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
126 - Betty Ann Gross
"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
---
So you masturbate? Must, since you seem to *cling* to that word.
Dr. Yeagley you are all jealous of because he has the empowerment and wisdom to step in unknown territory and address issues that many of you are too afraid to do...like being afraid of the black nation...so sad isn't it.
PS: And wherever there is a negative blog on Dr. Yeagley you can be rest assured this Sioux woman will be right behind him and on your trail.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
127 - Betty Ann Gross
"So bear with him for now blogcritics. Eventually, he will go away. It's the nature of dirt... to eventually be washed away." Posted
---
Well darn it, we have been waiting and waiting for the dirt to be washed away and it just seems to *darken* Mother Earth. (You know what I speak of and it is not Yeagley).
Hang in there, Dr. Yeagley.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
128 - BB
David there is no presumption here. You used a gorilla picture which is a commonly known racist "imagery" as you like to put it for representing black people. Now let's stop playing games here. You used the gorilla intentionaly to make a racist statement. You know that, I know that and so does everybody else. Again please don't assume that you are speaking to fools. If you consider yourself at all intelligent you should have known the reaction it would receive. So kindly point the finger at yourself.
In your blog today you called black people a "foreign race". You also said "dressed in vomitable verdure, they performed their typical sex-oriented African undulations". Are these not racist comments? Please tell me I'm wrong. BTW I am still waiting for you to anwer my questions in #121 which have been carried over from previous comments.
129 - Betty Ann Gross
"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:" Posted
---
Too funny!
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
130 - bhw
At least Betty Ann has the balls to say what she really thinks: that she fears the black nation [whatever that is]. Yeagley hides behind vague language and his own, incomplete definition of racism.
Racism is an ISM. Thefore, it's a belief, a doctrine. It's not merely the desire to harm someone because of his/her race. Here's what dictionary.com says racism is:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
131 - Ms. Tek
Sorry, I am LMAO now.
I know Eric must be sitting back thinking:
"Oh wow... look at all the looneys showing up"
This is better than when everyone used "muthafuckas" in their comments for a week!
Betty Ann, is this one night only, or will you be playing all week?
132 - Betty Ann Gross
"This is better than when everyone used "muthafuckas" in their comments for a week!" Posted
---
Interesting. Nice word. As long as the attacks continue on Yeagley, I will stick around to support him.
Betty Ann
133 - BB
Betty Anne do you support Mr. Yeagley because he is pro North American Indian or anti-black. Which is it?
134 - Ms. Tek
Oh I see... So you are saying that you are Yeagley's yappy, lap dog? Understandable.
By the way, is this you that is being quoted and complaned about? It might not be... there are imposters about. I'm just wondering.
http://www.indianz.com/TalkingCircle/MessageBoard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4854
http://www.indianz.com/TalkingCircle/MessageBoard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5061
135 - Betty Ann Gross
"Betty Anne do you support Mr. Yeagley because he is pro North American Indian or anti-black. Which is it?" Posted
---
I take the fifth amendment. Yawn.
As for being a lap dog, appears many of you are already one, too afraid to stand your ground.
My but you folks are busy bodies, just a spending all this time on Yeagley and I. I am quiet honored.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
136 - Betty Ann Gross
"At least Betty Ann has the balls to say what she really thinks: that she fears the black nation [whatever that is]. Yeagley hides behind vague language and his own, incomplete definition of racism." Posted
---
Sure, whatever.
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
137 - Mac Diva
I was hoping the thread would die out before Betty Ann showed up. She and David Yeagley have been a traveling dog and pony show at Native American forums for years. He never leaves his sidewalk vent without her. And, yes, they are just as unpopular in those places. Indians have a bumper crop of problems, but most are not overtly racist. We also think it strange that Gross and Yeagley, two people who considered themselves white until a few years ago, are now supposed to be heap big chiefs.
Betty Ann 'forgot' to fully state her opinion of Outkast's performance here at Blogcritics. Instead, she is suddenly claiming an interest in zoology. Among the material she omitted is this, straight from Yeagley Central:
They only persons I am aware of here still claiming the gorilla references are not racist are Lil' Joe and Al Barger. If anyone else has doubts, I believe that evidence should clear them up.
You are a quick study, Vic. I'm known these two racist nitwits for years and you figured them out in just days.
Docent Shark, I didn't realize Yeagley was still claiming to be working for the University of Oklahoma. His firing was very public, so that is doubtful. It also seems odd that he wouldn't be listed along with other instructors. Could someone be lying to us?
