[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.