Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Bad Eagle.com on Indian Gaming

For anyone interested in the discussion Dr. Yeagley and I have been having here at Webster's, Dr. Yeagley has taken the issue up over at his website Bad Eagle.com in this entry where he writes:

If white people want to gamble away their money at Indian casinos, Indians have every right to accept.

Then in the next paragraph he states the following:

It is most unbecoming for a Christian to decry ill-gotten gain of Indian casinos on the basis of apparent business advantage. That's practically irrelevant. Let the Christian denounce the evil profits on the basis of the immorality of gambling.

Dr. Yeagley seems to want to have it both ways. While he agrees with me that gambling is morally wrong; that the money Indians make from their casinos is "ill-gotten," somehow he justifies Indian gaming on the basis that Whites are stupid enough to gamble away their money at Indian casinos. It's on the order of saying something like "I think stealing is immoral, but if the teller at the bank is stupid enough to be distracted by my antics and gives me $500. for a $400. check, that's her mistake, she should have been more attentive to her business."

Now, I realize that that's not a completely accurate analogy, but they never are. The point, however, is this, gambling casinos use all kinds of enticements to get people to literally throw their money away. What it boils down to is taking advantage of peoples' weaknesses in order to rob them of their substance. But as an advocate of the Indian people who believes that gambling is morally wrong and therefore gaming is an illegitimate business, you'd think that Dr. Yeagley would be concerned about preserving and improving upon the morality of his own people, which is to say that you'd think he'd denounce Indian involvement in the corrupt business of gaming. But all Dr. Yeagley can do is justify the immorality of Indian involvement in the gaming industry by saying that Whites have it coming because they're stupid enough to gamble, and Indians are well justified in preying on White stupidity. You know, payback.

As I've said so many times before, people can quite literally justify anything irrespective of how immoral or self-destructive it is.

Update:

The discussion continues over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I seem to be having some difficulty getting past Dr. Yeagley's firewall again.

I'm really just seeking the answer to a couple of questions. (1) Does Dr. Yeagley support Indian involvement in the corrupt gaming industry or not? He's never answered that question directly. And (2) on what basis does he say that white Christians have no right to condemn Indian casinos politically? I assert that I have every right to oppose casinos both morally and politically, whether they're run by Indians or not.

Also, there's another issue that I think I mentioned in my comments that haven't gotten through. Dr. Yeagley seems to be giving the Indian Nations a free pass on gambling in his reply to me when he says that Indians don't see gambling as a sin. Ok, I think I can make a pretty strong case that the vast majority of whites involved in gaming, whether they be financiers or simple everyday gamblers or whatever, don't see anything morally wrong with gambling either. Does this mean that I'm to give them a free pass as well? Does this mean that I can only oppose white gambling morally, but not politically?...

Additionally, there's some confusion over the issue of Indian sovereignty. Yeagley seems to believe that Indian sovereignty and dual citizenship for Indians are like a matching set; you don't get the one without the other. I strongly disagree with this view. Indeed, I'm more apt to believe that the Indian Nations cannot truly ever be "sovereign" political entities so long as their people have dual citizenship both in the U.S. and their respective Indian Nations. Where am I going wrong?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The man called yeagley is two faced as all get out. He calls the Indian Casinos immoral and corrupt and he takes the side of the white man when the Casinos might take their land. He has never given the Indian People in any Business the benefit or support. He doesn't have a family to feed so why should he care that REAL Indians do take care of their Children and their Elders, neither of which he has ever had a good thing to say about. These people have bills just as any other American does, we in Oklahoma do not live on Reservations as his beloved Sioux People do. We live totally different life styles than the Reservation Indians. This is something he never fully explains to his totally white posters on his supposidly Indian Site, funny how he does not have any Indian input, huh? He will probably make up some new posters and give them real INDIAN names, like "I STAND ALONE", "TONTO" "LITTLE BEAVER".

I think Obama and his strong wife is pushing yeagley over the edge.....and just think.. they know nothing about this man calling himself "Badeagle" who is so full of **** he can't fly off the ground. oops... sorry I got off the subject?

He calls himself the one and only "this or that" or the "first" Native American Indian to ever do whatever. Which is usually a LIE. He never praised any other Native Americans' accomplishments just his own, on his own site. He does not represent any Comanche, just himself in his own inflated ego. He talks as though he is really in with the Comanche Nation, he is NOT. He has talked and tricked his way into certain areas using certain names and his Comanche CDIB (COMANCHE DEGREE OF INDIAN BLOOD). His only ties to the Comanche is using good "INDIAN TRICKS" of deception and trickerty, but our ancestors used these in WAR to save thier way of life and save their villages and family, not to promote themselves only, which is what this self proclaimed Comanche does, he has no ties with any Comanche, he just reads books and google. Why.... his article last week on the Blog on The Apache Prisoners of War, was from an article in the"National Museum of the American Indian". Thats the only history he knows of, plus his made up fable of "Badeagle"

He should quit using his Comanche CDIB Card and sudden acknowledgment of Indians on his site, when he won't even allow input from any REAL Native Americans who tend to disagree with anything he posts about our History. He admonishes them, then banns them when they post what he should take as constructive critism, he won't allow anyone that conflicts with his views. INDIAN IN THE KNOW>>------>

Jdogg said...

Yep Indian in the know pretty much spells it out. Yeagley is nothing but a self promoter first and foremost, who fools anglos into thinking he is Native. The only people who populate his site are extremist right wing repubs, pretty much the same people who populate this site too I'd imagine. I'm surprise you guys don't get along more, you and Yeagley.

Terry Morris said...

jdogg, what exactly am I to take from your comments?; that you're an extreme left-wing liberal democrat?

Don't let the door hit you in the rear end as you go out.

Call Me Mom said...

It's been an interesting discussion. I find his writing style and use of language to be confusing. Thanks for the posts though. They were interesting.

Anonymous said...

CALL ME MOM SAID: He was interesting....she simply has to read his archives, if they are still there, he is defending his Indian side recently, like NEVER BEFORE, ..sumpins up.

As I mentioned before, I think he makes himself dizzy, and can't spell(neither can I, but I don't have those degrees). Suddenly strange names appear like "WHITEFIGHTER", whom he admonishes but will not bann because I think it is yeagley argueing with himself. That is a OLD Whiteman trick, not to be confused with Indian Trickery, this guy sounds like Yeagly, and misspells too, eh?

The_Editrix said...

Dear Mr. Morris,

I happened to come across this excellent blog via a Google search for Lawrence Auster's work and intended to congratulate you on your compilation of a list of Auster's writing on Islam.

I still do. Lawrence Auster is a ray of light, integrity and intellectual honesty in a quagmire of wannabe-conservatives and -Islam critics.

I probably shouldn't have read any further. To call a critic of Yeagley "an extreme left-wing liberal democrat" because he described this hate-filled punk as what he is, is not a terifically good argument or is it?

Yes, it was not nice, even daft, to tar you with the same brush, but that is a different question.

Terry Morris said...

editrix,

First, thanks for the compliment.

Second, you wrote:

"I probably shouldn't have read any further. To call a critic of Yeagley "an extreme left-wing liberal democrat" because he described this hate-filled punk as what he is, is not a terifically good argument or is it?"

Let me advise you that to call Yeagley (or anyone else for that matter) a "hate-filled punk" is not, in and of itself, a terrifically good argument.

You do see what I'm getting at, don't you?

The point is this, you complain about my poor style of argument in my reply to jdogg, then turn around in the very same sentence and commit the same error of which you complain. But that ain't the worst of it. I never called jdogg anything, I merely asked jdogg what it was I was supposed to take from his "extremist right-wing repubs" comments about my site and Yeagley's.

