Yeagley Loves to Play the Victim
David Yeagley and his white power blog go hand-in-hand with a demoralizing psychology of victimhood. Yes, victimhood. Yeagley seems to incessantly decry “I’m a victim” whenever someone disagrees with his baboonery, as if losing a battle of wits or word games makes him of lesser value as a person. Of course, he is of equivalent intrinsic value as anyone else despite his intellectually-challenged palaver. The difference between Yeagley and the rest of us is his victimhood, a victim-mentality that rears its ugly face in many forms, most notably in his ‘white power’ caterwauling (as if white folks need a leg up because Indians threaten their way of life).
Most of what Yeagley writes is nothing but variations on a theme: feigning the victim. Yeagley’s blog is a weakness factory for ‘white power,’ churning out linguistic blatherskite about the supposed superiority of one people over another. Yeagley reacts with false indignation whenever he feels his argument is derailed by commonsense and/or community, two realities that are incompatible with his utopian ‘white’ dream.
Meanwhile, American Indians suffer the real world indignities of hate crimes, racially-charged crimes often fermented by those who decry “I’m the victim here” as they destroy lives and property in pursuit of some imagined inequality. Yes, imagined. Indians pose no threat to any perceived ‘white’ existence, and there never was an old “time honored tradition” of white power as Yeagley mistakenly asserts, not today and not yesterday.
This “world-of-white” fabrication exists only in Yeagley’s imagination, and his weakness-induced rants surface in his decries of a special victimhood status. Yeagley is a “misunderstood” martyr you see, struggling against the “darkies,” and in league with those “darky” vermin, the “commies,” "Mexicans,” “homosexuals” and “Muslims.” He is the misunderstood savior who stands alone in the war against depravity and atheism. He is the misunderstood champion of ‘white power’ who Indians will someday recognize as the colossal Comanche savior, if we weren’t so blind and stupid.
Yeagley — the misunderstood victim — will rise up (by the bootstraps of his mighty intellect) to save us “for our own good” and despite our “sad condition.” In Yeagley’s world’o’white, we should be thanking him not chastising him, don’t you see?! He is the supreme victim, suffering alone the physiological persecution of his peers for “our own good,” simply from the kindness of his heart. “Woe is poor misunderstood me, as I suffer the criticism of liars!” discredits Yeagley.
Yes, Yeagley continually plays the victim card in his effort to whitewash American Indian life, rendering him largely ineffective, as well as rendering him unable to appreciate multivalent relationships like (1) responsibility to a larger community and (2) solidarity with others. It is a perpetual cycle of victimhood, ‘playing’ the victim which in turn makes Yeagley become victimized in real life, thereby feeding and sanctifying the initial victim delusion. Yeagley’s world’o’white dream is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy, a cyclic turnstyle of victimhood. Perhaps Yeagley should apprentice with Wilma Mankiller.
Wilma Mankiller could show Yeagley a thing or two about community and responsibility. Unlike Yeagley, Mankiller works to promote Native values and lifeways. If the Dalai Lama were to visit Wilma Mankiller, I’m sure the two would get along famously. Why? There is a certain level of ‘life respect’ that both seem to exhibit toward others, no matter what race or condition. This respect for a larger community and acceptance of others who seem different, is something that Yeagley lacks. Let’s look at one of his recent blog exchanges to illustrate this point; below, Yeagley feigns anger about the Dalai Lama’s easy acceptance by an American Indian community, and criticizes Indians for being so “naive,” as he puts it (6-22-07):
David Yeagley — “Is that the Dalai Lama there, AJ? Shees. Every clown in the world wants to put their two cents in the arena... Indians are so naive some times... What presumption! What arrogance... Indians don't need the condescension of anyone... Indians bow to no man... I'm against all this hand-holding, this "shared values" of multiculturalism. It incites me to madness!”
Ajibik — “He was invited by the community at Fort Hall after Willow lost her husband and son in a vehicle accident. More of us love the Dali Lama... Here is the article:
‘HAILEY, Idaho September 20, 2005 (AP) — Willow Jack, a dancer from Idaho's Lemhi Shoshone Indian tribe, lost her husband and 4-year-old daughter in an Aug. 12 car crash on a southern Montana highway. One month later, the Fort Hall woman was in a resort town south of Sun Valley, where she met the Dalai Lama at a ceremony attended by some 5,000 Idaho children and their families. Though they practice different faiths, Jack, 24, said meeting the 70-year-old holy man to 20 million Tibetan Buddhists and having him bless her surviving son, Nakeezaka Jack, 6, helped ease her sadness... ''I think we ended up in the right place,'' Jack said from her wheelchair. ''He [the Dalai Lama] put his arms around me and hugged me and said, 'Everything is going to be OK from now on'.'' ...''Holy men, regardless of where they come from, are respected by Indians because we share the same spiritual depth,'' Jack said.’
However, according to your blogs, its important to hear what all these white experts have to say about Indians! I think I see why you are drawing heat lately.”
