November 2, 2006

David Yeagley and the Prince of Dumbness
(an extended, but good, read)
By Brent Michael Davids, 11/2/06

From Mr. Yeagley we read constant bellowing about truth and about his squealing aversion to detestable lies. Yet, he upholds Dracula as a myth, a stereotype, and a cultural hero to justify his pro-genocide stance. It seems Mr. Yeagley is not limited to championing negative American Indian stereotypes to the inclusion of non-Indian ones too.

David Yeagley absolutely loves and adores “the truth” as he immediately posts the only existing comment to his own Dracula article, after realizing he has glorified a liar and needs to make sure we readers do not mistake him as a liar lover. But his so-called “definition” of truth must appear to the rest of us as a simplistic dualism, as if truth and lies are the flip side of some cosmic coin. His logic here is magnificently dumb (2006):

“the prince of darkness is the prince of deception. Darkness never appears as darkness, but always as something else” (David Yeagley, article)

“I personally believe in the truth... If there is such a thing as a lie, as we all know, I dare say, there is such a thing as the truth” (David Yeagley, comment)
Ironically, Mr. Yeagley's “comment” (above) feigns a love of truth while his “article” (continued below) clearly admires the deception of Dracula. The arresting lack of compassion in these words is both horrific and for Yeagley somewhat autobiographical in a stereotypical way, considering his recent calls for genocide against Muslims and his “talking point” gyrations against Iran:
"The foul, fetid beast feigns great intimacy, intense interest and care--especially for the weak. He senses weakness immediately, and hones in for the kill. So, what's so monstrous about that? Isn't that what we all do, in different ways? ... I'm not sure exactly what sort of pretense we're practicing if we do see him as so offensive... He is alone and loathed. He lives off other people. He must deceive them into his confidence. He must lure them into a relationship. And he then lives off their blood... He survives, just like we all want to. He triumphs, as we all dream of... Being human is monstrous” (David Yeagley, 2006)
Almost on cue, he launches from glorification of the impaler into is paint-by-number form of logic, the attack-advice (attacks cloaked as advice), a contextual game of “pile-on” to see how much more illness he can add to build up an even bigger pile. The pile-on game below includes attacking: Muslims, Arabs, the Clintons, immorality, Islam, and women. No evidence to support any of it, just slander, and rather lame with regard to the Clinton reference, who’s been out of office for 6 years now. Bush is to blame for 9/11, for removing the safeguards and intelligence the previous administration had already put into place. I suppose dumb is as dumb does:
"Ask the Muslims ... Which Arab setting next to you on the plane, with his lovely wife and children, is not a mass murderer? ... The vampirism of the Clintons tempted the dignity right out of politics. It's now a lazar house of moral zombies, or so it sounds, if you listen to commentators. (Bush rarely gets the kind of credit he deserves for staying above the fray, out of the mud. The day after 9-11, he called Islam "a religion of peace." Everyone knows that isn't true, but, Bush gave them, at least formally, the benefit of the doubt. A rare, kind moment in political history. Everyone knows, Islam is the religion of misery. Ask the feminists.)" (DY, 2006)
Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Yeagley’s mental “acuity” is not limited to recent history, because back in 2001 he wrote similarly of Dracula, even positing another fantastically incoherent theory that flies contrary to the known facts:
“I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists, in their determination never again to be so vulnerable... it was men like Dracula who saved us... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today? ... He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear... Where is Dracula when you need him? Pacifists of the Christian Left, be warned. Had your ancestors thought like you, you would have no freedom to practice Christianity today” (DY, Oct 15, 2001)
So let me get Mr. Yeagley’s “theory” straight: (1) those who are victimized by genocide become genocidal themselves, which (2) is something America needs more of today, because (3) that same aggressive genocide fosters true freedom and compassionate Christianity?

On point 1, Mr. Yeagley is clearly NOT thinking like an American Indian, which I will explain shortly. On point 2, he is clearly part of the lunatic fringe trying to overthrow America’s constitution and is therefore completely un-American and 100% unpatriotic. And on point 3, Mr. Yeagley appears naive to the simple cause-and-effect reality of life, namely, that “what goes around comes around,” or what a Christian might know as simply “the golden rule.” Mr. Yeagley’s so-called Christian compassion is about as loving as Rush Limbaugh’s vicious attack on Parkinson sufferer Michael J. Fox. The pumpkin head logic of Mr. Yeagley’s “theory” staggers the mind.

Back to point one, Mr. Yeagley is no where near to thinking like an American Indian. To better understand how far, far away he is from Native thought, let me recount an old Mohican story of the snow beast or cannibal giant; it is an interesting story because (1) it teaches what 'good' and 'bad' are to Native people, (2) it shows how Indians dealt with the colonials who first came to this continent, and (3) it reveals how Indians look at the world and how they see non-Indians.

There are many versions of this story, or many stories that are similar to this one; they are sometimes called the 'big foot' stories or the sasquatch stories, but are really nearer to a whole genre of cannibal giant stories from the Northeast Woodlands tribes. Here’s the basic story:
Once there was a family, a father, mother and child, living in a wikkum [wigwam: home]. It was very very cold. They would burn wood inside to keep warm, but they thought they might run out of wood. It was so bitter cold, that the fire they tried desperately to keep going was only hot enough to keep the inside warm; the cold was working its way further & further into their home. Fearing the harshness of the cold, the husband decided to go out and try to find more wood to burn; this was not an easy task because their was more than the cold to be concerned out. There were the cannibal giants.

