Monday, February 22, 2010

Ethnicity and Americanism

The recent fracas at Bad Eagle has me wondering about Jewish identity and blogging. My blog varies with the demands placed by news, personal interest and other factors. I typically do not describe this site as "Jewish" despite the fact that the author of this site is Jewish.

The tragedy of the Yeagley situation is that he is clearly not an anti semite. Yet he is promoting values that just make me queasy. When I read his repeated obsessions with miscegenation I cringe. I also cringe at the primal way he describes our President as a "Negro".

When reading this blog what one takes out of my position is more of a reflection of the audience than of me. Oddly, my Conservative friends like AOW, Mr. B and so forth do not feel a need to find out where I am coming from.

1) We respect individual rights as found in the Constitution. The notion that a person is free to seek their own oath to God is in our Constitution. The Constitution in no way advocates theocracy, but it calls for a respect for religion.
This religious freedom ends when it is forced on other people or when exhortation to criminal acts is done.

If author Stephen Schwartz of the CIP is about, I wonder what his views on a Muslim chanting Kaybar at a Jewish speaker would be. Schwartz as a man of letters understands American values and Islam. All of us should object to a person burning a cross in front of anyone.

We assume that current trends follow into the future. Islam and Rap music do not seem like a great match, but it is a fact in many parts of the world. We assume that
Muslims living in Europe and America will not get changed by the surrounding culture. However, by generation three this may not be so. We presume that the Saudi type of intolerant type will be dominant, but this may not be so. We saw fears of overpopulation now being turned to population crashes in many countries.

2) We are anti communist. I do not seek their approval or friendship. The odd friendship between myself and the Duck is largely because he is not a cartoon. He is a well rounded person in comparison to a Che Bob or Renagade Eye. Life is not all about politics and gassy philosophy.

Communists, Anarchists, Nazis are every bit the enemies of the Jewish people that the folks in Hamas and Hezbollah are. Populist antisemitism is endemic on the far left. Prof. Finkelstein, the planets foremost antisemite, omits all discussion of his advocacy of Maoism.

3) As Americans, but especially as Jewish American, we do not tolerate any efforts to marginalize people because of race. The Holocaust did not happen overnight. There were the vulgar Nuremberg laws prohibiting race mixing and the incendiary rhetoric of people like Julius Striecher. When a mindless type in the far left in the UK states that the Mossad can count on 1/12 Jews to be assassins or talk of Neocon Cabals or Zionist media we are seeing echoes of Der Shturmer.

4) Oddly, while my ethnic composition is known little is known about the non Jewish readers. Does anyone know what ethnic group Farmer John or Mr B is? We don't know because they are in reality American to the core. Americanism as described in point one is a vibrant ethnicity that is just different than any other nation. We were founded by Revolution and sought to conserve existing individual rights. This was opposed to leftist revolutions ie the French or Russian modes that wanted to redefine man. There were Torries sent packing to Canada. After the Civil War some Americans went to Brazil and some Blacks were sent to Liberia. We did not have anything resembling the reign of terror or gulags.

Now commies like to point out the history of slavery and Native Americans in our past. Slavery was a world wide practice and contrary to the opinion of a wacky Professor was practiced by hunter gather types as well. What is outrageous is people who are well known for prison labor on a large scale are very familiar with this topic. In reality Commies are neoslavers and objecting to their recent past will get scores of idiocy about "false consciousness". One can fool some of the people some of the time but commies are fools all of the time.

Our complex relationship with Native Americans is probably best understood by thinking in Jared Diamond like terms. Native Americans were neither noble savages or barbaric savages. They lived in vibrant communities that like our own had their own positives and negatives. It is true Comanches probably did not have traffic jams or
worries about zoning. However, life was short and violent. When technologically superior people meet generally the results are predictable. The exception is the Muslim and Mongol conquests were often people conquered by people with less technology than the people they conquered. The notion that indigenous people should be respected is largely a concept flowing from Christian ethos.

There are those who term Slavery or the treatment of American Indians a Holocaust. Slavery as stated earlier was a global phenomena. Moreover, those who make these absurd claims often dismiss non western slavery. We have had "Black Nationalist" Uptown Steve admit that he doesn't care about the history of Islam and Slavery or African Slavery at FPM. It is not true that Africans were the only ones taken long distances for slavery. Muslims did kidnap a much smaller number of Europeans.

What makes the Holocaust unique is the specter of eugenics and junk science. There were all types of disgusting theories of racial superiority. People were exterminated because they were considered subhuman. While an element of this was true in our history with Native Americans it was more about land and resources. The Jews posed zero threat to Germany and represented a tiny percentage of the population. The killing was industrialized and that in and of itself is also unique.