But if you have a "terrifically good argument" with which to reply to jdogg's accusations, then feel free to post it. Perhaps jdogg is still lurking.

The_Editrix said...

Let me advise you that to call Yeagley (or anyone else for that matter) a "hate-filled punk" is not, in and of itself, a terrifically good argument.

You do see what I'm getting at, don't you?


Yes, I DO see that, Mr. Morris, this may amaze you, but I am not, as your condescendence seems to imply, daft. But I DO have a good argument. It may even be a terrifically good argument.

You are obviously not very familiar with Yeagley's website. From what I see here, it appears that you read some of his blog entries. And some of them make indeed sense from a conservative point of view. A broken clock is right as well twice a day.

The point is not that he is a racist, a fact which his critics from the left are targeting. That epithet has been abused so much that it has lost any credibility anyway. The point is that here we have an artificial, self-styled persona who abuses his partial Indian genes to embark on a crusade that he labels "conservative" but which is nothing but sheer and undiluted hatred of most groups on which he focuses.

If one reads more of his articles, it becomes clear that Yeagley understands very little of most things he chooses to cover. Music, the subject of his doctorate, doesn't seem to be a tremendous preparation for politics, history, culture and societal problems.

I am a white European, so his writings about Indians only interest me as far as they are proof of his intellectual and personal deficiencies, but first and foremost, he wasn't even, admittedly, raised within the Indian culture. His own words: "...Yeagley’s Comanche mother did not raise her children (three boys and a girl) within Indian culture."

He jumped on the Indian "conservative" bandwagon because it was the only way to escape total obscurity. At one point in time he started to let his hair grow, straightened it (or got rid of his perm) and to patronize tanning salons. There are pictures to prove that. I am not saying, as some of his Indian critics do, that he is not Indian. I am just saying that he chose at one point in time to identify with his so far despised ("My white father apologized to me for my being Indian!") Indian heritage to escape from total obscurity.

Would a white man utter such racist drivel, heavy on sexual obsession, such general hatred and misogyny, such antisemitism thinly veiled as philosemitism, such goofy conclusions and general lack of erudition, all hell would break loose. As it is, he gets acclaim for it.

He is cashing in on exactly what he so loudmouthedly denounces: the fact that he is a member of a minority group.

This compilation may be interesting, as may my Waffling Warrior travesties.

Let me add that I cultivated a rather childish Internet-feud with the Violent Hummingbird long ago, which I finally stopped because he is such a sitting duck, because my nausea-threshold became too low and because I found better things to do. However, the linked files owe their existence to that feud.

Not to be dismissed as a liberal-commie-leftie-democrat, let me say that I am a frequent reader of Lawrence Auster's blog and I have yet to find a basic issue, with which I wouldn't agree. I consider myself racially aware, I agree with his stance on homosexuality and I am a passionate and principled anti-feminist. I do not, however, see a trace of hatred in Auster's writing.

But if one confuses sensual racism, obsessive anti-Catholicism, disgusting, vile homophobia (equally leaden with more than a hint of the visceral), antisemitism thinly veiled as philosemitism and a well nigh sadistic misogyny with conservativism, then yes, Yeagley is conservative.

Let me say as well that I am not American, but German born and based and that your party politics bore me. Yeagley's unabashed apology of the politics of your current president do amuse me because they are so plainly dumb, not because the president is a Republican.

Nora

PS: I usually do not comment much at other people's blogs and certainly not at that length. However, you have the pleasure of my comment on Yeagley now because I happened to see this charming bit on Thomas Sowell, The Soul of Sowell, Natural Black Racism, today. Yes, THE Thomas Sowell.

I rest my case.

Terry Morris said...

You are obviously not very familiar with Yeagley's website. From what I see here, it appears that you read some of his blog entries. And some of them make indeed sense from a conservative point of view. A broken clock is right as well twice a day.