I dropped back in late because I was out, um, tainting white folks. Yes! Imposing myself on them by living my life and all that. How dare I! A friend took me to dinner. This being the Pacific Northwest, I was probably the only person of color in the restaurant, but nobody seemed to care, as usual. We had a great time and he broke out a late, but very nice, birthday present. I now have a new iPod. As I've said, my second generation 'Pod, Titania, was getting finicky. I will be charging the new one tonight and taking it on the road tomorrow. Haven't decided on a name, yet. Of course there will be a review at BC. The donor didn't seem to mind being 'tainted' by the Diva at all. I suspect he would like to see a bit more golden skin.
138 - Ms. Tek
Actually, best leave Betty Ann Gross alone... She is a psychotic, racist, TROLL.
Just go on to the indianz.com forums and see her various references to "blackies" and how how she doesn't like blacks.
She also seems to like to quote hitler as well, which I found ironic.
"Racism is not hateful nor is racism ignorant. The equation one destructive leader wrote:
Anger and fear breeds racial hatred. Hitler.
Violence is a reaction.
Betty Ann"
"What needs to happen is the US Government needs to determine whether or not these Black tribes are Black or Indian...and as far as I am concern they can take their black casinos created under Indian blood and move them deep into the heart of Africa."
"Black is black and there is no two ways about that. You talk black, you act black and probably smell black...too bad the Irish and Cherokee blood has been tainted.
"Yep, you have probably been on this board too long and it is time to toss you back to where you belong oh black one. Da head, uh, huh! And probably nobody has ever stood up to you, but I am here and I will take you on black one, but first go to the bathroom and clean up I hate that tarry smell ya know what I mean."
Okay guys... do you really want to argue with this thing? That board is full of quotes like this. This is what you are going to get if you play ball with this foul troll. As anyone knows, people like this have no braincells therefore logic and reason do not apply.
Just giving you all a heads up here on what exactly you are dealing with... and it really is a nasty piece of work.
Seriously, has anyone contacted David Duke yet? I'm sure he might have something witty and insightful to add.
139 - BB
Ok Betty Ann. Say no more (please). I was hoping for an intelligent conversation. I gave you more credit than you deserve.
Mac Diva I will support any endeavour against real racists but please kindly stop using every opportunity to bash Barger and others here on BC. Yes he may be controversial and showed poor judgment linking to Yeagley but I have seen no evidence he is a racist and he is certainly nowhere in the league of these pathetic people.
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 SIT ON.
140 - Betty Ann Gross
She also seems to like to quote hitler as well, which I found ironic.
"Racism is not hateful nor is racism ignorant. The equation one destructive leader wrote:
Anger and fear breeds racial hatred. Hitler.
Violence is a reaction." Posted
----
You would find anything ironic. You need to read the full thread before pulling my words out of nowhere...so you are calling me a troll now...couldn't handle talking about racism and race?
Too funny!
Betty Ann Gross American Indian activist
141 - Betty Ann Gross
"I was hoping the thread would die out before Betty Ann showed up. She and David Yeagley have been a traveling dog and pony show at Native American forums for years. He never leaves his sidewalk vent without her. And, yes, they are just as unpopular in those places. Indians have a bumper crop of problems, but most are not overtly racist. We also think it strange that Gross and Yeagley, two people who considered themselves white until a few years ago, are now supposed to be heap big chiefs."
Posted
----
Stop attacking Yeagley and this thread will die and I will leave.
Betty Ann
142 - Dawn
Wow, this is some of the most disturbing racist rhetoric to rear it's ugly head in any of the scummiest corners of the net that I work hard to avoid.
I am appalled that these two individuals who claim to support Native American's rights are so openly hostile to other people. Everything I know of the Native American people has been highly evolved and quite noble. This is from the direct experience my mother has introduced me to as a very interested person in the NA culture. She treasures their wisdom and beliefs and I am just going to assume that these two people, Yeagley and Gross, are some strange anomaly from the true spirit of Native Americans.
Those comments attributed to them above are thoroughly disgusting and inexcusable.
143 - Phillip Winn
I don't believe in banning anybody for the content of their views, no matter how repugnant those views are, so long as they remain at least half-civil in promulgating them. The stain on this thread may change my mind eventually, but for now I'd like to try this: Everybody (by which I mean all regulars) just please leave this thread alone.
Just ignore it. There is simply no point in saying anything more. There is plenty of information on this thread already for people to see the evidence for themselves, so let's just let the thread die.
And yes, I'll be keeping track of who continues to post here. I'm making a list!
144 - David Yeagley
Comments on #121:
Many white liberals find the gorilla a fascinating, beautiful animal. Is this just gesture from the scientific community to appease, assuage, or apologize for the "gorilla" association with African "black" people? (I don't know when this negative association started, historically.)