The Snow Beasts were huge giants who were fierce and their voices would make the mountain rumble. As they walked, trees would tremble and their skin was hard as stone; no arrows nor weapons could hurt the giant. Their heads were proportionately larger than their bodies. The beasts could not communicate, even with each other, and would eat people. They were cannibal giants and lived in the cold as their hearts were made of ice. The snow beasts could change form to look like people, quite often like someone familiar, like a relative, a mother, brother, or an uncle. The only way to recognize the snow beast was through its behavior; if it behaved like a non-relative, it was really the beast.

As the husband was getting ready to go out into the cold, they heard some noises from outside. They knew it was a snow beast; they had heard the stories of how a beast was going from village to village eating people. The snow beast was outside their home! The beast did not like the heat coming from their home, so it could not come too close. But the beast was coming nearer and nearer, and their fire was getting cooler and cooler. They all knew that soon, the beast would be at their door and would come inside and eat them.

Then, just as the beast was ready to push its way into the wikkum, the woman got an idea and spoke up — loudly — so the beast could hear, "Look husband, your long lost brother has come to visit us!" With that, the beast was momentarily startled and wondered about what the woman had said. In that moment, the husband joined in, "Brother, it is so good to see you again! Where have you been? Please, come in and tell us everything!" So, the beast was even more startled and its head grew a tiny bit smaller.

As the husband questioned the beast about all the things they had missed as youngsters together, the woman invited the beast to eat. But the beast could not eat what she offered because it could only eat people. The woman offered it a cloak to be warmer and the beast, now quieter, listened to all the detailed stories of adventures that the beast had missed while away. "You are welcome to live with us here, my brother" the man offered. Listening to him, the beast grew a little smaller and calmer.

Eventually, the beast decided to accept the woman's offer to eat, and he went over to the kettle of soup cooking over the flame. In a quick moment, the beast grabbed the hot kettle and poured scalding soup into its throat as it swallowed the soup all at once! With that, the beast's cold heart was melted and it grew smaller and smaller; its face grew smaller and became more like a person's face and it became as a man is.
Looking at this indigenous story, five observations jump out:

1. The beast lived in a cold harsh place. The beast makes everything else around it 'cold and harsh, or that it thrives in cold and harsh environments. This "coldness" is a bitter and unhappy situation.

2. The beast could resemble a human but it consumed people instead. First, people are known by their actions not their appearances. The snow beast was historically a way for Mohicans to deal with the newly arriving light-skinned settlers. If the settlers acted as a “relative” might act, they were commonly accepted as friends; if they acted as monsters and consumed people (or land) than they were seen as cannibal giants. In this way, I think there is a Mohican “theory of otherness” at work that includes non-Indians right along side the Mohicans themselves, and stands in direct contradiction to those “eat or be eaten” non-Indian perspectives. Second, even your own family member, your father or uncle for instance, could become a snow beast discerned by anti-person behaviors.

3. The beast did not know how to communicate. The traditional Mohican world is based on a life-and-death reciprocity, an all important kinship among a world of relatives. In other words, to be 'bad' is to behave as a non-relative or a non-person; while to be 'good' is to act as a relative or a person who is related. It is clear from this story that even humans can be considered as non-people or anti-people if they behave as non-relatives (like monsters).

4. The beast was welcomed into the family as a relative. This aspect of the story was a pro-active plan chosen by the family to deal with the beast. The family did not try to kill the beast, but cautiously accepted the beast into their midst. They did not let it eat them, but they did try to get the beast involved in their family life.

5. The beast melted its own icy heart to become human. Anti-people can become 'good' by way of their own decision. Where they can be supported by family and friends, it is they, themselves, that must undertake the actual task of transformation.

The above story reveals how Indians ourselves look at how thickheaded anti-people consume everyone around them like an illness, and this illness is not something revered, nor desirable, nor idolized, nor admired, nor acceptable within Indian communities. Even further, American Indians do not inflict genocide on others for having it inflicted upon us.

Based on the above story, read again the Yeagley “theory” and one can easily see that nowhere does it even remotely resemble Indian philosophy.
"I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists, in their determination never again to be so vulnerable... it was men like Dracula who saved us... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today? ... He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear... Where is Dracula when you need him?” (DY, Oct 15, 2001)
In fact, one might even argue that Mr. Yeagley is perhaps theorizing in some autobiographical sense about his own prowess with his so-called “theory,” himself a thick-skinned hammerhead who drains the energy out of most people he meets. If Mr. Yeagley was a legitimate citizen of the Comanche Nation, one might speculate on kinship-based approaches the tribe might take to heal Mr. Yeagley. But I highly doubt Mr. Yeagley’s claims of tribal heritage, based on the available evidence and upon his obvious non-Indian rationalizations, which largely serve his own selfish interests. No, I simply do not buy into Mr. Yeagley’s charade.

No comments: