January 28, 2007


DAVID YEAGLEY — “there were plenty of cosmetic and hair products to make black women look lighter ... the world is not against black people. Black people just react naturally in an environment in which they feel inferior... there is still a very strong impulse to look ‘whiter’ ... So, it shall ever be so... One must accept the world as it is, and accept one's place in it... There should be no anger or resentment for the evolutions of nature. Nor should one rebel against one's place... America is a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant establishment... you can't blame white people for your being black. They had nothing to do with it”
(DY, May 19, 2005)

Try as he might, David Yeagley is having a difficult time understanding the basic way life works. Where he sees slander and inequity, the rest of us see truth telling and cause-and-effect. From his own numerous admissions, it is painfully clear that he does not know what being an Indian is really about; so, why would any reasonable person trust anything else he says about Race, Women, Indians, Minorities, Blacks, Muslims, Iranians, Politics, Patriotism, or Serbs? The answer is, of course, no reasonable person would trust any of it.

So what are the TWO THOUGHTS about? Well, identity and responsibility, frankly. Though Yeagley would probably say “blood,” and “time honored” something-or-other. It is in this arena of identity and responsibility where Yeagley does not seem to behave reasonably, acting what most would see as anti-Indian. Why he behaves this way, no can know but Yeagley. We cannot know his motivations, except that they seem rather unhealthy for their lack of community conscience.
DAVID YEAGLEY — “This is language abuse. This is word robbery. This is making a word mean something it doesn't mean. This is dictating to me what my own words mean. This is tyranny” (DY, Jan. 29, 2007)

What we do know, as evidenced by his own writings, is his dedicated disdain for anything other than pure white bloodlines and a monotone fascination with labels and word games that bear little meaning in the world of reality. It is his arrogance born of ignorance; for example, Yeagley falsely reasons that the poverty of Indians must be somehow similar to that of non-Indians, and therefore the solutions must also be similar — ignorant of the Indian reality, thereby ignorant of genuine understanding — but insistent upon his own unreasoned certainty as the gospel truth. He even sees a conspiracy to 'control' HIS speech (which, in reality, is nothing more than simple cause-and-effect), painting himself as a victim of language misuse when he's the one victimizing himself with it all. Circular logic at its best.

In other words, Yeagley doesn't truly know his Indian identity (except what he has gleaned from non-Indians), but thinks it's probably the same as being white, so he concludes being white is a better way to approach Indianness ... if you can follow that odd twist. And, he's certain he's absolutely correct in assuming it. So, for Yeagley, Indians suffering from poverty are not "true" victims of historical genocide nor institutionalized racism today, but simply "lazy" and "woeful" creatures who have squandered the status afforded their white privilege. Get it? There's no such thing as the "Indian Holocaust," Yeagley argues, only Indian whiners who don't rise up to accept the inherent superiority of being white.

DAVID YEAGLEY — “The people that are not accusing me the most fraudulently, are people who have given the very least information about their own Indianness. They haven't given family names. Therefore, they are not to be trusted. Sorry, but that's how it works” (DY, Dec. 13, 2006).

To the reasoned thinker, Yeagley appears ignorant, arrogant, sorely out-of-touch, and still he wonders why so many Indians question his identity while others lack even the slightest curiousity toward proving our own Indianness. He simply doesn’t get it. Why is he continually questioned on his identity, when his detractors feel no need to prove anything? The query has stuck itself under his craw, and shows no sign of going away, largely because of cause-and-effect. This is why sound reasoning illustrates the ability to put two and two together, to put two thoughts together in a coherent manner, namely, identity and responsibility.

Where Yeagley seems to relish the seeming inequity in this situation, wearing it as a “waffling warrior’s” badge of “blood,” most of us can easily see the reality of it — the cause-and-effect reality. Most Indians do not have to prove blood because that “papered proof” is not all that important in-the-end, so long as one respects and empowers the Indian communities in thought and deed. Yeagley does not do this however, and is thereby highly suspect as being non-Indian himself. Yet, he does not seem to understand the issue in these simple cause-and-effect terms, to him it is downright inequitable.
DAVID YEAGLEY — “Brent ... has never mentioned family lineage in any way. No one knows his kin. (Does he?) He says he is Mohican, but also says he is Stockbridge-Munsee. He never speaks or writes of either people or his relations with them”
(DY, Oct. 12, 2006).