5) When I see the politicization of science to suit a radical agenda this is a deeply
offensive and dangerous path. The Global Warming Crew has ripped a page out of the Eugenics movement. There were all types of fraudulent pseudo scientific rationales for racial supremacy. In fact our militant Greens twisted lied and misrepresented data for political purposes. The science was never there and reducing pollution does not mean draconian treaties or overthrow of capitalism. It requires effective regulation at the local level.


Ducky's here said...

Reading you on politics and science is like reading Beamish on music. Both are incapable of thought and learning.

beakerkin said...

Lets see how many disasters do the death cultists get before we deduce it is a bad idea.

Ducky's here said...

Why do you continually refer to Jews as a race?

beakerkin said...

Actually you got me confused with others. I refer to the eugenic crowd
who thought in such terms. We do have biological links and are a nationality as well as an ethnicity.

Anonymous said...

Beak, while wishing to take nothing away from the Holocaust and the near-extermination of your people, I do have to state my belief that no people had, have, or ever will have, a monopoly on episodes of human suffering. I can point to many instances of the same evil, vile "scientific" based racism employed to Native peoples as was applied to Jews and others during the Holocaust. See the eugenics movement here in the 1920s, the massive grave-robbing to measure black and Indian skulls that ensued in the mid to late 1800s, and the sterilization of some Indian women in parts of the Dakotas at IHS clinics as late as the 1970s

The genocide against Native peoples, due to the Americas being comprised of hundreds (perhaps a thousand when viewed hemispherically) of different communities, was less systematic and occurred at different times and places. Nowadays, the great alibi that is used to exonerate the near extermination of the Native peoples, is to play the spread-of unintended-disease card. These numbers are mostly accurate but may be slightly off since I'm too lazy to grab my resources right now. However, most scholars by and large have determined that the pre-Columbian population north of the Rio Grande was around ten million. That's a lot more than what the Smithsonian was willing to admit even thirty years ago. By 1900 that number was around 275,000.

I include in my definition of genocide the attempts by our gov. to eradicate tribalism from the 1870s-1934 through allotment, force boarding schools for our children (my great grandfather), and making the practice of Native spirituality illegal.

A good read with some problems, is David Stannard's American Holocaust. It's not perfect but does a good job of getting beyond the sort of stuffy, sanitized studies of American colonialism that seem popular today. The trend today is how Native peoples brought their ruination through partly their own culpability. I obviously disagree with the intention behind such postures.

Jarrod Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, while interesting, leaves some unintended consequences. One, he begins his study with a firm, almost religious like conviction in the innate superiority of Western civ at all times and places. The question then on is why these non-Western peoples are some damn inferior. His study begins with a massive bias. It seems to be asking "hey nonwhite guy, ever wondered why you and your people are so backwards? Well here, read this!" Don't get me wrong, environmental conditions obviously influence culture, but Diamond comes close to seeing things through the lens of environmental determinism. Many times, things turned out the way they did, not because of environmental constraints, but because of real things other humans chose to do, or not to do, to both other people and to themselves. Much of the carnage that took during colonialism had little to do with the environment and more to do with man's inhumanity to man.

A good balance to Diamond, while it may get under your skin, is Eric Wolf's Europe and the People Without History. I say it may get under your skin because he does employ Marxian analysis in the first half. However, I appreciate his perspective in terms of colonialism and the fact that European views of Native peoples shouldn't be divorced from their views of other, like Muslims, the Irish, Scots, African, etc...

I am glad that you have had the scales fall from your eyes regarding Yeagley. While you'd obviously know more than me, I wouldn't be so sure Yeagley really respects Jews and Judaism.


beakerkin said...


I have read Diamond and his work is a refutation of racialism. Guns Germs and steel takes the opposite approach and a more rational look at tribal people without the savage or Noble savage bias.

Moving along to history, disease certainly was a factor and for the most part it was unintentional. There was some racism against Indians but the disaster and crimes
were not about scientific eugenics.
It was a competition for land and resources which is much different than the Holocaust.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I didn't mean to equate Diamond as a racist in any way. I also don't think he's a bigot either. Rather, my problem with that particular book was viewing the development of culture and inter-cultural encounters, as solely determined by environment. In my opinion, while he didn't intend for this, I'm sure, it seems to be a kinder, gentler means of determining why non-whites (other than China) were less sophisticated than Western Europeans.

