How exactly in principle is this different from Chester the Molester flashing children in the park?
Should Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake or anyone else actually be PUNISHED for the Superbowl Titty Massacre? My personal emotional gut reaction is not necessarily a reliable guide to best public policy, but my valve would instinctively suggest just forgetting it. Jeez, it's just a couple of seconds of tit. On the bad side, they might merit the modest punishment of a little public ridicule for their foolishness.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Eric Olsen
um, yah
77 - TDavid
The gorilla reference shows shock jock blogging mentality and at its best extremely poor taste and judgement, but most likely that Bad Eagle Yeagley is correctly belonging to the label that Mac Diva and others here (myself included) are attributing him. Much as I dislike the way she drags racism into almost everything (as BB also said above), she is 1000% correct in this case. The only place eagles like this need to land is in jail.
Al, IMO, there is a very real responsibility to validate sources beyond a single blog entry, even if you didn't link to the gorilla thing in the piece, the fact that it exists so close to the other post looks very bad for you and for the blog author in question. If the other entries in that blog are screaming racism, hate speech and other obvious intolerances, I think it goes way too far to give that site and that author any sort of attention. Why?
Shock jock blogging. Bad Eagle is right.
78 - Al Barger
Joe is absolutely correct. Yeagley made a hateful little gesture with that gorilla picture. That wasn't very nice at all. He should be nicer.
But these wishes for death and mutilation are 10 times uglier than the worst thing he's ever said. It's also very bad karma. Your collective cheap, smug moral arrogance deserves only rebuke. Shame on you.
Dr Yeagley, I apologize for the, as Hannibal Lecter would put it, unspeakable rudeness of my fellow Blogcritics. Usually, most of them are really nice folks. Apparently, the chance for cheap moral posturing over your gorilla post has overwhelmed all their civility, unfortunately.
79 - TDavid
RE #75 from Joe writes: Wow, this is the most hate-filled, vile, vulgar, and offensive blog I have come across on the internet.
Really? You must not be very well travelled on the internet then. May I respectfully suggest that intelligent life exists beyond AOL?
80 - Dawn
Hey, Al, when are you going to apologize to the rest of us for "Dr." Yeagley's vulgar displays of racism?
81 - Phillip Winn
Wow. Mr. Yeagley has the right to express himself freely, of course, but his site is truly reprehensible. The manner in which he speaks about people who happen to have dark skin is appalling.
Put me down on the list of people who believe MD is usually an extremely bad judge of character who spies a racist around every corner, but that she is 100% correct in this case. Mr Yeagley. is a bad egg, through and through.
Bad call, Al. Really bad call. Even MD's juvenile treatment of you get no guff from me on this post, because Mr. Yeagley is simply foul.
82 - Al Barger
Yes Phil, some of Yeagley's stuff offends me as well. However, he's not making death wishes and mutilation and such. Your comment above is perfectly civil and reasonable, but Lord God, look at what vile, disgusting things others among us are saying here.
Dawn, why would I apologize to you for his writing on his website? I've never endorsed a thing he's said.
However, he's a guest in our house- in my corner of the house, speaking to us in a civil manner, and you are WAY out of line.
83 - TDavid
Hmm, I must be chopped liver. Al - could you please address what I said in #77 about a responsibility to check out the sources you link to beyond a single blog entry?
Do you agree, disagree? Which way to you fall on this?
84 - Gerald Ball
Sorry Al, but Mac Diva has her stopped clock being right twice a day thing right here. NOTHING about Yeagley's discourse is civil. I suppose that one could pretend as if there is a difference between saying "Your mother is addicted to drugs and is a prostitute with no teeth" in flowery academic jargon or you can say it in guttural street lingo, either way say it to the wrong person and you have a fight on your hands.
This Yeager fellow sounds like someone who classified himself as a Native American as a rejoinder to those who would accuse him of being racist, which he most definitely is. Mr. Barger, there are many more people whom you could have quoted who are suggesting that Janet Jackson belongs in jail without resorting to his ilk.
Yeager makes a good point now and then? Well let me tell you ... Louis Farrakhan makes a LOT of good points. Let me see any member of the Bnai Brith Anti - Defamation League, or any white Republican for that matter, put any stock in what he says.