Was King Kong just another way of appeasing the "black" male, by creating a sublimated romantic relationship with a white female?
You tell me.
The magnitude of JJ's impropriety deserves the strongest rebuke possible.
When a man want's porno, he makes a special effort to go to certian places for it. JJ brought in into the family room, for all to see. This is a uniquely aggressive crime. Most of the 100 millions viewers were not expecting it. It was a "sneak" attack on morality.
The "black" "community" out to be FIRST in protest! But where are they? Are they not secretly proud? (I admit, most majorities are silent, and that includes the "black" majority, too. They're all just to busy working! Busy with their own lives, busy being productive people.)
If there is an insult in the use of the gorilla, JJ well earned it.
Hey, she obviously doesn't look like a gorilla. But she acted worse than any gorilla would.
If a gorilla is to be regarded as a hideous creature, JJ deserves the same regard.
But I ask you, Is a gorilla a hideous creature? Look at some of the photography on the internet. Do a search. Some people think they're pretty special. This is a fact.
Obviously, "black" people today still take the animal as an insult.
I take JJ as an insult, too.
145 - Shark
Winn, I agree. Color me gone.
Additional Motivation:
Betty Gross: "As long as the attacks continue on Yeagley, I will stick around to support him.
PLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZ, yall, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZ make her go awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy!!!
PS: Was it just me, or was anybody else kinda turned on by that gorilla tit?
146 - Eric Olsen
I have learned this: as a white person of good will, I truly do want to believe that racism is at least on the run in America. As such I want to believe that there are other causes for some behavior that others label as "racism." This post and the world it has opened is a stark indication that racism is alive and well at least within striking distance from the mainstream.
147 - David Yeagley
There are people who have historical problems with racial prejudice. There are things that have happened up in the Dakotas that are unforgettable, and attitudes still persist.
Indians have been taken advantage of by all peoples, including "blacks." This continues, with violence, rape, and other abuses.
I don't see that most "blacks" have any respect for Indians, at least the "blacks" that are making media noise.
My point is, there are reasons people feel the way they do, as I'm sure you know.
I certainly consider most "black" people to be extremely "racist." I don't make an issue out of that. I just call it being race conscious. I try to learn how to deal with it, as it is, first. Then there is hope for development.
148 - David Yeagley
To be race conscious is not being racist. To love one's own race, to protecti it, to want to preserve it, is not racism, nor does it imply disdain for other races.
White people apparently have confused everyone on this point. White people, especially white liberals, apparenlty have no respect or regard for their own race, and call everyone else racist who does care about his own race.
I'm glad "black" people care about their race. "Black" pride is a great thing. It's just too rare. It's just too confused and misdirected--by white liberals.
149 - Eric Olsen
At this point in history "race" is just another false barrier between people - I deplore "race consciousness" in every direction. This is not the same as awareness of, and pride in, one's cultural heritage. There is no such thing a racial purity, it is a devisive, hate-producing myth. We ALL originally came from Africa, and that is but a moment ago in evolutionary history.
150 - TDavid
I have only one last point to make and it isn't directed at our two uninvited guests. Phillip, put me down for one.
When one accuses someone of racism or being a racist, I think this thread should serve as a benchmark. It should be quite obviously racism and not some guess, whim or false interpretation without facts.
There should be definitive, verifiable public proof. The gorilla and the continual fixation on a word describing a person's skin tone is plenty enough evidence for the vast majority of rational thinking people of any skin color, background, descent, etc. to come to this conclusion.
The words 'racist' and 'racism' get tossed around Blogcritics all too often, IMO, and I've seen far too many uses of that word to describe situations that didn't even come close to the degree in this thread. It has been the major source of disappointment for this site to me and the one thing I have warned others about if they were sensitive not to come here. It's probably the one thing that if it continues and there are no safeguards put in place to monitor/block this type of stuff, then I'll be gone (and not with some gigantic loud exit strategy, but quietly and peacefully into the night). It's the only thing that happens here that I've ever taken the time to complain to Eric about privately and when he asked me what he was supposed to do, I must admit that I didn't have an answer.
I do now, though.
I think there needs to be some sort of moderation of comments around here. I have brought this up before and it seems that was shot down in favor of time, effort and expense which is understandable to a point. There is a reason, though, that zoos have gates. It's to protect both the animals from the people and the people from the animals and the animals from the animals. Get a large enough group of people together and there are going to be conflicts. Some of those conflicts are going to be able to work themselves out, as seems to be the way of the jungle here, but other things do require some sort of presence to restore order and civility before things get out of hand.
Every major website with public forums which allows anonomous commenting capability that I can think of has moderators except for Blogcritics.
If this site is to mature and continue to grow, then I would predict that eventually comment moderation will be necessary to ferret out this abusive, harrasing, hateful behavior. That type of stuff isn't protected by free speech and has no legitimate place in any civilized arena or debate.
Now when I regularly hear that word racism I think KKK and the like, people who have an extreme, destructive point of view. I don't think of a parody of a game of Monopoly involving obviously overblown stereotypes. Both discussions can have people who agree and disagree, but just because one side disagrees with the other doesn't provide evidence that the other side is a racist.
I also don't think every white person who says something negative about a black person is racist and neither do I think every black person who says something negative about a white person is racist. This is the internet and how do I really know a person is white, brown, black, male, female, young, old, etc unless he/she tells me? And even so, how do I know he/she is telling me the truth? We've seen all sorts of stories of bogus 'I have cancer' admissions to scam cash and sympathy on the web.
Frankly, I believe about 10% of what I see and hear from people on the web. 10%! And that might be a high number.
However, when a person continually fixates on words to describe or draw attention to a person's color then I think it's pretty obvious we have sufficient evidence that there's a bonafide racist in the midst, even when using a 10% reliability rule.
Therefore, I have enough evidence to conclude that there are two racists in this thread, and I suspect there is a third. Two are quite obvious, and another is a bit more tricky to pin down. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong about the third person. The third person could just be misunderstood, misrepresented or neurotic, but I hope that person will analyze all the people that this person has called a racist at Blogcritics and be more careful heretofore with this blanket accusation when simply disagreed with and perhaps use this thread as a comparative model.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you ideologically doesn't mean he/she is a racist. I don't need to mention names, but for anybody who has been around and been on the receiving end of this attack, it is a destructive, regular and wholly unacceptable occurence. It's tiring and counterproductive to an intelligent conversation and ruins the overall feeling/atmosphere of this website. That's too bad, because there is so much else here to be had then to be sullied up by this behavior.
And yes, I know, just skip past it, it's no big deal. But it is sort of like watching a movie and the guy in front of you doesn't turn off his cell phone or talks loudly during the movie.
Just please, please be careful with serious accusations against other people without facts to back them up.
I will not post in this thread again and I hope at the end of the day folks can just get along and treat people as equal human beings and not look at each other's skin color. I know that's a tall wish, but I do try and do that myself.
This thread represents that there are other people in this world who truly do not want to get along in society and I think that is very sad.
It doesn't mean that there isn't hope for the Blogcritics collective to rise above this type of filth, though.
151 - Shark
Continuing to ignore Yeagley...
TDavid sez: "That type of stuff isn't protected by free speech and has no legitimate place in any civilized arena or debate..."
I totally disagree.
Put me down, once again, for NO CENSORSHIP on this site.
The best thing is to LET these people express their heinous views. It exposes them for all the world to see. It confronts the rest of us with issues that usually remain below the surface. As many here have testified, in a perverse way, it IS informative and educational.
For what it's worth.
PS: I do agree that the term "racist" gets tossed around on this site WAY too often. It's usually shorthand for people unable to articulate their arguments, and it degrades the term and immediately stifles any conversation.
152 - Gerald Ball
David Yeagley:
Still have not addressed my point that what Janet Jackson does is no worse than what Madonna, Britney Spears, Pamela Anderson, and a constellation of white celebrities do when they market their sexuality. Is it that you only object when blacks get in on the pornography game? If you want to fight against pornography, you have an ally in me. But if pornography is going to exist, it would seem that everyone ought to have free access to produce and consume it. After all (and I repeat) white people did invent the stuff. Janet Jackson is hardly the first flasher at a major (or minor) sports event. As a matter of fact, there was a white male flasher during the Super Bowl who CBS managed to avoid televising. Now, was that fellow trying to impose his whatever on blacks, or on straight men for that matter? It would seem that your blogosphere discourse is lacking in rigor ... I suppose that liberal arts types do not have the same standards that we do in engineering and science, but I would certainly hope that whatever you do in academia is held to a higher standard, and that also speaks for your colleagues. Were folks in my profession permitted the one sided arguments and gapped logic that you have demonstrated, corporate America would not be able to afford the malpractice lawsuits that would result from our faulty products.