He's simply substituted racial theories with environmental ones to arrive at the same conclusion: Native peoples 9and by extension other non-Westerners) were always less sophisticated and developed. Than again, I may be being to hard on that book. I do know Diamond is not an intentionally prejudiced man and he has offered up an interesting viewpoint that has merit in some cases.

Also, do doubt disease did play a dire role in many Native people dying at first contact and onward for a good while after. My gripe is the way this is being used in academia and the media these days as a mean of sanitizing the very real legacy of intentional violence and policies of extermination that did take place at times as well.


The_Editrix said...

Beak, you are delusional. The last thing that was on the Nazis minds when it was about Jews was "race". That was nothing but a big advertising scam because most people start drooling like Pavlovian dogs as soon as it's about "race". If the Jews had been a different race, there would have been no need for the Yellow Star to mark them. Also, the "Afro-Germans" from our modest colonial past were never touched. The Nazis intended to wipe out the spiritual meaning of the Jews (Hitler even let that slip at one point) and they would have even done it had every Jew been piss-poor, but they certainly saw the Jewish worldly goods as a nice perk and many Germans gladly partook in the disenfranchisement of the Jews who were basically not driven by eliminatory antisemitism. How do you explain the fact that even the most politically correct "anti-racist" is still an antisemite? Right! BINGO! Because antisemitism is not racism!

For somebody who is so "anti-racist" you are pretty much obsessed with race yourself and you are a tad too dismissive for my taste when it comes to the fate of the American Indians. An airy "It was a competition for land and resources which is much different than the Holocaust" and specifically "disease certainly was a factor and for the most part it was unintentional" is not enough. In fact, it's pretty cynical. Tough shit if the Indians weren't resistent to European diseases. Their problem, eh?

Ray, what the white conquerers of the American continent did to the natives fully deserves to be called a genocide of gigantic proportions and no, nobody has a monopoly of human suffering. I, as one from the people of perpetrators, am specifically wary of what is called "S├╝ndenstolz" in the context of the Holocaust. It means something like "pride in one's own sins". Only too many Germans get quite hot and bothered when it comes to the "uniqueness of the Holocaust", but that is not based on serious remorse, but on "S├╝ndenstolz" -- Nobody will ever top OUR Holocaust!" Creepy!

We owe it to the victims and to the future generations to analyse and compare different phenomena of genocide, to define sources and reasons, to identify perpetrators and prevent future repeats. I know pathetically little about the genocide of the American Indians, but to me it seems as if not just greed, but racism played a major role. Why else would one kick an enemy even further who has hit the ground long ago, disenfrechised and powerless? However, while comparisons are always legitimate, equations aren't. I doubt that the European conquerers at any point in time intended to wipe all Indians from the face of the earth. Being an Indian in America didn't have the absolute certainty of death it had being a Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe. Correct me if I am wrong.

But whatever, the victims of both genocidal crimes won't mind one way or the other because they are just as dead anyway.

From what I see it's not the Jews who don't give it a rest and claim a monopoly for suffering (at their memorial site Yad Vashem there has been, for example, room made for a memorial for the gypsies murdered in the Holocaust). It's the others who don't give it a rest and that backs up my theory that the Holocaust was to destroy the spiritual meaning of the Jewish people and nothing else. The mechanism goes like that: Somebody makes an outragous antisemitic or Holocaust-relativising claim and when some Jews answer back it's "It isn't allowed to criticise Jews anymore!" I see it here in Germany on an almost daily basis.

"The tragedy of the Yeagley situation is that he is clearly not an anti semite." Beak what would YOU call a man who thinks that one of the redeeming qualities of the Holocaust is that it was "about race"?

beakerkin said...


What happened to Native Americans is in no way similar to the Holocaust.History is full of plenty of people who found their land invaded. In fact Indians had been doing it to each other long before a single colonist arrived.

This being said the crimes that happened were in the context of competition for land. There were massacres and Native Americans could be very brutal and did practice torture, kidnapping and rape. Not every tribe did but the practices did happen. War is an ugly thing avoided by most.

The Holocaust was quite a different phenomena. The Jews had very little resources or land and were few in number except in Poland. They represented no threat
to Nazi Germany. This was execution for the sake of racial hygiene. The mythical arayan supremacy was certainly a factor.

Hitler was more adaptable than the cartoon image in history. He understood populism and demogougery and was said by classmates to be an antisemite even in his youth. As he got older
he read pseudoscientific articles
to confirm his hatreds.