Nora,

Thank you. You are indeed correct. Prior to Yeagley's article endorsing Mr. Nelson recently (which I stumbled on while following a link to another article at Yeagley's site) I had only read one article at BadEagle several months back, which I explained to my Anonymous Indian commenter in that thread. As I also explained, I can't make much (conservative) sense out of most of what Yeagley writes. But I really don't have time, nor the desire to obsess over him so I don't, racist hate-filled punk or not.

Thanks for the links to your articles concerning Dr. Yeagley. They're interesting, and I'll be returning to them.

-Terry

Terry Morris said...

Not to be dismissed as a liberal-commie-leftie-democrat, let me say that I am a frequent reader of Lawrence Auster's blog and I have yet to find a basic issue, with which I wouldn't agree.

By the way, Nora, you'd agree, would you not, that you've unfairly implied in the above quoted statement that I would write you off as a "liberal-commie-leftist-democrat" based on your decription of Dr. Yeagley as a hate-filled punk? I appreciate your desire to defend jdogg on the grounds that my style of argument with him left a little to be desired, but as I explained before, I wasn't accusing jdogg of anything, I was merely asking him more or less how his accusations, as stated, were at all effective to his point.

jdogg said...

"I was merely asking him more or less how his accusations, as stated, were at all effective to his point."

This is news to me? You seem to rewrite your thoughts to suit your mood eh?

Also, this IS an extreme right wing site and it doesn't surprise me that you would have a link to Yeagley because he is as batshite as you are. You guys write about American from a selective memory, like most extreme right wingers. You write as if there weren't and aren't people here before you.

Yeagley is exactly as the female posted describes so eloquently. There is no Native conservative movement by the way, that is just asinine. It goes against all rational thought really.

Terry Morris said...

Jason,

Don't you have better things to do with your time than to come here to my blog and post angry emotionally charged comments? Apparently not.

But I'll indulge you once and try to explain it to you. Pay attention:

You wrote to me originally in this thread that "The only people who populate his [Yeagley's] site are extremist right wing repubs, pretty much the same people who populate this site too I'd imagine."

I wrote the following in reply: "jdogg, what exactly am I to take from your comments?; that you're an extreme left-wing liberal democrat?"

In other words, how effective is my rhetoric above, and since I'm obviously mocking your rhetoric in mine, then how effective is yours? The answer is it's not effective to either of our purposes, unless your overarching purpose is self-gratification. In which case I'm happy to be of service to you, but only to an extent.

The larger point is this, I don't care what your beef is with Dr. Yeagley, it's not my beef and it won't ever be my beef. Nora's beef is not my beef, nor will it ever be my beef. Keep your personal problems with Yeagley to yourselves, in other words, particularly when they come in the form of such stupidity as "he's a right-wing extremist"; "he's a hate-filled punk," and the like.

I've been called all of the above and worse many times. Whoopti-doo.

jdogg said...

Terry,

You are to take what I said however you wish. My posting what I deem as real may anger you, and that's too bad really but I have no control over that. The politics on this blog are extreme let there be no doubt. They may not be extreme in Oklahoma but let there be no doubt, this is a a hard right political blog. I mean, denial ain't just a river Terry.

There's nothing angry about my posts, not to me at least. I just calls em like I sees em. And I could be wrong but you are the one who brought this issue up, even referring to me apparently, wondering if I was "lurking"? Your language is funny to me. I apparently lurk and I "come clean" about things?

I'm not interested in your rhetoric, empty or not, but what I'm interested in is content, and yours is faulty at its core. I've already gone over it with you, there's no real need to revisit it.

Terry Morris said...

Jason,

In case you're still "lurking", when did I ever deny that this site is a "hard right political site", as you put it? The fact of the matter is this, judging by what I've read of Yeagley since I visited his site originally, I'm way right of Dr. Yeagley. There's really no comparison, Jason. That's one of the issues here.