DAVID YEAGLEY — “Know what I think? I think I'm trying to be a father to Rudy. He's on a wrong course, and I must straighten him out. I simply must! ... That is critical... I think I'm trying to counsel the young man with a stern hand. I think it's necessary”
(DY, Dec. 31, 2006).

Notwithstanding the fact that Mohicans and Stockbridge-Munsee are the same people, how come no one clamors for proof of my identity, when nearly every Indian Yeagley encounters questions his? How come no one cares whether Rudy Youngblood is Indian or not, when to Yeagley it seems downright criminal? Such blasphemy, decries Yeagley! It is not fair.

Of course, it is not blasphemy, not even notorious. The truth is, the issue is rather unimportant in the real world where the rest of us Indians live and work. Yeagley’s own plight, the martyrdom he wears on his sleeve and spits out on his web page, is the result of simple cause-and-effect, nothing more. It is no grand scheme of liberals to treat him inequitably (we don’t concern ourselves with him that much), nor the “liberal media” (which, in reality, amounts to only 10% of all the media). No, he behaves as if he were non-Indian, and consequently gets identified as such, plain and simple. No scheme, no plot, no conspiracy. Just smart people who can easily see the truth of the situation.

A case in point. First, Yeagley says something like this:
“People that think all darkies of the Western Hemisphere are all the same, and it doesn't matter whether you distinguish or not, are RACISTS” (DY, Jan. 5, 2007).
But Yeagley fails to recognize that he has created and sustained the very category he claims to despise with his phraseology “darkies.” Yeagley, himself, identifies “darkies” and then claims that people who see benefit in grouping together the “darkies” of the world are racist. However, Yeagley constantly denigrates them as one dark-colored group (see first quote above). Using his own rationale, Yeagley himself is racist though he inconsistently claims otherwise. He has not put two-and-two together.

A deeper point. David Yeagley behaves as if he has no Indian connections, and thus he is questioned on it constantly. He acts without conscience toward the Indian communities, even working against those communities and, as a result, is himself suspect by those communities. In stark contrast, my own identity is rarely questioned, largely because I am outspoken as an advocate for Indian people and communities — even regarded as “a troublemaker” sometimes — but always in support of Indians. Always.

Putting two thoughts together like identity and responsibility (such as following a cause to its logical effect), is the reason Yeagley’s Indianness is questioned, and equally why mine is not. There is nothing inequitable about this situation, each has earned or ‘caused’ what each receives, and in a real way the results are justified. Yeagley is earning his just rewards and that is exactly how things are supposed to work. The universe is okay, things are going the way they should. Yeagley is exactly where nature intends him to be, in a place of suspect identity and questioned purpose.

And from his earned place of suspect, anything he pontificates about should taken with a grain of salt. Until Yeagley gets himself straightened out, to the point we can actually see it in his behavior, it is wiser to employ healthy skepticism and continue questioning as a rule. As for advice directly to David, perhaps you should accept the world as it is, and accept your place in it, without anger or resentment; you can't blame Indians for your being a reject. They had nothing to do with it.


The_Editrix said...

This is from the "Mulatto"-article: "…the black people choses [sic!] by the media to ancor [sic!] are basically mullatos [sic!], mixed, and with a lip and nose make-over, look more white than black."

That's funny (ha ha, not peculiar) coming from a man who is dubbed "He Who Dances With Eyeliner" at indianz.com.

And this (which has escaped my attention so far) is just precious:

"Know what I think? I think I'm trying to be a father to Rudy. He's on a wrong course, and I must straighten him out. I simply must! ... That is critical... I think I'm trying to counsel the young man with a stern hand."

You bet the old queen does. Let's hope he has enough Kleenex ready!

Amerind said...


editrix, your post is priceless, but it made me spew coffee all over my keyboard.

"...trying to be an abusive father to Rudy..."

Yeagley left out the word "abusive", so I'll make the correction for him.

And along with the statement, "trying to counsel the young man with a stern hand", it is apparent what form the abuse would take.

Yeagley is not a sane man. He could be pitied, if he were not so hateful. But being crazy is no excuse for hatefulness...and lies.

Amerind said...

A recent post by Yeagley— “I see no special virtue in Rudy. I see a manipulating, manoeuvering liar, living in fantasy.

Hmmmm…..Yeagley is looking in the mirror again.