Nazism is not the polar opposite of
Communism. It was a rival and both
parties worked together when expedient. Hitler also made a treaty of convenience with the USSR. The treaty was actually an
alliance. The fact that Hitler considered Bolshevism a Jewish threat did not prevent a pragmatic
calculation of expediency in his twisted mind.

The Afro Germans were too few in number to motivate populist fervor. Do note that the Nazis had zero problem with Arabs because there was nothing to gain and they also lived away from Germany.

The ultimate goal of the Nazis was populism. They did promote crank theories about race and many were taken in by this.

The_Editrix said...

"What happened to Native Americans is in no way similar to the Holocaust."

Beak, I wish you'd read my comments before you reply. I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite.

And your other fallacies don't become any more sensemaking from frequent repetition.

"Do note that the Nazis had zero problem with Arabs because there was nothing to gain and they also lived away from Germany."

Yes, and that makes my point. The Nazis had no problem with "Semites" who were not Jews. Have you EVER read one of my many entries about the "Grand Mufti" of Jerusalem?

beakerkin said...


We agree that Nazism is more complicated than presented. There were kook racial theories that were clearly promoted. The ultimate aim was populist as any inspection shows
all types of deviation from the theories when expedient.

To expect coherence in populists in and of itself may be folly.

Anonymous said...

Beak, before simply responding with blanket statements, you probably should address a portion of what I wrote earlier. You should also be careful in that you don't come across as sanitizing what you truly know very little about on points involving the colonization of the Americas. I don't know everything, since I'm not a member of every single Indian community from Wisconsin through Chile, but I have a ton of experience with many tribes in the states. I also go beyond reading Charles Mann's 1491, which seems to be where you've gotten your comfortable accounting for the colonization of the Americas.

You may not intend for it to sound like I read it, but you come close to saying that "Native peoples didn't suffer genocide in many cases because they demonstrated some of the traits that other human beings have since the beginning of time." That is to say, since Native peoples engaged in violence, slavery, etc... in some cases, then having those same things done to them, times ten from an outside force, doesn't constitute genocide. How neat, how tidy, how easy, how wrong. So, the fact that we all have warts on our faces is excuse enough, eh?

So, again, if I read you correctly, genocide didn't occur at different times and places throughout the Americas because what they suffered at the hands of Europeans (you know, violence, slavery, competition over land) existed in varying degrees amongst themselves. That comes close to whitewashing what was done and continues in many cases, simply because Native peoples were humans, faulty like EVERY SINGLE OTHER CULTURE SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME.

With all due respect, when it comes to indigenous peoples, their cultures, and histories, you're as out of your league as Yeagley is when it comes to Jews and Judaism. He got all of his information from books mostly. It sounds like your exposure to Native issues came about the same way, and is viewed through the tired framework of capitalism versus Marxism dichotomy. Not everything can be subsumed beneath that neat and tidy little view of all reality.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that the Holocaust and the "pacification" of the Americas are the same thing entirely. There were differences, obviously. Not every encounter between tribes and Europeans was about violence and genocide. However, in my reading of your words here, in your quest to maintain the ugliness of antisemitism as exceptional throughout all times and places, you perhaps unintentionally excuse, obfuscate, and diminish what was, and continues in many cases, to be done to Native peoples in this hemisphere.

If you're serious about looking at things in more depth, that go beyond what you've said in the way of generalized, blanket statements, you should look IN DETAIL to what occurred in California in 1848-1850, Colorado in 1858-1864, and the entirety of federal policy from 1878-1934. Oh, and check out the what happened to many reservation communities in southwest after WWII, with the orgy of strip and uranium mining. You should also read about the Mapuch of Chile and the Mayan communities in the 1980s in Guatamala.

I believe the Holocaust is easier to speak about in general terms because it concerned one people (German gov.) against another group (Jews). The Americas did not consist of ONE people with the same identifiable religion and ethos. Things occurred differently depending on the time, the European power involved, geography, and Native community. Plus, there's over 500 years to sift through as opposed to the much shorter duration of the Holocaust itself (not diminishing the long period of virulent antisemitism that occurred beforehand in Europe).


Anonymous said...

I see I type too fast. It should be the Mapuche of Chile (they suffered monstrously at the hands of the thug, Pinnochet. Genocide need not always refer to the outright killing or extermination of a people. Policies designed to eradicate their culture and way of life fits the definition as laid out after WWII.

I also should have put that the Holocaust dealt horrid blows to the Romani and handicapped as well, so it wasn't just one people, like my previous comment suggests. Be that as it may, we aren't dealing with hundreds and hundreds of different cultural groups like in the Americas.

beakerkin said...