Respects Nothing — [countering Yeagley’s Columbus Day ranting] “Columbus Day is about honoring a foreigner who has absolutely nothing to do with the making of the United States. Why can't you comprehend that! ??? You get all offended because the Dalai Lama comes over here and brings his blessing and blesses people, but you're not offended by honoring some ‘foreigner’ who has nothing to do with our country? Why aren't complaining about being blessed when some white person says "God Bless you" in kind? ...I for one would be honored and be respectful if I were to ever be in the presence of the Dalai Lama. If it's about culture than respect is at the core of an American Indian culture and your position shows a lack of it.”
David Yeagley — “I still don't get it. Why cater to a complete foreigner, with a complete, antithetical, foreign "religion"? Why act like he has anything at all to offer? ...I see the Mexican Chicken at Red Earth and the Dalai Lama at an Indian funeral as very much the same thing... Brahmans have come to America before and put on their show... This just rubs a real sore spot in me, this Indian naivete toward the affection of foreigners... These foreigners have only one thing in mind: to denigrate America. Christian America. White America. White Christian America is the only 'group' or 'religion' over here that ever face the Indian head on. These other people are manipulaters [sic!]. Glory riders. Opportunists. At least white people spilled their own blood against us. They are worthy. These others are worthless, to me... Man! I can't stand this! It's all about foreigners trying to show they're better than white American Christians, and showing it in the most insulting, denigrating, and dissembling (false) ways.”
Respects Nothing — “IMHO some things are better than your precious white america. Your white americans don't care anymore about Indians than the very people you claim don't care either, cause if they did than all those treaties you talk about would still be honored. Custer didn't die with Comanches, he died at the hands of the Cheyenne, Sioux and other tribes mixed in. Give credit where credit is due don't lump us all into one red victory package, that's a liberal mind set according to you. ???”
David Yeagley — “What blessings? ...A homesless [sic!] alcoholic can wish well on people. What's the difference? What's special about the Dalai Lama?”
Yeagley, as we see above, absolutely refuses to accept that the Dalai Lama could be, might be — and probably is — helpful and benevolent for American Indians, preferring to attack and belittle the impressive monk instead. Yeagley exudes a fundamental weakness here, that Indians are too stupid not to see through the Lama’s ruse, and recognize the ‘covert’ and ‘sinister’ intent of the Lama’s visit. Yeagley, here, declares that American Indians are stupid, and in great need of Yeagley’s ‘insights’ to guide and direct us.
Of course, it is Yeagley that is playing the victim card himself — Yeagley is the one victimized by the Dalai Lama’s presence, and is angered at the ease by which other Indians can accept the Monk’s generosity and kindness. Yeagley uses victimization like a crutch, and slams others with it on his blog, such as Blacks and women. Perhaps Yeagley should apprentice with Wilma Mankiller, former chief of the Cherokee Nation. When Wilma visited Dartmouth recently, she was there on a mission of peace.
“Mankiller, now 50 years old, came to Dartmouth as its 1996 Montgomery Fellow after leading the 156,000-member Cherokee tribe for 12 years as its first female chief. During her time as its leader, she gained national recognition not only for her work championing the rights of Native Americans and Native American children, but for her efforts to aid women and minorities in general. She has talked personally with three presidents, was Ms. magazine's Woman of the Year in 1987, and was recently named one of ‘50 Great Americans’ by the Marquis publication, Who's Who... ‘I hope to be able to eliminate negative stereotypes (New Englanders) have about Native American people,’ she said. ‘Because there is such a lack of accurate information about Native American people the vacuum gets filled with nonsensical stereotypes. By my being here, I can help talk about our contemporary life and our contemporary issues, and put it into some kind of historical context as well’.” (Kent Fischer, 6-16-07)
Although I doubt Yeagley would recognize the supreme value in studying with a learned and experienced Native scholar like Wilma Mankiller. Look at his martyred response to Mankiller; according to Yeagley, women like Wilma Mankiller were “excluding men” as a plot born of “envy” and “revenge.” Yeagley’s argument here is that men are victims of the Wilma Mankillers of the world, and he relies heavily on the victim metaphor in his response to Mankiller’s positive message for women:
David Yeagley — “American Indian women are beating the drum... The Mankillers are pounding away at pow-wows... Why do these women want to do what men do? Why would they want to presume to annex the last vestiges of manhood from their ancient traditions? ...Indian women's drum groups have given rise to all-Indian women pow-wows. So what is the victory there? ...The exlusion [sic!] of men... It is envy... it's all about revenge. 'You have something I don't. Therefore, I'm taking it. It was never mine, but, I want it” (10-5-05).
But if Yeagley did study with Wilma, he would be a better man for the encounter. The largest lesson he could learn is best summed up in the word “tolerance.” If Yeagley learned that one concept alone from a great woman like Wilma, it would be the transformation of the Century. If he took that concept ‘to heart,’ Yeagley might even become a gentleman. One could only hope.