153 - Jennifer
I think its ridiculous that people are this outraged by Justin and Janet’s half-time stunt. God, you'd think they'd be more worried about the fact that the average American kid witnesses two-hundred thousand random acts of violence from gunplay on television before the age of 18 than be worried about a half-exposed nipple. What is Michael Powell worried about, a freak outbreak of woman running around showing their nipples and it encouraging teen girls to get pregnant? How paranoid is he? Hello, the country is still at war and we're entirely obsessed with making sure Janet Jackson apologizes like our lives are depending on it. We should be embarrassed for allowing this to become 'The News". This is not news. Sometimes I am shocked and dismayed by our own stupidity. Does anyone really want Janet Jackson to go to jail? Most countries have no laws against women baring their breasts and they have lower incidences of rape and violence against women. The fact that anyone even deems this to be indecent exposure is still living in a world where they burned witches at the stake. Who cares? It’s a nipple. Get over it!
154 - David Yeagley
I thought I did address the Madonna thing. Media is all about shock and awe, and perhaps JJ was just trying to outdo the "homosexual" shock act. Who knows?
I don't mind talking with a brave black man at all. It's the confuse, weak, white liberals that really cause the problem in this kind of discussion
Then again, hard to know who's who on the internet. I have a website, with bio, so everyone knows who I am. I have no fear. If I had ill intent, I would have fear. I don't have ill intent, so I don't fear.
I want honesty. I invite conversation with a brave, proud black man, not duped by white liberals who are using him for their own agendas.
There are such men, who don't really care, too much, what word is used to identify them.
"Black," as I've said, is not my choice, but apparently the choice of others. Therefore I quote. I would prefer a name with more dignity. There's at least one. I also said, I am writing on this, later, on my own website.
My site is large, and most people here I'm sure are not familiar with it. I've said things you would consider "negative" on Spears, and others. I did a series of blogs on "blondes" (women).
The human race exists in a variety of "species." What's wrong with that? Why try to destroy that, as if race is a bad thing? This is the work of white liberals. There are good things and bad things to say about all races. Are liberals trying to avoid that?
Now, about the white streakers, hang'em high. EQUALITY under the law, right?
The difference with the white porno singers is that they are/were in context. JJ did it out of context- to 100 million viewers not expecting it, and most not wanting it.
So we're going to talk professional qualifications now? (smile). Well, I know I come from the "wilds" on that one, so, you win, hands down. Ha. Perhaps you find it curious that I come from the arts and academics, but nevertheless hold "right wing" views.
But, on the other hand, I take some science fields to be as opinionated as the arts. And even some academic fields.
On the internet, sometimes arugments get going simply because it is impossible to say everything in one post. Of course important things are left out, and have to be taken up in another post.
By the way, I was specifically invited to this site by Al Barger, through private email, to comment on the comments.
I'm perfectly willing to disappear, but have appreciated the opportunity to explicate any honest misunderstandings. Al should be commended for that, for showing that consideration for me. I knew nothing about Blogcritics. I have been discussed on other sites, some of which I am made aware, others aparently not.
155 - BB
I'm disappointed that Mr. Yeagley did not answer most of my questions. Instead he used it as a podium to spew his twisted diatribe. If anything positive can come from this thread at least it has given us an insight into the mind of racism and unfortunately it is alive and well on planet earth. TDavid your post was masterful and I adjoin your heartfelt plea to those who would maliciously and without justification throw the 'R' word way too much around here. Mr. Yeagley, your abnormal fixation on all things racial (ie insistence on labelling blacks,white, Indians etc.) and alternatively your inability to refer to people as just people is obvious for all to see and is what convicts you. I hope that some day for your sake you will come to grips with your sin. I will be praying for you and in the mean time I shall just ignore you.
156 - bhw
By the way, I was specifically invited to this site by Al Barger, through private email, to comment on the comments.
Shocker.
157 - Phillip Winn
Please stop commenting! As Shark suggested, I think that this thread should stand as a testament to its participants, just like it is, with no additional comments. If someone wants to dicuss racism in the abstract, please start a new post.
Thank you.
158 - Mac Diva
Wow, TDavid may have finally figured out his fellow traveler Al Barger is a racist and perhaps where they are traveling to. (Nah, that would be giving him too much credit.)
I treat this thread the same way I do any other. If there is something I can add to foster understanding, I do. Since I've had the longest experience with the people involved and the far, far Right movement they are nominal members of, I will continue being a source of information when necessary.
As for the claim that acknowledging racism and writing about it equals being a racist, it is absurd and places persons who make it a single step above the likes of David Yeagley on the continuum of bigotry. So, obviously, we had bigots here before Yeagley and Gross showed up. Actually, he has quite a lot in common with such persons, since he was a fervidly Right Wing, insecure, none too bright, crack-brained white man before he decided to 'become' an Indian.
Meanwhile, I've posted several new items that touch on 'race' recently. I suggest them to people who are interested in constructive discussion of the topic. Some are right here at Blogcritics:
*A review of MacArthur Award winner Richard Powers' new novel about 'race' in America. (It is a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle prize, by the way) is here.
*Reportage on a new study on location and poverty based on Earned Income Tax Credit research is here.
*Thoughts on the relationship between class and race in a review of journalist, lawyer and former blogger Debra Dickerson's new book are here. (Warning to TDavid: She is African-American, a Harvard Law grad, author of a well-received memoir, and writes about race a lot. Avoid her in the interest of not having a heart attack.)
*In addition, yesterday's Silver Rights blogs an entry Dirtgrain posted here about class and race.
In fact, there is always good blogging at SR on topics involving civil and individuals rights. I founded that weblog specificially for that purpose. There is nothing wrong with writing and reading about race. Problems arise when 'race' is used as a pretext to dehumanize people. That is the difficulty with a David Yeagley and those who are almost David Yeagleys. As far as I know, SR is the only longterm civil rights blog in the blogosphere, partly because of the attacks minority people who don't 'know their place' can expect here. I highly recommend it as one of the few weblogs that has an excellent reason for existing.
159 - Mac Diva
David Yeagley says:
By the way, I was specifically invited to this site by Al Barger, through private email, to comment on the comments.
Could a fellow Blogcritic have lied to us?
160 - Phillip Winn
Please read comments 143 and 157.
Thank you.
161 - bhw
Official comment policy of Blogcritics:
If we are an open forum, we are an open forum.
If you don't want people to comment, then shut the comments off for this entry. Otherwise, if people want to continue, why shouldn't they?
162 - Mac Diva
Please read anything thing you want at Blogcritics. There are a few people who try to bully others here, but it is supposedly a community of equals. So, I encourage readers not to let anyone tell them what they are or are not to read. It is called having a mind of your own.
163 - Mac Diva
Jeez, bhw! I keep thinking something and then seeing you've thought the same thing. And, we aren't even emailing each other back and forth like the embarassed
Right Wingers who suddenly want to shut the thread down. When they show up one behind the other and one slips about emailing, it is kind of obvious. The why is pretty obvious, too. Yeagley is an overt promoter of the far Right's beliefs in regard to race. Instead of recognizing their own wrongheadessness in him, his fellow travelers at BC just want to sweep him back under the rug.
(BTW, you have been added to the blogroll at Mac-a-ro-nies).
164 - Phillip Winn
MD - What in the blazing hell are you talking about?
This thread was posted by Al, linked to a startlingly repugnant website, and Al invited that person to BC to "defend himself" or whatever he called his racist posturing. He was called out by nearly everyone here, everyone but Al.
You stated earlier that you had hoped this thread would die out. So do I, and probably for the same reasons. Both Al and the other guy are on record, as is the other guy's disciple. What more needs to be said?
I thought it would be nice to appeal to the common sense and grace of the other people on this thread, as a further demonstration of the lunacy of the deranged. If we had all shut up when asked politely, then the barking-mad lunatics could have posted in silence. Instead, the lunatics showed a little more grace than the supposedly-sane ones.
For example, you have continued on, making outlandish statments, and now I must close the thread completely, something I had hoped to avoid.
I will not, however, delete any comments. Let the record stand to the shame of (at least) two commenters.
165 - Al Barger
Comment thread, OPEN SESAME!
I just read Phil's Solomonically titled column that he pinged to this column.
Phil, you're a hypocritical PC idiot. You're putting up on your site that I'm comparable not even to a nasty thief, but apparently a TERRORIST or at least a terrorist enabler. I urge your readers to go to my listed URL here, which is the supposed horrible posting on Blogcritics. Here it is again:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/06/141327.php
David Yeagley aka Bad Eagle is the other "terrorist" in question. Frankly, he's not that bad. He's not a Klansman, nor proposing violence or legal sanction against any group. You speak here in such hushed tones, as if saying what HORRIBLE, UNSPEAKABLY VILE things he said was too awful to contemplate.
For the erudition of your readers, who may wish to base their opinion on something other than you telling them that some unmentionable statement is BAD, let me break it down: The main thing that Yeagley did was to put up a picture of a gorilla showing her breast to illustrate a story about Janet Jackson.
Now, that and several other statements that people drug over from his website was kind of crappy (and I said so), but it ain't the 1% of the wicked, vicious, malicious responses from the supposed advocates of tolerance and love who are our fellow Blogcritics. For his part, he had a picture which conjured up an uncomplimentary image. For our part, my fellow Blogcritics collectively cursed him, wishing him poetically extended sessions of pain and death.
And from that, YEAGLEY was the evil guy? What a bunch of HYPOCRITES you all are.
In the words of one of my favorite philosophers, "This is just a little Peyton Place and you're all Harper Valley hypocrites."
Oh, and I'm a vile "terrorist" equivalent or enabler because I quoted a post in which the guy suggested that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake should be prosecuted for indecent public exposure.
Whatever. I plead guilty to not wanting to lead the group in some Orwellian Two Minute Hate against someone who would (get ready to reach for the smelling salts) express a distaste for black folk. Read my extended "apology" here:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/17/022913.php
Further, he was BANNED from the site after I invited him to defend himself against the routine insta-libels from Mac Diva. He did not curse, nor wish bodily harm on anyone, nor speak 1% as disrespectfully as Diva among others [Tekwh0re, I'm looking at you] is ROUTINELY allowed to do with utter impunity. Man, the more I think about it, that's a lot of damned gall.
I guess what particularly set me off into "Bad Al" mode here was this quote of yours: "I will not allow the malignant festering sore of overt racism to taint a site I enjoy. There is no value in their "discussion," just doublespeak and garbage."
Honk off, you sanctimonious hypocrite. It's MY site more than yours as I am the content people are coming to read- not you, and this is definitely MY post. I hereby declare my comment thread open again. Keep your hands off my posts.
I'm not interested in you deciding for me which discussions do and don't have "value." You talk like you're dispensing some Solomonic wisdom with your censorship. I laugh at your Deep Thoughts. You're just another jerk who deeply believes in free speech and open mindedness, so long as you don't encounter any thoughts you arbitrarily decide to call "overt racism" and find Deeply Offensive.
Okay Phil, now you can go over and let the little pinkos pat you on the head, give you a doggie biscuit, and assure you that you're not a "racist" like all those other BAD conservatives. Maybe if you beg all pathetic like, even Mac Diva will grant you her moral approval.
[Edited]
166 - Eric Berlin
Wow... this is a lot to get into. I read the top post and its revision, but did not dive into the 165 points made since its publishing.
That being said, here's my take:
Issues of race are obviously complicated, each person taking their own personal history, biases, and judgments to the table with them. I do think that, at times, any issue associating itself with race has the ability to spin some people out-of-control before any real or substantive points can be made.
I think that some comedians working today, like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, are doing some of the best talking and analyzing and convincing, partly because they're black and partly because they're brilliant and talented and funny. The humor and the podium of the stage break down barriers and let everyone take themselves less seriously for a little while. Certainly they were not the first to do this, but they're the best working at it today. George Carlin and Howard Stern (especially in his bringing racists on the air and expertly exposing their ignorance and diluting the potency of their message) are other great examples.
So, onward to the Titty Massacre, as Mr. Barger puts it. His invocation of David Yeagley aka Bad Eagle's words make a most intriguing case study. The point addressed and put forth by Mr. Yeagley was a perfectly reasonable one. In essence: is the punishment that is good for the goose (say, a pervert exposing himself to a child) good for the gander (Jackson exposing her breasts to millions during the highest rated television program of the year)? If I were Mr. Barger, I would have likely covered myself in stating that Mr. Yeagley's website contains other images and writings that are offensive and racist. That he did not is a small error of omission, but should not dilute the point he was trying to make.
Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com
167 - Al Barger
Thank you for your kind words, Eric. However, as to your suggestion that I should have included a disclaimer, that was my ignorance. I hadn't paid close enough attention to the rest of the guy's site, or I probably wouldn't have invoked him at all. If I had known, I could have made my point about Janet without giving our resident racial antagonist a halfway legitimate excuse for her regular nonsense.
168 - Eric Berlin
Al - I'm really astounded that this "controversy" has been boiling over for so many months. Did the little exchange that we've just had pretty much cover it, or am I out of my mind?
I'm a left-center Democrat and someone who tries to be relatively sympathetic to other people's feelings and beliefs. I denounce racism (hating or denigrating a group of people based upon racial or ethnic characteristics or qualities = my definition) in its many hateful forms.
I'm also an academic librarian who believes in exposing, not hiding, information. So maybe some of us have learned something here:
- Racists still exist, and they suck ass
- If you quote someone as saying something fairly innocuous in pursuit of intellectual inquiry, then find out that said someone is a suck ass racist, apologize, expose the racism, and move on
169 - Eric Berlin
A quick, hopefully, final point:
- I didn't realize that this thread actually did die out in March before I inadvertantly opened it up again (go me! ... achem)
170 - stephaie
Here's another hate screed from Mr. Yeagley:
The Invasion of Mulattos
CNN and MSNBC are using a number of "mullatos" as anchors on their prime time news casts. This is different from the entertainment industry, where idols tend to be chosen by the audience. There have always been performers of mixed black and white races, who have been very successful. But the people seem to choose whom they want to idolize. In news media, however, it's an 'in-your-face' prospect. The ancor is what you have to look at, if you want the news.
Now, this matter pushes the envelope, really, about the whole idea of whether the Negro race is something other races enjoy looking at, or prefer looking at. This is a sensitive issue, naturally. In fact, it's so sensitive that the laws of America tend to require a non-Negro person to dutifully respect and value the Negro, regardless of any personal preference. The law thus makes a world of hypocrites, in a way, in the name of equality.
But, again, the Halle Berry's, the Mariah Carey's are a matter of taste or choice. But what about the news anchors, the Frederica Whitfields, the Alison Stewarts, the Lester Holts, the Suzanne Malveaux's? These are counting as "black" statistics in the hiring quotas, but, do they really represent black people?
"Fred," as they call her, Whitfield
Remember the famous line from The Color Purple (1985), ""I'm poor, I'm black and I may even be ugly, BUT dear God .. I'm here, I'm here." It looks like, however, that the preference for mulattos in the culturally coerced viewing of TV news stations inevitably says, "Hey, look, baby, you ARE ugly. We have to have 'black' people who look white, in order for this to work." Black is beautiful, as long as it looks white.
Alison Stewart, on and off the news stage
It is a curious predicament, indeed. Now, there are black men and women in politics who are not part of this predicament, like Condi Rice, and a host of others. And they are certainly in media a lot. But they are elected because of their qualities of person, not their appearance. News media, now a form of entertainment, really, has to be concerned about appearance, and, aside from a few sports commentators, the black people choses by the media to ancor are basically mullatos, mixed, and with a lip and nose make-over, look more white than black.
Lester Holt
Seems to me this is should be considered an affront. Where's the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, to protest this oppressive, abusive attitude toward true black people?
Suzanne Malveaux, Harvard graduate
There's no question that some of these mulattos are quite attractive, but, there will always be the issue: are they really black? Do they represent black people? Do they look like what black looks like? Does their success indicate that black is beautiful, that the Negro race is pleasant to behold, and the public demands to see it? (And even if the public doesn't demand it, the law will stuff it to the public anyway.)
Mixed races leave mixed impressions, and sometimes it's just difficult to understand what's really happening. Either black people are simply not the preference of other races, and black ain't beautiful, or else there's being a lot of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes. And it's hard to tell whose wool, over whose eyes.
Maybe it's something as simple as this: in every race, there are simply some people that are more attractive than others.
It wouldn't really matter, if it weren't for this pesky PC problem in America, where "equality" means no discretion. In the case of the mulattos, we have a cover-up discretion against less attractive people--of any race! Bring on the uglies! Let's call for the misanthropes! We want uglies on TV as anchor men and women. That would be true equality.
Posted by David Yeagley at 03:09 PM |
171 - Messanger
I thought that I would let you all know that Yeagley is dispised and shunned far and wide in Indian country.
Contrary to what he may say, his own tribe is looking at ways of formally exiling him.
Betty Ann Gross (BAG for short) is his half witted ignoramus automaton sidekick.
He has made the news here and there thanks to right wing neo-cons but is never supported by Native Americans.
Read this old piece about him... he has only become more diabolical since the time of this writing.
172 - Michael
I suppose that some indigenous have had experiences that caused them to resent blacks for using their white-empowerment against them.
Apparently the matter of bringing their emotions onto the internet in a form that is absolutely counterproductive was not well-thought-out.
One could easily percieve ANYONE who is not 100% supportive of full indigenous sovereignty, to be racist or social elitist. But to me, it is not about race. It is about religion. From the very first settlers to even today, there exists a counterfeit religious authority which hypocritically gives "freedom of religion" as though there are multiple religions and subsiquent Gods. All with an apparant propensity for belittling the spiritual faith and authority of the indigenous.
Spiritual knowledge and the indigenous predicament certainly does not often lend the priviledge of looking too good. The psychological complexities of maintaining some sense of tribal connection while learning to sell oneself in the white world is often beyond difficult. Some become numb to the rampant bigotry that those living in closer proximity to their tribal people are more sensitive to. Some are more prone to error. Particularly those who spend much time in school and little time in the real world.
Sure, punish Janet Jackson...along with all the other people in this country who follow the crowd and take liberty beyond honor, human compassion, and respect for religious authority.
Too many to punish.