As stated before when we talk of broad historic events we look into patterns of behavior that repeat themselves again and again. Once again I suggest you look at history
for plenty of examples of colonization by non Western types.

In general you have a competition for land and resources. This is likely as old as man itself. Nor does placing it in perspective or
anything I wrote diminish the injustices that were clearly different from the Holocaust.

Disease is just a fact of existence
and there was nothing intentional
about the spread of disease save a handful of episodes.

History is full of people being dislocated from their indigenous territory. We do talk of Berbers, Copts, Hmong or Byzantine as just some examples of the same phenomena.

When you talk of the period before the Holocaust you have to take into account that what we call Western Civ did not develop overnight. There were all types of moves forward and backwards along the path to the civilization we enjoy. Unfortunately, the Jew and to a similar extent the Roma for different reasons have been the speed bump along the way to progress.

Do not include the Crusades in the
list of injustices. The Crusades were a counter reaction to repeated Muslim invasions. The Crusaders did commit plenty of crimes against Jews. They were on a par but not much worse than their foes.

The left type of movement learned that the best way to unify people was populism. Sadly, this tradition
continues into the present era on the left.

You seem to think I am trivializing matters. Rather, I recognize the wrongs that are quite
different from the Holocaust. They
really do not belong in the same discussion.

beakerkin said...

The handicapped and the Holocaust is
an interesting sidebar. That practice was stopped because enough people objected. It was not a great leap of faith from killing the disabled to people classified as subhuman.

beakerkin said...


The far left has come up with a mere
100 names of Mapuche who disappeared in the reign of Pinnochet. He was a leader in a Civil War and was no worse than his opposition.

If anything Communists were guilty of using Indians as cannon fodder. This continues to the present day in Chiapas.

Anonymous said...

Beak, I really don't care about what non-Indian leftists have to say regarding the Mapuche, or any Native community for that matter.

You should listen to what the Mapuche themselves say about their ho-hum life in Chile under the Spanish and other inherited forms of that gov. Guess what? They really have no loyalty to either the left or right in that struggle. Their casualty rate and "disappearances" are much higher than that, but I'm not surprised and neither are they that the "official" numbers are so low. It's kind like the scum-sucking Castro brothers, whom both love to state that all of the Taino are gone. They're not but that's the Cuban gov. mentality for you.

That's a convenient way that Pinnochet gets off the hook, I suppose. See, it was a civil war, and will, you know, war and all. Naughty things tend to happen, dontcha know! You're right about one thing, both the right and left use Native people as cannon fodder in their echo-chamber of a fight against one another. Both the right and left mistake this or that Native community alligning with them. In reality, tribes will attempt to play such factions off one another as a survival technique. They have their own agendas and can't be labeled according to the Western notion of conservative or communist.

When it comes to Native peoples, the left is just as excited as the right to "bury" atrocities against Native peoples. The right does this as a means of maintaining a smug sense of righteousness and the left does it usually out of oblvioussness towards Native issues in favor of "sexier" minority issues (see Muslims). Or, like with Avatar, they seek to use the past atrocities against Native peoples to make some sort of judgment of society today. Either way, scant real attention is paid to the Native peoples themselves and what they have to say.

It's always easier to base our information off what our perceived enemies have to say about a group. I have in mind here what either a leftist or a conservative thinks they know about the Native side of things. We can't let those representing one political ideology or another dictate an entire people's point of view.

Man, I appreciate you waiting to make up your mind to post something, unlike Yeagley's, but still, it can get annoying having to wait to see everyone's comments!


CM said...

Reading the truth you've stated about how many different Tribes and the different times. From the Euros landing in the 1600s' on the East coast. The replacement of Indians by the them. They came for Religious Freedom, they killed and massacred the Natives who helped them thru the deadly Winter and showed them the food supplies and said it was Gods' will that the land was theirs.

When the Colonies were established then began the Governments giving a blind eye to the army who did the same to the Cherokee, Choctaws etc. then they came west. The Presidents made statements against the Native and they were pushed further, the armies were relentless and yes the whites were many and had superior weapons. The Natives fought a good battle they did not line up and enter the gas chambers. If they could have rounded us all up at once, and if they had gas chambers, Im sure it would have happened to us. In my opinion it was our Genocide, we did not all die, and not all the Jews died. Hey we're still here!!!

