transportation for the Next Generation and Our Kids.' It will be disguised, but I assure you, the outcome will still be the same. Our sovereignty will be under attack."

Now, there's a patriot. By the way, Charlie Meadows' Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee voted Brogdon "Legislator of the Year" in 2004 and 2005, with a nearly perfect conservative voting record, according to the groups standards. In 2005-2006, his caucus elected him Senate Republican Whip. He's a fairly young man, and the country will obviously have great need of him in the very near future. Washington will gasp, "Look what the wind blew in from Oklahoma!" Well, those of us who are acquainted with Senator Brogdon know his personality and character. He is a perfectly humble man, and simply honors the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, Washington will tremble. And the patriots will rejoice.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:07 PM | Comments (13)
October 01, 2007
Neretva Revisited

ANNOUNCMENT: Live performances of classical music compositions by David Yeagley posted on YouTube. (DavidYeagley) Recorded at the National Museum of the American Indian, October, 2006.

BadEagle has noted the Battle of Neretva before, in our East European forums. This was in the context of current Serbian issues. After viewing the 1971 American release of the Yugoslavian film, I feel it is worth reconsidering. The passing of time, and the change of perspective, can require serious reinterpretation of some as complex as war.

Yugoslavia, as some of us knew it, was not a nation until 1945, coming about as the immediate result of WWII. It was made up of Slavic peoples, today known for independent states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. The former union was something akin to that of modern Iraq, or even Jordan. The different peoples within were really not unified in language, culture, or custom. In the case of Yugoslavia, it was a Russian Communist manoeuver in the East European block, a strong fold in the Iron Curtain. It would be much like the modern American liberal disposition that all American Indians are one body, a unified, entity. It is Communist racism, to be sure. And it didn't last long. Under strong man Josep Broz Tito, Yugoslavia broke away from the Russian sphere, and formed its own version of coerced Communism, which lasted until 1991, when Slovania and Croatia broke away, followed by Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina.


The movie, The Battle of Neretva, 1969-71

The point in the movie, however, doesn't touch on these things, but rather, the struggle against Nazi Germany. The movie simplifies the situation thus: Germany was expecting a major allied invasion, on one front or another. They were expecting something coming in from the southeast, and therefore wanted to secure the impossible regions of the Balkans. There was a grand, thunderous attempt to seize the Balkans in one fell swoop, only it failed.

The "Partisans" withstood the assault into Slavic regions, and Germany was defeated. So, who were the Partisans? Tito's Communist Slavs, the central, controlling group, historically. These were the Slavs who did not unite with Hitler's Germany or the Axis ally--Mussolini's fascist Italy. But many Slavs did! The Ustache of Croatia were backed by the Italians, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Serbians. The Ustache also brought in the Albanians into Serbia's southern regions (Kosovo), to slaughter yet more Serbians. The Chetniks, actually a Serbian group, appeared to side with the Axis powers, against the Partisans, but they were really seeking independence, and control over Slavic territory.

In the movie, I'm a afraid a liberal, communist take on the situation glorifies the Partisan Slavs as the heros, who resisted Nazi Germany. Yes, the movie has many Jewish elements. Successfully resisting Nazi Germany would be the important theme to bring out, for sure. But there is of course no mention or intimation of Communism. That would uselessly complicate the image the movie seeks to create--that of Slavic heros who broke Nazi power in Eastern Europe.

The film, starring Yul Brynner, Orsen Wells, (both in more or less bit parts), features a number of Slavs, like Sergei Bondarchuk, Milena Dravic, Boris Dvornik, Sylva Koscina, Lojze Rozman, Oleg Vidov, and Bata Zivojinovic. Interestingly, in a crushing scene, the Partisans are gathered in a church, and facing annihilation. They begin to sing. What a stunning moment it is. Unfortunately, the movie later features the same kind of heroic folk music sung by the Chetniks. Ones emotions are confused by such powerful music scripted for both sides of the war.


Franco Nero

Franco Nero (Captain Michael Riva) plays the archtypical Italian humanist--wholly against fascism, to the point he actually volunarily surrenders to the Partisans, offering to fight with them! It is a true Italian act--from the heart. It is like a dramatic opera role. Captain Riva is not a traitor, but a man. He is not weak, but strong. His individualism, his conscience, led him to not a change of heart, but to the heroic expression of what was in his heart all along. He dies in the arms of a Partisan comrad.

With no mention or hint of Communism (other than the name Tito), the public must remain confused. The Partisans come off as the heroes, but, in reality, they are the Communists. The nationaists were the Chetnicks. They are horribly defeated, but, they were the ones that were neither sided with Hitler or Mussolini, but instead wanted control of the Slavic peoples. So, essentially, the Partisans won for the Communists, and the Chetniks lost for the nation of Serbia, really. The movie obviously wants the heros to be those who were actively resisting Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, in honoring the Partisans, the movie perhaps unintentionally dishonors nationhood, and sanctions the racism of Communism.

The Balkans are full of Slavic tribes which are not really to be united. They never have been, successfully, for long. Why should they be? Who would force this upon them? They have been historically manipulated by greater powers outside their territories. They have been set against one another repeatedly, even as they are today. Kosovo is the heartland of the Serbs. But the world wants to take it a way, and give it to the foreign Albanian Muslims. That's like telling the Sioux that the Black Hills belong to the Cheyenne, or the Mexicans!

Neretva is a fascinating story of courage, cunning, and unbelievable endurance, but, how tragic that, in reality, it was a score for the Communists. I doubt the Slavs knew the significance of Communism, or it's dealy tyranny, much like the Middle East Muslim world never new. When they wake up, people resist Communism, they resist Russia, China, and as in the case of Iraq, they are willing to resist any dictatorship.

Freedom is definitely the better way. It just seems a great shame that, in the beginning, bruised and battered people see Communism as a deliverance, or a relief--as "democracy," "equality," and "liberty." A big, wasteful misstep, which many a country has taken. And that would include Afghanistan, and parts of Iraq, and even Iran.


Posted by David Yeagley at 06:07 PM | Comments (8)
Journal Weblog Archives