Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

Rob's reply
So David Yeagley is exploiting Terri Schiavo to bash liberals who have bashed President Bush for exploiting Terri Schiavo. No surprise there.

>> He complains that President Bush lavished attention on Terri Schiavo, but paid none to the tragedy of Red Lake. <<

"He" presumably refers to Clyde Bellecourt, whom Yeagley identifies only in the second paragraph. Yeagley might want to get an editor or learn how to write.

>> Clyde Bellecourt thinks Indians deserve more pity than the dying woman (and possible murder victim), Terri Schiavo. <<

How stupid can Yeagley get? Pretty damn stupid, apparently.

For starters, condolences aren't pity. More important, the issue is how Bush reacted to the deaths of ten Indians vs. the politicized case of one dying woman. Yeagley is aware that ten people died at Red Lake, isn't he?

Let's turn Yeagley's statement around to see what we get. Bellecourt thinks ten murdered Indians deserve more "pity" than one woman dying of natural causes. Bush and Yeagley think one woman dying of natural causes deserves more "pity" than ten murdered Indians. Judge for yourself who holds the moral high ground.

And "possible murder victim"? Is Yeagley that ignorant about end-of-life issues? Probably. But he needn't worry in this case, because no one is committing murder. No one will be charged with murder, even when Terri Schiavo dies.

>> "Across the country" is a stretch and creates a false impression of Indian people. <<

Wrong. It creates an incomplete impression, since Connolly didn't survey all or most Indians. The impression isn't "false" unless most Indians thought Bush responded properly to the Red Lake tragedy. Yeagley provides zero evidence for this reading of public opinion, so he's the only one creating unjustified impressions.

>> Connolly quotes but five people besides Bellecourt <<

Which makes six total. For a newspaper article, I'd say that's a typical sampling of people's opinions.

One of the opinions belonged to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who presumably knows something about what Indians think. Another belonged to the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, who also presumably knows something about what Indians think. Moreover, she cited "grumbling from tribal leaders," so the complaints aren't limited to these six people.

So look who's creating a false impression. Of the six people quoted, at least three were national Indian leaders. Who else knows more about what Indians across the country think than them? Yeagley?

I take it back. This isn't just a typical sampling of opinion, it's an atypical, above-average sampling. On a tight newspaper deadline, opinion sampling doesn't get much better than this.

>> This is the mulatto group never recognized by the United States federal government as an Indian "tribe." <<

"Mulatto group"? Wow. Yeagley might want to keep his racism better hidden in the future. He's letting it slip here.

>> Wilkins is as likely Indian as Ward Churchill, and his concerns are just as fabricated and academic, politically and professionally. <<

"As likely"? In other words, Yeagley doesn't have a clue. He's engaging in an ad hominem attack on one of six people quoted in Connolly's article in a pathetic attempt to discredit them all.

But if Wilkins weren't an Indian...so what? Non-Indians as well as Indians have been outraged by Bush's hypocritical actions in the Schiavo case. This is just the latest example of his preference for manufactured tragedies over real tragedies.

>> It is prejudicial stereotyping to presume everyone working for Indians is an Indian. <<

If this is a reference to Wilkins, Connolly wrote that he's a member of the Lumbee tribe. Wilkins identifies himself as a Lumbee—i.e., an Indian. Who is Yeagley to say different?

Yeagley not only tries to denigrate the opinions of Campbell, Bellecourt, and the rest, he's questioned their very Indianness. Look at the article title, with "Indians" in quotes. As Yeagley has implied before, anyone who disagrees with him isn't a man, a warrior, or an Indian. His arrogance is nothing short of astonishing.

>> However, there's no denying that Indians everywhere have expressed mourning and regret over the Red Lake shooting. <<

Except for Yeagley, that is. He reports other people's regret but expresses none himself.

Yeagley blames parents for children's deaths
>> I look at the lines of cars making their way to the funerals of the victims; I see the crowds gathered in mourning, and I ask, "Where were you when the Indian young people needed you? Where was your devotion when the youth were desperate for your attention?" <<

Where was Yeagley when Red Lake's youth needed him? Cloistered in his ivory tower whining about liberals, presumably.