I believe in the Jewish Genocide, but I also believe in our People being exterminated in the only way they could because we were scattered and were many different Nations from the East Coast to West, Border of Canada North to South American. The spanish landing in south Texas in the 1500s and coming up were just as determined as the White Euros from England to take the Land. I have many books on different Nations telling of their individual massacres mostly by the U.S. armies and mostly by suprised attacks on women and children, then the retaliations
Yes the Nations warred each other, but their was seemed to be still a kind of respect in the way they warred...may sound strange to a white person, but its is told that way!

I'm sure Beakerkin knows all this, I don't mean any disrespect but, I see Beakerin also believes some of yeagleys' preaching.Damn he repeated them enough times, while no one could disagree, or they just wanted his respect so much they kept quiet and also he didn't allow Indians on his Indian site!

Lots of in-between history so much, but like you said, it was a span of over 500 years whereas the Jews was withing a short period in comparing the two. They did try to innihilate us, total distruction is what the Government wanted and turned a blind eye to the savage rangers and u.s. armies.


beamish said...

Does anyone know what ethnic group Farmer John or Mr B is?

My maternal grandparents were of Irish descent and a Cherokee native. My paternal grandparents were of Scottish descent and British descent (and further back to Danish / Scandinavian descent)

By maternal lines, my family has been in America for well over 10,000 years, by paternal lines, closer to 400 years.

If race mattered (and to me, it does not) I'm "mostly white" which doesn't really say anything about me or the path through history that led to my birth. The surveyor that drew up the first map of the Jamestown colony in Virginia is the nephew of my first white American ancestor.

I feel as much affinity to him as I do my Celtic ancestors that left Turkey and Syria for Ireland.

We's all family.

CM said...

Mr. Beamish,

So you maybe you are actually related to yeagley! His relations began the colony, I have to look it up again, he is a direct descendant of.....

Not a bad thing, when you carry yourself in a good way, and you do!

Gotta start my day......bye!


Ducky's here said...

Next thing you know, Beak the Denier will claim that the Ukrainian famine wasn't an ethnic genocide.

Ducky's here said...

"The tragedy of the Yeagley situation is that he is clearly not an anti semite."


So if he were an anti-semite then being a white supremacist wouldn't be tragic?

Every time you attempt to explain your fascination and attraction to that freak show you seem to dig a deeper hole, Beak.

The_Editrix said...

"The Natives fought a good battle they did not line up and enter the gas chambers."

CM, neither did the Jews. As individuals and in groups, Jews engaged in opposition to the Germans and their Axis partners in France, Belgium, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, and Poland. Jews also fought in French, Italian, Yugoslav, Greek, and Soviet resistance organizations and those living within the Palestine Mandate, as regulars in the British Army, most of them in extremely hazardous deployments, for which they received nothing but ingratitude.

In eastern Europe, Jewish units fought the Germans in city ghettos and behind the front lines in the forests. Despite minimal support and even antisemitic hostility from the population, thousands of Jews fought the Germans in eastern Europe. Resistance units emerged in over 100 ghettos in Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, and the Ukraine. Jews resisted when the Germans attempted to establish ghettos in a number of small towns in eastern Poland in 1942. Revolts took place in Starodubsk, Kletsk, Lachva, Mir, Tuchin, and several other towns. As the Germans liquidated the major ghettos in 1943, they met with armed Jewish resistance in Cracow, Bialystok, Czestochowa, Bedzin, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, as well as with the famous uprising in Warsaw. Thousands of Jews escaped from the ghettos and joined partisan units.

In western Belorussia, the western Ukraine, and eastern Poland, family camps were established in which Jewish civilians repaired weapons, made clothing and generally assisted Soviet partisan operations.

There were even uprisings in the extermination camps of Treblinka, Sobibor and Auschwitz during 1943-1944.

The legend of the Jews who went to the gas chambers like sheep is, like so many other legends, an antisemitic fabrication.

beakerkin said...


When I have I ever been known to deny a communist crime. This is interesting in that some members of my family survived this event. This event is also one of the reasons the locals became Hiwis in large numbers.
Communist apologists like Renegade Nostril seem to conveniently forget
these events.

Onto Yeagley

He is not and never was an antisemite. He does have some sickening and repugnant views on race. However, given a social pariah scale he is still heads and shoulders above your friends Renegade Eye and Che Bob. I have also confronted him directly on this issue.

I have not seen Yeagley rationalize treason or trivialize crimes by Bill Ayers. Yeagley may
get things wrong but he does not knowingly lie like Ren and Che Bob. Gee, Yeagley is a racist and Ren is an antisemite whose board looks and reads like Der Shturmer.


Mr Beamish is the coolest man on the internet. I just wish he would
bring back the old avatar.

The famous Beamish quote about the whole internet being comprised of five different people is an all time classic.

CM said...

I do apologize, I should have noted the black and white documentary films I watched where the lined the people up. I beleive they did not know they were entering the gas chambers, I believe they were being deceived, just as the Indians were tricked many times. They were invited to Parlays then surrounded and killed by trusting the savage white man. In the case of one Apache Mangus Colorado(mid-1800s), he wanted to befriend the whites, and honored "Keet Karson"...but they feigned friendship using a Priest the Apache had grown to trust, they invited the Indian families to come and eat and take presents, when they came and surround the feast, a great explosion occured and killed all of Mangus' family...wife and little ones and many Tribal members. I call that a good reason to Hate the Whites. Many stories like this, but ours stories were hardly ever on the media.

The Holocaust we learned in school. Our own Indian tragedy we learn outside of the school walls, it was not part of the education system! Still to this day it is limited and whitewashed. However I believe its slowly being challenged. I do not know what they expect by bringing our stories forward. for the most part we are civilized, we did away with the teepees, marry legally one person, etc, etc.

I did not mean to offend the German, Jewish or undermine the Holocaust.


Sulejman Schwartz said...


I do not approve of any form of insult to anybody because of their religion, including religions that are not monotheist. I work closely with Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. I do not bait any of them about anything. Traditional Muslims are commanded to respect the People of the Book and I do so. Yelling at Jewish people about Khaybar is a form of unacceptable aggression.

And while I would hope that non-Muslims stop employing low and vulgar language to attack my religion, I do not respond publically to them. People of religion should show a good example, especially when debating those who do not share their faith. A good example means patience, calm, and clarity.

All religions have unfortunate chapters in their histories, because religion is a human practice, although I believe it is founded in divine revelations. Slavery was, as you note, universal.

One correction: Liberian colonization preceded the Civil War, and did not follow it.

Judaism does appear to me to be the transmission of a tradition through a genetically singular group. I don't consider that racism.

The Ottomans repeatedly declared that those who attack Jews also attack Islam because Islam honors the Jewish prophets. I agree with that opinion.

Also, regarding the Nazis and Muslims, there is fascinating evidence that Ismaili Shias living in France were included in the Holocaust dragnet, as alleged Jews. This may have originated with the Saudis. I am researching this.

On the question of indigenous Americans and their effective liquidation at the hands of Anglo-Americans, I don't see any point to denying that indigenous Americans suffered an attempted genocide. My maternal ancestry is also indigenous American, Celtic, and German. Did anybody in this discussion mention that in Sandinista Nicaragua, that haven of leftist "benevolence," the indigenous communities, the Miskitus, Sumus, and Ramas, were victims of an attempted genocide? I spent a lot of time in Nicaragua during the 1980s and 90s and as I recall the Rama people were reduced to a few hundred.

You are a sharp guy but I wonder if it's worth the time to worry about what appears on others' blogs.

May the blessings of merciful and compassionate God be upon you!

The_Editrix said...

"He is not and never was an antisemite."

Beak if you've already replied to this and I've overlooked it, pardon me. But here is the question again: What do you call a man who thinks that one of the redeeming qualities of the Holocaust was that it was about race?

beakerkin said...

Mr Schwartz

Thank you for the correction about Liberia. That situation has not worked out well. Oddly it is one of the few in Africa that seems to be improving.

Maybe, a lesson can be learned in that the people of the nation themselves have to want improvement.Outside interference and activity by activists taking sides prolongs these conflicts. This does not mean do not feed starving Haitians or build hospitals.

I ponder what a third generation of immigrants will bring. To assume
that it will produce all rabid style of Saudi cartoons views is just not realistic.

I find it odd that those who rail about Western Music have picked rap music as their medium. No medium seems to convey the worst aspects of this critique quite as effectively as rap music. Maybe what is going on with some of this is more equivalent to a street gang than we presume.

We just don't know what the next generation will bring. I remember some Euro's in the 80's boorishly
mocking America for its treatment of Blacks. Yet these same Euros now have had riots and similar experiences with high crime from minority immigrants.

Extrapolating in linear progression
into the future is folly. There are
just too many unknowns.

beamish said...


Maybe I am related to Yeagley. Maybe I am related to Beak. Maybe I am related to you or even Ducky. We're all definitely related to someone that lived thousands of years ago. Even "native Americans" got here from Asia thousands of years ago.

What does it matter? 10,000 years from now, my descendants might be on another planet entirely.

I don't subscribe to race or cultural designations. We're all humans first.

I'm an American-Human.

The_Editrix said...

CM, no need whatsoever to apologize! My information was meant as just that: information. Not as a reprimand or anything even close to it. I hope you found it interesting, as much as I am finding information about Idian history increasingly interesting.

CM said...


You are a dead ringer for a young Comanche lad. His mother is White father is F.B.I. Comanche.

It's kinda hard not to subscribe to your own Culture....but yes we are Human first.

Comanches are the most Patriotic Americans Indians you will ever meet, though the Kiowas our Natural rivals will agrue that point!


I did find it all interesting. Even though the black and white documentaries are sqimish, I still want to see them also, its History after all.

Betty ann is the only one who thinks I am being put down by all you "whites", I find it a learning experience. She can't fathom people having different opinions yet still respecting each other. Its her way or the highway at b.e.

She is such a creepy pathetic stalker..kinda scarry.



The_Editrix said...

"Betty ann is the only one who thinks I am being put down by all you "whites""

There you see how she thinks. There is an Indian and a couple of whites together at one online forum and that Indian is bound to be put down by all those whites. It seems, her self-esteem is somewhat inversely proportional to her big mouth. Besides, she is jealous. There isn't a single online community who would bear her antics for a minute and we all know why Yeagley does. In all those years she has never forwarded a single serious contribution to a debate or an honest information. Such a statement tells everything about her but nothing about you or the "whites" here. My oh my is that woman an open book!

beamish said...


I'm part Cherokee, we're more "civilized" grrrrr!

Just kidding :)

I was in "Comanche Territory" in southwestern Oklahoma a few weeks ago. Seemed like America to me.

CM said...


I remember seeing you in Wal-mart...Just daughter and I were rushing as usual and I saw this lad I told you are a dead ringer for! OR WAS IT YOU!

Next time go to Comanche Nation Complex and introduce yourself to our Comanche Tribal Chairman Michael Burgess, he is a neat man!

Well....Southwest Oklahoma is where they plopped us Wild unruly Comanches, near the Fort so they could keep an eye out. We still stole the Military horses by the light of the COMANCHEMOON. True story!

We call it home now. Gotta love it....did you go atop our ant hill Mt. Scott?


Alligator said...


I used to have relatives around Lawton, Apache and Hinton. My great-grandparents homesteaded what is now Red Rock Canyon State Park. My grandmother told me that every year, Comanches used to come camp at the springs on their farm. They were still living in tepees then, about 1900. Been up on your ant hill a couple of times. My great uncle used to help round up the surplus buffalo on the refuge for sale. I think hearing these stories and seeing these places as a kid helped instill in me an interest in and respect for Indian peoples. Oh, yeah, I remember the rattlesnakes and horned toads all over the place. Been too many years since I've been down there though I do make it down to other places in Oklahoma frequently.

beamish said...

I was in Lawton. Didn't get to see much as it was a working trip for me. Did visit the Comanche Nation casino. HUGE hamburgers :)

CM said...


The Comanche Casino is OK, nothing to bragg about, though I do love Darrell Crisman the manager! The Ft. Sill Apache Casino just a little bit East is Great, friendlier and still improving....with a Hotel soon!

Alligato and Beamish,

next time around visit Medicine park. Its a cute little place on the way to Mt. Scott. Robert E. Dean, who recently passed on, has many giant sculptors and one is a giant Horned Toad! He Honored the Native Americans by having several sculptures around Medicine Park. A giant Flute Player, The Buffalo, a huge peace pipe, a huge majestic Eagle, several more adorn the landscape.

The Comanche Elders say the Horned Toad pointed to where the Buffalo were. You know how they lift their heads and actually look as though they are pointing! They used to be everywhere, but are now we hardly see them at all. Wish it were true of the Rattler.


Alligator said...


When I was a kid visiting down that that was how I always spent the day, chasing toads. They were everywhere. I've heard several people say that in recent decades they have been disappearing. No good explanations but I bet it has something to do with spraying fields with pesticides/herbicides. Since the toads eat ants, they get that poison in the gut.

Beamish - buffalo or beef? :-)

beamish said...

I didn't ask, but it tasted great and beefy. I know bison by taste (if you've never had bison, don't die without trying it once) so it definitely wasn't bison / buffalo... was still good even though the burger was almost big enough to feed 2 people.

Alligator said...

I get buffalo and elk several times a year. Several neighbors raise both. Usually manage to get at least one deer a year too, although not this season. I'm a member of PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals.