What`s Up With White Women—And White Men?

Since I began writing for
VDARE.com,
FrontPageMagazine.com,
and American Enterprise.com in 2001, there is one
article that has been

more often quoted
than any other:


What`s Up With White Women?
(It appeared on
FrontPageMag day="18" year="2001" w:st="on">May 18, 2001, but is no longer
available on in its website). There is something in this
article that has been considered fundamentally important
by authors with such diverse approaches to as
Pat
Buchanan
(The
Death of the West
,

pp. 155-156
), Robert Spencer (The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
and the
Crusades

pp. 177-179
and

Religion of Peace

pp. 2-3),
and most recently,

Michael Medved
(The
10 Big Lies About America
,

pp. 9-10).

My original article was meant to
call attention to the fact that the attitude of white
women in w:st="on">America is an indication of where
the country stands—and, specifically, where white men
stand. As an
American Indian,
I had occasion to recognize this in
a way that apparently spoke very deeply to white men in
this country who are concerned about the future.

White men don`t stand in a very
good place, according to many white women. White men
have failed.

This article came about as the
result of a simple exchange between myself and a white
female student, back when I was teaching at w:st="on">Oklahoma w:st="on">State University
(Oklahoma City
campus). It began:

"Look,
Dr, Yeagley, I don`t see anything about my culture to be
proud of. It`s all nothing. My race is just nothing.”


The girl was white. She
was tall and pretty, with amber hair and brown eyes. For
convenience` sake, let`s call her `Rachel.`


I had been leading a
class on social psychology, in which we discussed
patriotism – what it means to be a people or a nation.
The discussion had been quite lively. But when Rachel
spoke, everyone fell silent.


"Look at your culture,"
she said to me. "Look at

American Indian tradition.
Now I think that`s really
great. You have something to be proud of. My

culture
is

nothing
."


"You`re not

proud to be American
?" I asked.


"Oh, I`m happy to be
American, but I`m not proud of how
America

came about."


Her choice of words was
telling. She was "happy" to be an American. But not
"proud" of it.


On one level, I wasn`t
surprised. I knew the head of our

American History
department at Oklahoma State
University-OKC, and I recognized his hackneyed liberal
jargon in Rachel`s words. She had taken one of his
courses, with predictable results.


Yet, I was still stunned.
Her words disturbed and offended me in a way that I
could not quite enunciate.


I could hardly
concentrate the rest of the day. I lay awake that night
thinking about what she had said.

“Rachel”, I
called her, said that she was ashamed of American
culture. She essentially denied that there was
any. On the other hand, she extolled me and American
Indian people for the

honorable culture of Indian Country
, and the fact
that it is still here.

I found this astounding, and deeply
disturbing. On the one hand,

I was proud to say
that it took the greatest culture
in the world to defeat the Indians. But, on the other
hand, if this young heiress of w:st="on">America
considered her own culture to be
“nothing”,
then what did that say of mine?

Central to my telling of this
modern tale of cultural clash was the quotation of

a Cheyenne saying
, a proverb, whose source by this
time I don`t even remember. It`s just a simple, obvious,
dramatic fact: “A nation is never defeated until the hearts of its women are on the
ground”

Rachel`s heart was on the ground.

My article continued:


"As I lay awake that
night, I thought of an old story by

Kay Boyle
, written in 1941, called


Defeat
. It`s about the French women in the
German-occupied w:st="on">village of Pontcharra.
All the French men were away at war. It was the 14th of
July, Bastille Day, when Frenchmen were usually proud to
be French. The village women, however, chose that day to
give in to the German men.


They did it innocently
enough. The women just wanted to wear their fancy
holiday dresses. They wanted to drink and dance. And the
Germans were the only men around with whom they could do
it.


So they gave in."

I propose that, with the recent
presidential selection in w:st="on">America, the
hearts of most white women are on the ground. That a
near-majority of white women—46% as opposed to

41% of white men
—ended up voting for a

dubious figure of impossible identity
, an alien
black African leftist, is something to take serious note
of. And I have no doubt

that girls like
“Rachel”
were the reason whites aged 18-30 did
vote solidly for Obama, the only white group to do so.

Now, authors like Buchanan,
Spencer, and Medved each respond to this matter of my
article in different contexts.

Buchanan saw Rachel`s attitude as
being the result of
antihistory
which was

“killing love of country”
.

Spencer sees it as an expression of
the anti-white racism that would debunk all Western (i.e.,
“white”) civilization altogether. This, Spencer says, is part of
what has prepared the way for the invasion of Islam in
the modern world. It is the essential self-abasement
when has nearly destroyed modern
Europe
`s resolve to preserve itself from
Islam.

Medved`s use of


What`s Up With White Women
?
is found in his
introduction. It is America-specific, and speaks
directly to the issue of w:st="on">America`s pride. Medved argues that
America
need not be ashamed.

Inevitably, the very first issue he
addresses is American Indian encounters. The first
“lie” he
wants to remove is the thought that America Indians were
pristinely abused and
America

is therefore forever branded as evil. Medved cites
“Rachel`s” lament as simply an example of the shame he wants to
remove. He disputes the cause of that shame. The
encounter with the American Indian was
not as outrageous as liberals would make it
. Medved
uses historical references and bases his moral arguments
on those. Specifically, the devastations of small-pox on
Indians, says Medved, cannot be

attributed
to any intent of the American government.


Ann Coulter
would certainly agree on that point.
When she did

the Bad Eagle Interview
with me (The
Great White Woman Speaks
, w:st="on">October 19, 2006),

she pointed out
that Pasteur`s
science of contagion
was not known until the late
nineteenth century, long after small-pox had done its
evil work on the Indian population.

And everyone knows,
Ann Coulter
`s heart is not on the ground!

But apparently authors like
Buchanan, Spencer, and Medved fear that the hearts of

many white women are
. My article strikes deep, like
an arrow piercing the heart. The men of no

race or ethnicity
want to see their women falling at
the feet of foreigners.

I concluded


"It gives me no solace to
see the white man self-destruct. If Rachel`s people are
`nothing,` what does that say about mine?


I believe in my

Comanche people.
I know that someday we`ll stand as
equals before the white man, strong, prosperous and
self-sufficient. But

we won`t get there
by listening to empty praise from
guilty white women. We`ll get there by studying the
white man`s ways and learning to be strong as he is."

Of course, this does
require

white men
to be strong.

Dr. David A. Yeagley [email
him
]

is an enrolled member of the Comanche
Nation (Lawton, Oklahoma). His articles have appeared in


TheAmericanEnterprise.com
,


FrontPageMagazine.com
,


VDARE.com
, and on his own web site,

BadEagle.com. He
is a speaker for the


Young America`s Foundation
, and for the


John Birch Society
. David Yeagley`s columns for
VDARE.COM include


An American Indian View of Immigration
, and

To
Deport or not to Deport
.
David Yeagley

is the author of 
Bad
Eagle: The Rantings of a Conservative Comanche
and


Altered States: The State of the Dead and the State of
the Holy
. Dr. Yeagley has

contributed
to
Persian
Heritage Magazine
and served its editorial board
since 1998. Recently,

Dr. Yeagley
was


commissioned by the Oklahoma Historical Society
to
write


a symphonic music score
for the 1920 silent movie,
“Daughter of Dawn”. Release date is projected in 2009.