So Yeagley is blaming the people of Red Lake for failing their children. Incredible. I'd love to see this phony "warrior" walk up to the parents of the victims and say, "Where were you when the Indian young people needed you?" One hopes someone would spit on him, slap him, or punch him in the face.

>> The pathetic, writhing appeal to national media and the president is the egregious pretense of professional leftists <<

Uh, Sen. Campbell is a Republican, doofus, not a "professional leftist."

>> We have become the lowest of the low, the prince of spiritual paupers. <<

In Yeagley's case, that's undoubtedly true. I've never heard him utter a genuine spiritual belief in his right-wing rants.

>> While the leftists are trying to find a way to blame whites, some Indians blame Indian country itself. <<

Yes...Indians such as Yeagley. You read his complaints directly above. When apportioning blame, the first and only people he attacked were the Indian parents, leaders, and elders of Red Lake.

>> Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. says the tragedy stems from "the loss of tribal culture." David Anderson (Ojibwe) says "hopelessness and despair on reservations are to blame for poor student achievement," and avers, "schools, parents and tribes need to work together to instill a sense of success among Native youth." <<

These are examples of blaming the conditions in Indian Country, not blaming Indian Country itself. If you asked Shirley and Anderson who was responsible for these conditions, I'm sure they wouldn't blame Indians alone. They might not blame Indians at all.

>> But how can tribal culture be preserved when low-end pop culture, such as rap and hip-hop, gangs, drug dealers, and casino swindlers are either ignored or praised by so-called Indian leaders and invited onto the reservation? <<

I'm not aware of any tribe that's ignoring or praising problems such as gangs, drug dealers, or casino swindlers. Yeagley undoubtedly isn't either, or he'd cite actual cases.

It's difficult to ignore rap and hip-hop since they pervade our culture. What would Yeagley suggest: that tribes impose repressive media controls like those in China or Saudi Arabia?

Many tribes have praised Indian gaming for the help it's provided in fighting gangs, drug dealers, and other social ills. A few tribes may have inadvertently ignored or praised "casino swindlers" in the 1980s or 1990s, when they first contemplated casinos. That's ancient history in the fast-changing environment of Indian gaming.

>> How can Indian leaders instill a sense of success among Native youth when the Bellecourt bellyachers preach discontent, broadcast juvenile resentment and anger, and set the example of perpetual immaturity? <<

Says Yeagley as he bellyaches, preaches discontent with tribal leaders such as Red Lake's, broadcasts his juvenile resentment and anger, and sets an example with his perpetual immaturity.

>> How can Indian parents expect to help our youth when parents are drunk, drugged, or otherwise absent from the home? <<

How does Yeagley expect to solve these problems? Who knows, since he doesn't offer any solutions amid his bellyaching?

Indian leaders like Bellecourt probably want to help Native youth by focusing attention and resources on their problems. Hence their criticism whenever Bush ignores these problems. That is, when Bush doesn't respond to a tragic shooting and when he cuts needed programs in his budget.

Whiner seeks warriors
>> It takes a warrior, a responsible person, to be a parent. There are few warriors left in Indian country. <<

If so, Yeagley isn't one of them.

Yeagley often seeks "warriors" in Indian country and fails to find them. Presumably that's because Indians tend to be liberals. And liberals, in Yeagley's mind, tend to be "girlie-men." In other words, wimps...pansies...homosexuals.

This alleged shortage of warriors implies the remaining Indians are lazy and good-for-nothing or greedy and corrupt. Either way, Yeagley is stereotyping Indians the same way sports teams stereotype them. Both parties agree: Indians are warriors or they're nothing.

Look at the accompanying pictures. You tell me which of these "warriors," if any, is a real Indian warrior.

>> All that we hear is the emasculated whining of the Bellecourt crowd <<

All I hear here is Yeagley's emasculated whining. He's gone on a lot longer about Bellecourt than Bellecourt did about Bush.

Boo hoo, Yeagley. Stop crying like a baby because Indian Country doesn't agree with you. Many tribal leaders think Bush should stop focusing on Iraq, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo and start focusing on the real problems in America. They want to help Indians while you're hurting them.

Related links
Indians as warriors
Yeagley the Indian apple

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .