David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
[UPDATE: Washington Times Interview No.7, July 13, 2012: "A man and his tribe: On David Yeagley and the Comanche people."]
The Kennewick Man was hailed by white scientists as evidence that white people were here on the North American continent before American Indians. And now white scientists are further questioning the American Indian’s claim to being the first inhabitants. University of Oregon archaeologist Dennis Jenkins recently found a a couple of “arrow head” stones and claims they were made by a different method than American Indian arrow heads were. It seems that white scientists, liberal as they are, want to remove the Indian from his place. This is then an academic genocide of Indians. “Indian deniers” we’ll call them.
Dr. David Yeagley, at Pennsylvania State
University, in 2002, speaking of the NCAA
mascot removal campaign as “Indian Removal II.”
Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 would be Removal I. I labeled the NCAA anti-mascot movement as Indian Removal II. With this white scientist impetus to erase Indian honor, we have Indian Removal III.
It is interesting how consistently racist white liberals are, in any professional field. It was white scientists Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey was excited to claim that Negroes were the origin of the human race. Everyone was basically black. This was a glorious claim to make, in 1977, at the height of ‘black pride.’ Their book was published as Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (Simon & Schuster, 1981). That was the culmination of work begun in by other scientists, published as early as 1974 (e.g., Robert Ardrey, African Genesis.)
All of that is okay. That was uplifting the poor Negro, denigrating the rich ‘white father,’ and doing everything ‘Christian’ in the abstract. That was all pure liberalism, topped off with the ultimate feminist title, “Humankind,” as opposed to the simple, traditional English term, “mankind.”
But what is this anti-Indian sentiment? Why would white liberals want to destroy the Indian?
Hard to say, on the surface. George Soros, who has funded all manner of ethnic minority rebellion against targeted regimes, has never really touched the American Indian.
One thing we may understand as fundamental: motivation. The concern over motivation is primary, and trumps even political expression of the same.
Scottish philosopher John Macmurray wrote,
“Any enguiry must have a motive or it could not be carried on at all, and all motives belong to our emotional life.” Moreover, if the enquiry is to be satisfactorily carried through, the emotion which provides the motive must be an adequate one.”
See, John Macmurray, Reason and Emotion (London: Faber & Faber, 1935), p.13.
What then are the motives of scientists? Can we not ask such a question? Are they not human? Are they not subject to an array of motives?
When I first went to Oberlin College, I thought that truth was the object of all enquiry. By the time I was finished with Yale, I look at the Sterling Library and declared it a lusus naturae of mean greed. Knowledge was not free, nor was its pursuit. There were too many exterior influences, extra-curricular constrictions, like patrons, corporations, politicians, and of course, publishers–the ones who hire the scientists. There were any number of reasons “enquiries” were made. Publication seems primary, but, behind that, there are the social architects of society, the real shapers. The money people.
Long ago I was convinced that science was not a sincere pursuit of anything in particular, but simply free enterprise. Scientists are wholly dependent on grants, funding, support, etc. That which they pursue is the choice of those who fund them.
But, not to be cynical, I think rather it is rational simply to recognize and acknowledge that there are no un-financed truths in the academic world. The university is a market. The campus is a sales pitch. A library represents the products of the ever-accumulating business. Any other notion is based on youth imagination, naïveté, or progagandic pretense.
Sometimes, it’s just fun to overturn some long established “textus receptus” of the world. It is wondrously self-aggrandizing to even claim that reality is not as the world has understood it. What could excite the soul of a “scientist” more than to have at least imagined evidence that his profound discovery is true?
So let the scientists indulge their professional privilege. There’s is no more a reality than a politicians, really.
But, that slam against Indian originality, that claim that Indians are not the first inhabitants, that’s downright nasty.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Ellendra // Jul 14, 2012 at 10:23 am
There are a few scientists who research simply for the joy of discovery, whose primary motive is simple curiousity about the world around them. But they’re getting to be fewer as grants and huge “foundations” have taken over. I’m of the opinion that grants poison science, because of the way they influence results. In order to ensure a continued supply of grant money, the research must show that (fill in the blank) is a crisis.
I’d rather work 2 jobs to fund my own research, even knowing it will most likely never be known outside my own house, than have some prestigious position with somebody else’s pocketbook dictating my results. I just like figuring things out, it’s as simple as that. I don’t know if there are other scientists out there who feel the same. I hope there are.
2 Bonus Gift // Jul 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Bruce Charlton (at http://charltonteaching.blogspot.fi/) has a theory (actually it is more a tautology based on known history and some mild inference) that essentially states (actually a paraphrasing): That more recently (especially in the last few decades and accelerating more recently) true creative geniuses are actively weeded out of society (thus began around 1850 but has accelerated). That is, of the very small percentage of people for whom a significant breakthrough is possible (whether it be scientific, cultural, etc.) have essentially been excluded from garnering resources or even procreating. Therefore, if true, it dovetails nicely (or actually horribly if you think about it) with Mr. Yeagley’s point about “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” In short, almost any scientific “breakthrough” should be viewed with suspicion these days (e.g., “God particles”, man caused “global warming”, etc.).
I may be a bit of a broken record on this point, but regardless, I think that as cultural Marxism has effectively controlled politics, academia, and the media and its contradictions have become almost too obvious to even simpletons, the degree of pushing “research” in directions that support cultural Marxist lies is increased (and the evil has increased with it, by definition), and the filtering out of things like real research becomes paramount. Slightly off topic, but the whole Barry Soetoro issue is a case in point. Do you really think a mainstream media personality would be allowed to do anything but ridicule someone questioning the eligibility of the usurper who resides in the White House (you “birther”, you “nativist”, Nazi scum, …)? By the same argument, any “researcher” funded by cultural Marxists and related funding organizations isn’t going to be permitted to publish “peer reviewed” research unless it meets with cultural Marxist goals or desires. FYI, I should know as I have published in peer reviewed journals in the past but can no longer stomach it ethically.
Which brings me back to Mr. Yeagley’s point (and note that even though I admit into accepting the Kennewick man type findings and results), in that I agree with him in that I would be very, very skeptical of “research” finding something that was funded by the powers that be today. Also, it is a bit odd that Soros type cultural Marxists seem to have it in for American Indian tribes yet seem to love all other non-white groups. I suspect it might be guilt related as the intent is to wipe out the America that was here until about 1970 give or take. Sure, you need to wipe out the white Americans, but then what about those savages? My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that by wiping American Indian tribes off the historical record you can feel better about yourself and essentially killing off the country. By wiping both whitey and Geronimo from having any claim on the country you can feel good about displacing and killing their offspring. Evil seems to know no bounds these days.
Finally, and for what’s it worth, I’m with Ellendra on grants being poison to real scientific curriousity (which accroding to Bruce Charleton does indeed exist in the hearts of those who make true breakthroughs).
3 Sioux // Jul 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I hadn’t heard about this controversy, just that the Umatilla tribe on the Olympic Peninsula wanted the skeletal remains returned to the tribe. Just don’t trust any of these “findings” any more than believe Jesus was or would have been a Muslim according some religion professor. Found this summary on the Net – what do you think of these conclusions, Dr. Y?
——–
The political battles over the Kennewick man were framed in a large part by people who want to know to what “race” he belongs. Yet, the evidence reflected in the Kennewick materials is further proof that race is not what we think it is. The Kennewick man, and most of the Paleo-Indian and archaic human skeletal materials that we’ve found to date are not “Indian,” nor are they “European.” They don’t fit into ANY category that we define as a “race.” Those terms are meaningless in prehistory as long ago as 9,000 years–and in fact, if you want to know the truth, there are NO clearcut scientific definitions of “race.”
4 David Yeagley // Jul 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm
The idea that American Indians are actually a European mix (with Mongolian, perhaps) is not a new idea. In the 19th century they thought the Mandan Indians were Welshmen.
Definitions of “race” do effect who certain peoples are identified. I think historical wars define people, too. Or, at least they are a factor in establishing identities…
5 David Yeagley // Jul 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm
[UPDATE: Washington Times Interview No.7, July 13, 2012: "A man and his tribe: On David Yeagley and the Comanche people."]
6 Asaph // Jul 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm
After reading these articles I must conclude molecules in your brain must move at the speed of light. It has to be a constant whirlwind in your mind.
Most people excel at one or two things, sometimes three. But you, your need to create is gargantuan.
It’s astounding to me.
7 David Yeagley // Jul 15, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Well, I’ve never been married. I’ve never raised any children. Never really had a 9-5 job.
I’d better have something to show for all this “free” time, huh?
I’ve done the best I knew how. I can see deep fissures in the House, by now. (That is, the House of Usher.)
8 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2012 at 8:23 am
The final segment of the Washington Times interview, July 16, 2012:
What does it mean to be David Yeagley?
Interesting title. Not a question I ask myself. I simply live with it!
You must log in to post a comment.