85 - Gerald Ball
And Al:
Louis Farrakhan is often quite civil, using the best manners and language, when he speaks about whites and Jews the way he does. The unfortunate thing is that by using this guy's arguments you have allowed the subject to be shifted from whether and how Janet Jackson should be punished to attacking a clear racist and accusing those who want something to be done about Janet Jackson's outrage (which I believe was accidental by the way) of racial motivations. Of course, that is EXACTLY what Janet Jackson's defenders, especially those who are defending Janet because she is black and defend EVERYONE because they are black, want. Great way to play into their game.
You cannot disassociate responsibility for the views of someone that you yourself made the uncoerced choice to use as a source by the way ...
86 - Dawn
Al,
If I am out of line on this matter for calling Yeagley out on his bullshit, then you sir aren't even in the stadium for your part in this.
Stop trying to find a decent place to insert yourself so as not to admit you made a HUGE error in judgement by dragging that foul dissembler over here. Just admit it and move on. We all make mistakes.
87 - BB
Al, I wish to say that I did not attack you personally but with all due respect bro you should show better taste with your links. I happen to be the father of mixed children who are more tanned than I and when I see monsters out there it immediately invokes my paternal instinct to protect my family. On the other hand you are right when you say that we are not justified in our moral outrage by cursing or making death wishes etc. I must qualify that however by saying Mr. Yeagley's soft response does not fool anyone and Satan himself can disguise as an angel of light. His demeanour is insincere and merely a rouse to hide his deranged sinister self. Combine that with his initial arrogance and I must say that he brought it on himself. Having looked at his latter post, I am now of the view that he should seeking the assistance of a good psychiatrist as well as an exorcist. I say that not to be mean but with all sincerity that he needs help. Nevertheless I will be the first to apologize if I have offended him, but I would hope that he will will do the right thing and remove that ugly Gorilla inference on his site. Mr. Yeagley, there is no political subversion or conspiracy with respect to sexuality and your gorilla statement is absurd as well as racist. It is hateful and there is no justification for it. Count yourself lucky you live in America because in Canada it is considered a hate crime and you would be behind bars right now. Please do the right thing and remove it and all will be forgiven. Leave it on and you will reap what you have sown.
88 - Eric Olsen
You're a better man than I, BB.
89 - Mac Diva
It wouldn't make much difference for Yeagley to withdraw those entries, which he won't do anyway. What you are seeing is a perspective he has held for at least a decade. Nearly every utterance he makes is bigoted against people of color, Jews or women. The people of color can be any color, except white. (Yesterday's bashing was of the Japanese and Mexican-Americans.) White liberals are let off the hook after being excorciated because they are being duped by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
And, let's not forget that Yeagley has made himself unemployable by harassing people at the only sort of real job he has ever had. (Interestingly, the straw that broke the camel's back there was an attack on black women he had published in a 'campus paper' funded by the far Right through him. He has had that obsession for a long time.) A person willing to give up having a livelihood for love of bigotry is very in love with bigotry.
Yeagley's second theme is a weird Opus Dei kind of Catholicism, complete with religious transports in which he claims to have visions. Ironically, Docent Shark guessed this in his satire of Yeagley. Yeagley's strange superiority complex seems to be tied in with that, a belief he has been chosen by God as a guide to save white people from us 'muds.' (That's his rap during minstrel shows for the rabid Right.)
Third, communism. Yes, that tired old cant. Yeagley and the 'scientific racists' he was attached to for a while have a Cold War mentality. Any change in America since the 1940s is the work of the 'red-brown coalition' - commies and colored people, with agitation by the Jews thrown in, of course. And, that change, allowing 'inferior' people rights, is destroying the country, according to them.
One of the things that strikes me about my critics is that they are neither researchers, analytical thinkers or readers. According to them, I am just standing on a street corner waving a placard saying 'Racism.' Not at all true. I've been following the far Right's machinations for years. My research and that of other people who monitor it is very thorough. I bring good analytical ability to what I discover. The myth that 'racism is over' is just that. I am not about to pretend otherwise. It is amazing to me that people are foolish enough to believe the biggest elephant in the American livingroom is not there.
As for Barger not being a racist, I strongly disagree. Someone who has a fixation on black people and constantly belittles them, who is a neo-Confederate sympathizer, and who misses no opportunity to declare white people superior, is by definition a racist. Racism means believing one or more groups are superior to other(s) based on 'race.' He more than qualifies.
90 - David Yeagley
BB, just to let you know, I changed the title of that blog, and removed the picture. It distracted from my point, apparently.
However, this has nothing to do with your opinions, or anyone else's on here. It has only to do with my respect for Richard Poe, who advised me that the picture created unnecessary flack, and indeed confused people as to my point.
All of my points remain the same, however. You cannot dictate sexual preference. This is what Janet Jackson was trying to do. That is what I resent. For you to say I'm "off" because I am revulsed only shows that you are the one with satanic tyranny, not me.
We all have natural aversions of all kinds. To demand that they be dropped, to match your "tolerance" or sexual preference is precisely what I find offensive.
Janet Jackson is still a slave, apparently, though a willing, multi-millionaire slave.
91 - BB
Not really Eric. By stooping to the level of hatefulness we allow him to take the moral high road. Let's not give him the satisfaction because he doesn't deserve it.
92 - David Yeagley
I suppose it isn't necessary to remind everyone how little is factual in anything McD says, and I'll try not to waste everyone's time with further refutations of her fantasies.
She seems oblivious to any confrontation of reality. She hasn't produced one piece of evidence to support her "facts." Her "flights" have intensified in her last post above, and this is worrisome.
I wouldn't say this if she was just giving her opinions. She claims to present "facts" about me, and others, which simply aren't facts.
In respectable circles, if one refuses to present the facts, one is discarded as utterly unreliable.
For instance, there are psychological studies, done at the University of Texas, by Langois, Ritter, Casey, et.al, done in 1995, which show that infants (of all colors) prefer white smiling faces. This study was published in Developmental Psychology, 31, p.464-472. I haven't looked at the follow ups, but this was the initial discovery.
Of course, this has nothing to do with sex or character, but visual reflexes.
McD, at least on these threads, has shown no knowledge of any research, fact, or reference.
93 - Craig Lyndall
(populating ignore list that exists in my head.)
94 - Gerald Ball
Mac Diva:
"Racism means believing one or more groups are superior to other(s) based on 'race.'" That is more or less a good definition. But then again, by that definition, not all people who are racists are necessarily bad, immoral people who harm others, right? I would propose that a better working definition would be "someone who causes harm to someone else because of their race." Thoughts don't harm people, actions do after all; actions could include speaking words incidentally.
Also ... define far right :-). I would tend to believe that merely because most conservatives seem to have aligned themselves on the right side of the aisle that one should not presume most conservatives to be racist or even presume that their racism is why they are conservative. And please do not correlate being a racist with opposition to feminism, abortion, gay rights, statism, and other items on the left - liberal agenda because more than a few blacks disagree with those same things, heck most blacks indeed in some areas.
And by the way ... communists did infiltrate the black movements and won over more than a few dupes and used them for their own purposes. They have been credibly accused of completely creating some black leaders and undermining other more legitimate ones. The KGB tried very hard to undermine Martin Luther King, Jr. and set up their own puppets when they failed to recruit him, that is a known fact. I still say that the stubborn refusal of modern black leaders and intellectuals to unambiguously denounce communism and communists (and their love affair with Castro whose regime is as racist as any other in addition to being oppressive) pretty much takes away their credibility on any other issue.
95 - BB
"All of my points remain the same, however. You cannot dictate sexual preference. This is what Janet Jackson was trying to do. That is what I resent. For you to say I'm "off" because I am revulsed only shows that you are the one with satanic tyranny, not me. We all have natural aversions of all kinds. To demand that they be dropped, to match your "tolerance" or sexual preference is precisely what I find offensive."
Mr. Yeagley I appreciate you removing the gorilla picture, albeit for the wrong reasons. It would also be helpful on you part to extend a full and unremitting apology. I am trying my best to understand you so please indulge me and explain why you have fixation on people of color and their sexuality? Don't you realize that even making such a statement is in itself racist and absurd? Do you at all consider yourself a religious person and if so how can you justify yourself? If you are indeed repulsed by people of colour for whatever reason don't you recognize that you need professional help? And I say that with no antipathy.
96 - Gerald Ball
David Yeagley:
As a man of SCIENCE (background engineering and computer science) I should let you know that I regard pyschology and psychiatry as complete bunk, practitioners of such "arts" as frauds and thieves, and those who believe in that garbage as feeble - minded gullibles.
Now, as to black people imposing their sexuality on poor defenseless whites ... I suppose that white men were raped by black women during slavery and that is where all of these Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and (a more recent albeit not quite slavery example) Strom Thurmond offspring came from. I would urge you to go do some research on advertisements from slave auctions and see how young attractive black female virgins carried a SUBSTANTIAL SURCHARGE completely unrelated to and far above their practical economic value. Since the number of black slaveowners was miniscule, you ought to be able to figure out why attractive female black teenagers were just so expensive.
And you also must acknowledge that the pervasive sexual imagery did not begin with black performers. If Janet Jackson was trying to alter your pyschological makeup to accept her as attractive, then what pray tell was/is Madonna's aim? More to the point, why did white people invent pornography? At worst, Janet Jackson can be accused of being a poor imitation of the original purveyors of cultural degradation ... including the very people who bought and sold black teenage girls for their own gratification.
97 - Mac Diva
Gerald Ball, I don't believe there is any question Yeagley has done harm. In the real world, he has instigated racial problems on a college campus and been fired for it. (Again, Google for yourself, if necessary. The notion that I am supposed to do everyone's research for them is tiresome.) His blathering on his blog has been less of a problem because few people knew about it. That is why I have not written about him despite having been aware of him for years. But, I believe that he and others like him set the country back decades by dredging up discredited notions about 'race.' Younger people latch on that nonsense and it drags us back in time. That is harm, too.
Again, talking to Yeagley is futile. I wonder if he has had some kind of head injury because information, even nuances, floats right past him. For example, his response to criticism of depicting Ms. Jackson as a she-ape was to ask what other kind of animal he should have used. Reality, that Ms. Jackson is a fully fledged human being who should not be likened to an animal did not even cross his mind, such as it is. What can any of us do with someone like that? The belief that people of African descent are a sub-species, promoted by the 'scientific' racists he associates with, is so deeply embedded in his mind that only death will end it.
98 - Eric Olsen
powerful stuff Gerald, thanks
99 - David Yeagley
What is the "harm done?" And what about that precious "free speech," which allows Negro rapists shout out ever possible perversion, like raping white women,(and any women) killing white people, etc.
The people who should really be offended by all this, and who should support me in my campaign against it, are conservative BLACK PEOPLE.
I would never have started on this blog, but I was invited to participate. I didn't realize it was a LEFT oriented place. I hastily began responding without studying the site more carefully.
So, where is the harm? Who is so sensitive to be harmed by words, but a child? I'm from the darker races. I've grown up as a "non-white." You don't imagine that I know what it's like?
I'm saying it is weak to depend on others for your own sense of self. In fact, it is a ploy to dominate others. "You OFFENDED me," really only means, "You have to do what I SAY."
100 - Shark
You know what's sillier than Bad Owl Barger and Bad Boy Eagle's posts?
Yall trying to rationalize with them using logic and examples from history.
"But Mr. Himmler, sir, not all Jews are rich, have hook noses, and want to eat your children..."
This isn't even funny anymore.
They're playin' yall like a Stradivarius.
If yall would leave Bad Owl and his buddy Bad Eagle Scout alone, this FORUM would be:
1) empty
2) unread
3) gone in days
...but nobody listens to me... ~snif~
101 - Mac Diva
Lord! I just looked at Yeagley's Rant for the Day. He is very upset about 'Negroes' dominating, according to him, the Grammys. It particulary bothers him that Outkast performed in quasi-Indian outfits. (I suspect the influence comes from Mardi Gras or maybe they have Indian heritage of their own.) A perusal of photos of Outkast shows brown faces. Based on the high level of intermixture between Africans and Indians in America, I suspect Outkast might be more Native American than an Indian-come-lately like Yeagley himself.
As a public service, here is the entry.
Anyone who thinks Yeagley is redeemable is kidding him or herself.
102 - Eric Olsen
I think some very important points have been made and some positions clarified.
This is a group blog with almost 400 members - there is no politcal litmus test to participate, but I find it very telling that people from all over the political spectrum have come to very similar conclusions here.
103 - Dawn
Yeah, Mac, I found Yeagley's post for today a bit telling myself, what a tool.
104 - BB
Gerald and Mac both make good points but we are missing the fundamental issue here. Any opinion that preaches fanaticism, hatred and intolerance (whether it be race, politics, religion or whatever) is WRONG period no matter which side of the fence you belong. Mr. Yeagley - words and images can be more powerful than any weapon so choose them wisely. You did not answer my questions and opted for the tired cliche-ridden freedom of speech route. I am trying to give you an opportunity to come clean. Please, spare us the hyperbole and be real or begone.
105 - Shark
Diva,
Earlier, you said (with a sense of outrage):
"Now, Blogcritics is linked to one of the most virulent racists on the Internet..."
And now, you're spreading his diseased diatribes like the Asian bird flu.
As if one needs MORE evidence that the guy is a nut-case...
What gives?
106 - BB
Mr. Yeagley are you still there? Please be kind enough to respond to comment #104. Any reasonable person would understand you cannot hide behind the constitution or tired clichés such as 'some of my best friends are black'. I've also read the book 'Black like Me' but it does not excuse what you write now does it?
107 - Shark
Seach for David Yeagley at University Oklahoma faculty
Took me all of five seconds to find this; Yeagley is listed on various sites as working for at least 3 different university's in Oklahoma.
According to his own site, he's currently on the faculty at University of Oklahoma.
Well, no, he's not listed as a faculty member. Wonder how Ok University officials would react to a right-wing racist spewing shit on the web and saying he's on the faculty?
Bad Eagle, which is it? You a fraud or is the University of Oklahoma site wrong?
Thanks in advance,
Bad Shark
108 - Mac Diva
A certain Blogcritic keeps claiming I'm making things up, Docent Shark. (I know, the typical resort of the none too bright and sneaks. Just yell, 'She's lying!' a lot and other people may not check out the information for themselves.) So, though I would prefer not to, I'm posting the evidence. I've kept mum about Yeagley for years except for discussing him with other Indians. But, now that he is 'out' there is no putting the evil genie back in his bottle. The post above about Yeagley's latest entry and the reference to yesterday's are meant to underline the fact that Yeagley has been like he is for years and is not about to change. Several of the conservatives on the thread seem to think the Janet Jackson entries are anomalous. They aren't. To see that, it helps to look at least a few other Yeagley entries.
I have kept to my rule of not linking to Yeagley and hope to continue doing so.
109 - BB
I wish to make clear my involvement in this thread is not to crucify Mr. Yeagley. That would prove nothing. I vehemently disagree with the notion that some people are not redeemable. I wish also to add ANY opinion that preaches fanaticism, hatred and intolerance (whether it be race, politics, religion or whatever) is WRONG period NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE YOU BELONG. And I mean ANYBODY - not only Mr. Yeagley.
110 - David Yeagley
BB, I don't see a specific question in #104, but your concern is about free speech.
I don't see how anyone can call it a cliche, especially since those who have worn it out are those who have been trying to destroy traditional American culture for the last 50 years.
I would say please state your question for me again, but, I'm not going to be able to spend too much more time on this site. Just have too much else to do. I'll try to answer you though.
I am on the OU Adjunct faculty of the College of Liberal Arts. This division is on the web, but not all adjuncts are listed on the web, only just those few who have been there a long time. You could call their office and varify it. I'm no star there. Patriots are a problem for most liberal universities. Furthermore, I'm not even teaching right now, because of other responsibilities. No, I haven't been "fired" for patriotism there, I'm just not in a position to pursue a career there.
Some people here really act frightened children, so engraged, so terrified. This is so unnecessary. No one has been specific about what is offensive about a particular statement. It's all highly emotional generalizations and upbraiding (and in McD's case, not even correct information.) What is accomplished by this?
It is not hate to defend. It may hurt, but hurt is not hate. Hate is usually based on false information. That should be a warning to many on this thread. Sometimes true information can hurt, but, it should be regarded as medicine, not poison.
"Hey ya" is not from Mardi Gras. This is another lie. This was a very telling remark from McD. Reveals constitutional prevarication (or perhaps actual ignorance, which then would call into question other claims McD has made of McD's own identity). And I've been on the internet exactly three years. Never before. McD can hardly write a single sentence truthfully.
But I encourage people here to state specifically what is offensive. Quote a sentence, and say what part of it is offensive, and why. Generalizations belie a lack of mental discipline. Just take a deep breath, focus, and calmly say what's the offense.
Proclamations of anathema are not communicative.
111 - Betty Ann Gross
So what's all the fuss about? A comanche writes his true feelings down about a Negroe and all of Africa and its descendents are in a uproar.
Get a little self-empowerment and pride in who you are. Another words get a life.
Hang in there Dr. Yeagley.
Betty Ann
enrolled member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, Santee/Dakota
112 - Betty Ann Gross
"Mac Diva," on the other hand, writes pseudonymously. "She" claims to be a lawyer and a journalist and a black activist and an Indian and lots of other things. Given the cheesy, shrill angry black minstrel show schtick she runs, the real "Mac Diva" could perfectly well be some big fat old white Klan dude making an extended racist joke. If so, it is admittedly pretty funny." Posted
---
Another Black wannabee Indian, oh my gawd...Hey Mac Diva when you stomp on Dr. Yeagley, you come toward my direction, cause when you trash him you are trashing some of us also! Come here, Mac Diva....
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
113 - Betty Ann Gross
"Mr. Yeagley are you still there? Please be kind enough to respond to comment #104. Any reasonable person would understand you cannot hide behind the constitution or tired clichés such as 'some of my best friends are black'. I've also read the book 'Black like Me' but it does not excuse what you write now does it?" Posted
---
So what does the book Black Like Me have to do with Dr. Yeagley, eh?! Many blacks hide behind the constitution (yep) so why are you saying Yeagley cannot do the same.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
114 - BB
Mr. Yeagley please refer to my questions posted at comment #95. With all due respect how can you say that nobody has specified what is offensive. A picture that compares Janet Jackson to a female gorilla. Making statements such as "these "black" people want to dominate society through their sexuality" implying there is a political agenda etc., etc. Come on sir please don't pretend that we are all idiots here. That is racist bordering on neurotic. Such comments that make blanket statements based on race is in fact - you guessed it RACIST!
115 - Betty Ann Gross
"Mr. Yeagley please refer to my questions posted at comment #95. With all due respect how can you say that nobody has specified what is offensive. A picture that compares Janet Jackson to a female gorilla. Making statements such as "these "black" people want to dominate society through their sexuality" implying there is a political agenda etc., etc. Come on sir please don't pretend that we are all idiots here. That is racist bordering on neurotic. Such comments that make blanket statements based on race is in fact - you guessed it RACIST!" Posted
---
HOW do you know that Dr. Yeagley compared Janet to a gorilla. If I put a photo of you by a pit bull, would you find that offensive and say I called you a pit bull?
What many of you do not understand is that in many different Indian cultures, our people identify themselves with animals. Do we holler OFFENSIVE, RACIST, RACISM...HELL NO! You know why, because we know who we are. Get a grip and snap back to reality..
Racism..is that all you folks have to talk about? Offending others when in reality perhaps it is indeed time to tear down those walls that make others feel more powerful and still owed something here in America.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
116 - Ms. Tek
I was waiting for Betty Ann Gross to show up. The show would not be complete without her.
Blogcritics, welcome to the weirdo, Bizzarro world of Indians who hate blacks, think that it is "ethnic cleansing" to remove native american mascots. In the same breath, they get their panties in a wad because black boobie shows up on the telly and because it is black, and I quote:
"White society is literally being forced to accept the "black" body as equally sexually desirable. All the natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, Freudian sexual aversion, and the sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive"
I hate to tell David this, but he's not a part of white society either. I'm thinking that because his skin is lighter than "black person" hes more sexually appealing or whatever. He does belong to the groups that are worried about "ethnic purity". He's worried that the indian "race" is going to disappear from the face of the earth. He and David Duke have quite a bit in common.
I guess the point is that yes, if he personally thinks that white women and indians are more attractive to him, this is fine... more power to him. I have a think for skinny britons or gallic... I think it's the accent however... I'm a sucker for sweet talk in dialect. (Some nice body art and a brain helps too).
The problem here is that Yeagely despises and hates people of color (which is rich since he's part of that same group, apparently). His discourse on Asians and Hispanics that I have found on the web show this to me. The thing that irks me the most is that he uses this pseudo-intellectual bullshit and his Doctorate (what is that Doctorate in again? Religious studies?)to spew his personal insecurities and sewage as some sort of truth.
The upbeat part of all of this is that life proves him wrong. People happily marry and conceive outside their race all the time. People for the most part seem to be slowly but surely moving beyond these limiting and archaic stereotypes and racism. The law of nature is ultimately to love as you will.
My mother is 4'11 and black with some Sioux a few generations back. My father is 6'4" and white. Trust me, my mother didn't rape my dad to have me.
So ultimately, the world, the technological advances that we have made that make us better able to visit and learn about people far away has ultimately knocked down quite a few of these barriers. Multi-ethnic will eventually be the norm. The problem is that people like Yeagley see this and can't stand that they are nothing but living dust- Full of old ideas and old hang ups and ultimately easy to blow away.
So bear with him for now blogcritics. Eventually, he will go away. It's the nature of dirt... to eventually be washed away.
For now, welcome to the world of eugenics.
117 - David Yeagley
Okay, #95. Thanks.
I'm not repulsed by people of color. I'm feel offended when someone presumes or insists I am sexually attracted to her when I am not.
Obviously "some" black people are willing to play the role of presumption here. Janet Jackson owe's ME an apology, and the rest of the country, for presumption. She (and Justin) took advantage of a stituation.
It's like homosexuals wanted to orient children to accept homosexuality as a wonderful life style. There are people who simply disagree. It is presumptuous to dictate someone else's sexuality or preferences under any circumstances.
Betty Ann is quite right about the Indian custom of illustrating character or even appearance through animal imagery. No one gives it a second thought, really. I personally look like a haggard crow, but, that's not the issue here.
There are attitudes and values among certain "black" people of which I strongly disapprove, and speak against. Sexual presumption in one of them. No "black" person should have to even think about this. A person at peace with himself does not need the approbation others, nor need to feel sexually desireable by memebers of other races.
I am offended by these things. These is a weak approach to life, and burdensome to others. It is unnecessary.
I suppose one offense causes another. It is better, however, to know what a man really thinks, not how he is "acting," or how he is required to "act" by law.
Men strive for ascendency. This is natural. Guaranteed. There are various non-violent means strive. Free speech, voting, the whole political process, laws, etc. Certain aggressive "black" people have achieved much in this society.
However, I will not be dictated to, in heart. I feel what I feel, think what I think, and this is my freedom, and my honor.
Janet did two things: sexual presumption, and racial presumption. On both accounts, it is she who owes the world an apology. Of course, she has apologized, but, rather uselessly.
The act aggressive act of presumption was already committed. It was planned. There is no undoing it.
I realize that, because of background and life style, many people do not have a clear concept of sexuality, marriage, family, etc. Often these people end up in the entertainment/drug/prostitution scene. There are reasons why people are they way they are.
I don't hate JJ, or "black" people. Sometimes I think I alone treat "black" people with equality. They insult me, I let them know about it. I treat them as I would treat anyone else, including myself.
One day, I will be appreciated for this. Then I can rest that "black" people consider themselves truly equal. Until then, as long as they want special treatment from me, they are not equal. These certain attitudes make "black" people overcomepensate for insecure feelings, and they become presumptuous.
This is what it looks like, on the outside, anyway. These certain ones simply don't seem to accept themselves. They need OTHER people to accept them. This needn't be.
118 - BB
What disturbs me the most (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is I don't believe he has actually denied being a racist. And if that is the case then obviously he sees nothing wrong with that. And that is very scary indeed!
119 - Ms. Tek
"Betty Ann is quite right about the Indian custom of illustrating character or even appearance through animal imagery. No one gives it a second thought, really. I personally look like a haggard crow, but, that's not the issue here."
And since when did Indians use animals that are not native to North America? No one has ever heard of Chief Little Monkey, or Red Elephant Thunder Boy. This is a new concept. Maybe Sitting Bull would have had a better chance if he were "Dancing Kangaroo"? I'll accept animal imagery but not in this case. Wrong continent.
Sorry, that argument is very weak to say at best.
Also, why the need for "black". I don't see anyone here doing "white", "indian", "asshole"?
Your argument just does not fly. Sexuality is forced in your face every day on tv, billboards, etc here in a America. For you to say otherwise would be a lie It seems however that so long as it it white sexuality, you don't have a problem with that.
I'm sorry that seeing a black boob offended your "honor". In this case, there is one of two things you can do...
Go see a shrink
or
Move to Saudi Arabia. No visible boobs there.
120 - TDavid
Yeah, what's up with using that word in double quotes all the time?
I'm not the only one who sees that and think that's very strange. Double quotes are supposed to be used for quoting something somebody said. In this case is this self-reference or what? Yeagley needs to have his double quote license revoked.
I've not seen anybody else fixate on one word like that, and I hope I don't see anybody else do that ever again. Here's to the eagle flying on to where misguided souls like Betty Ann can be grossed out by his quote key masturbation.
TDavid
American Common Sense Activist
121 - BB
David, David come on please give us a break here. Do believe that any reasonable person would buy into this? You say you are offended by black people presuming that you are sexually attracted to them. How do you figure that stunt the other day was trying to force anything on you? You had the right to turn off the TV didn't you? Did that give you the right to make public racist comments on your blog? Do you not even realize that you comments are racist and do you not have any remorse? I am not condoning Janet's actions and in fact I am personally upset myself. NOT because she is black but because I am a concerned parent. Don't you see the difference? You say that you treat black people with equality. Regardless of the argument that Indian's use animal imagery (which I don't accept BTW) - are you saying that comparing Janet to a gorilla was treating her with equality and respect? Are you equally sickened by Madonna's sexual videos? Are you saying that your fixation on black people is normal and acceptable? You still haven't answered my question - do you at all consider yourself a religious person and if so how can you justify yourself?
122 - David Yeagley
Hey, I've been to a zoo. This is the 21st century now.
Go here:
http://www.badeagle.com/cgi-bin/ib3/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=15&t=1386
where there is more comment ont he animal imagery.
Now, I never said that a white woman doing what Janet did would not be equally offensive. This is a bit paranoid or judgemental or your part, as is the whole "racist" accusation. This word is packed with power emotions, and everyone thinks when he uses it, it puts him in a superior moral position.
It doesn't. It shows great weakness.
I think people who use the word "racist" are usually racist.
And about the "black" quotes. I feel this is necessary, because this is what other people, particularly "black" people, prefer to be called. This is out of respect. The word has no meaning to me at all. In fact, it has negative meaning. But most "black" people insist on it. Bad choise, in my opinion, but, not being given to controversy, I accede. (Perhaps that's a joke.)
I am preparing an article on this "black" name business, and will eventually post it on BadEagle.
You all don't see it yet, I have more good will toward "black" people than most anyone you will ever meet. It's called EQUALITY, not indulgence or kid gloves. One day you'll see it.
123 - Ms. Tek
" The word [black] has no meaning to me at all. In fact, it [black] has negative meaning."
Okay... Done with you now... You are totally whacked in the head.
This is beyond reason and when trained medical personel should be involved. You aren't just a bigot... from your last post, you are totally, mentally, unsound. It's not even about logic. There is no logic in you!
Goddess bless you, David Yeagley. You're going to need it.
124 - Betty Ann Gross
"And since when did Indians use animals that are not native to North America? No one has ever heard of Chief Little Monkey, or Red Elephant Thunder Boy. This is a new concept. Maybe Sitting Bull would have had a better chance if he were "Dancing Kangaroo"? I'll accept animal imagery but not in this case. Wrong continent."
"Sorry, that argument is very weak to say at best." Posted
---
Too funny, yes you are! You do not have a clue as to what we are talking about and yet you toss in animals from Africa etc. when we were speaking of animals connected to American Indians.
So I now dub whomever or whatever posted this Chief Little Monkey. Go get a life and back off of Yeagley.
And you are right wrong continent and wrong group of people. ugh!
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
125 - bhw
I'm feel offended when someone presumes or insists I am sexually attracted to her when I am not....Janet Jackson owe's ME an apology....
Mr. Yeagley: Take off the tinfoil hat and step away from the TV. Ms. Jackson wasn't singing and dancing just for you. I know you can see her on your TV, but she can't see you. She doesn't know you exist. Ms. Jackson was not really in your living room; she was in Houston, TX, and her likeness was broadcast on your TV and on millions and millions of other TVs across the globe. It's called a TV show. Ms. Jackson presumed nothing about you and who you are and aren't sexually attracted to because ... she doesn't know you exist. Her performance was not personally directed at you. I repeat: her performance was not personally directed at you.