October 30, 2006

The Hypocrisy of David Yeagley
by Brent Michael Davids, 10/30/06

“PFC Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian from Arizona, was the first female American soldier killed in Iraq, March, 2003. They named a mountain in Phoenix after her, “Piestewa Peak.” Her brother Adam said, “We honor the warriors who have throughout history laid down their lives for their fellow man and preserved the God given right to freedom.” (David Yeagley, 2005)
Regarding the quote above, it is notable for antiwar protesters to support our soldiers but considering the warmongering source above the renaming of “Squaw Peak” is hypocritical. I am personally glad they renamed the peak, it was denigrating to Indian people, regardless of my opinion or your opinion about the meaning or translation of squaw. To Arizona Indians that label is demeaning. Indians there have for years tried to change that peak’s name in protest. I am glad they did. But to hide behind the service of Lori Piestawa as his own personal warrior’s badge, is for Yeagley like hiding behind Lori’s skirt.

Mr. Yeagley, who never served, continually cries foul whenever he sees a racist Indian label changed by Indian activism, negative Indian mascots converted into non-Indian sports names. To him, this is unthinkable. So why is it, that Mr. Yeagley never challenged the name change of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak? Because he saw political advantage in looking as if he supports the name change as a way of maintaining his fabricated warrior image. He is not a football or baseball player, so he quickly sides with the anti-Indian factions. But his warrior image is special, and he cannot fathom criticizing the Squaw Peak issue, lest he belittle his own fantasy. To those who see it however, it is simple hypocrisy.

I would support Lori’s service, but I also know she died because some chicken hawks in power, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, gave no thought whatsoever to sacrificing her life in the selfish pursuit of oil and power by occupying Iraq, a country that never attacked us. Preemptive war is nothing less than premeditated murder. In his writings, we clearly see that Mr. Yeagley supports the murderer-in-chief by clamoring consistently for invading and occupying Iraq.

Take a look at these choice pieces of reasoning from Mr. Yeagley, and compare them to the reality. Mr. Yeagley follows the empty rhetoric of the right-wing “talking points” to a tee, marching in lockstep with all the other chicken hawks crying for war against a country that never attacked us. He reasons that — no questions asked — we must attack Iraq because of 9-11, even though it is factually known Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with attacking New York.

According to Mr. Yeagley’s rationale, America is justified in attacking and occupying Iraq, despite the known fact the 9-11 attack has never been thoroughly investigated, not even by the so-called 9/11 commission (a commission appointed by Bush, overseen by Bush’s buddy, with final editing by that same buddy before publication). One could choke on the stench of Mr. Yeagley’s hypocrisy:
“Our own commercial airplanes were used as missiles, crashing into our cities [alluding to 9-11]... President Bush responded ... ‘Make no mistake: the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for this cowardly act.’ What an utterly disappointing and vacuous remark! ... We want to hear "War!" ... We want war. We've been attacked! ... President Bush could not bring himself to utter the word ‘war.’ It would have been politically incorrect. It would have offended the Left, the feminists, the minorities [advice-attack: political, misogynist, racial]... The government leaders have forgotten what a warrior is and what a warrior does ... We're tired of words, hackneyed adjectives and effeminate dramatizations [advice-attack: semantic and misogynist] ... Well, let them hear it from a Comanche Indian [Yeagley does not represent Comanche values nor culture]. I declare war ... We need warriors! Not complainers [attack against war critics]” (DY, Sept. 2001)
Mr. Yeagley blindly follows the blind into war cries against a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks. He cries to march off into battle without any investigation and without knowing who to justifiably attack, and yet manages to use his standard modus operandi of attack-advice: impugning both women and minorities in the screaming process. Why is Mr. Yeagley a hypocrite? Because he ‘resents’ lies, although he champions them if carried out by leaders he favors, like John Wayne and George W. Bush:
“I for one resent lies. I remember what John Wayne said in the movie Cowboys, when some crooks tried to hire on as cowhands. ‘I hate liars’.” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“WAR was the only reasonable response” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“America could easily level Iraq, with just the right bomb or two... I for one am terribly grateful for such a man as President Bush... Bravo, Bush. You are one brave man” (David Yeagley, 2003)
Mr. Yeagley continues in blind faith that American leaders are moral and above reproach, despite the fact the White House and Rumsfeld are guilty of condoning and ordering gross and inhumane practices of torture that the rest of the world finds morally reprehensible:
“we are compassionate, we will liberate and restore Iraq, and we hope the world will see our superior approach to the whole matter... the character of America” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“That fact is, from day one, the way in which the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces have conducted this military effort make it demonstrably the most humane, considerate war in the history of mankind... the world will see what a great character America has as a country” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“America is about the only major civilization in history not to make a fundamental practice of torture” (David Yeagley, 2003)
It is clear to see, however, that Mr. Yeagley’s rather naive assessment of Bush’s Iraq policy is totally mistaken, and if looked at seriously would in itself be treasonous for White House complicity and for its clear and direct violations against the US constitution, such as the Downing Street Memo has revealed. On orders from Rumsfeld and other senior commanders, US soldiers are purposely torturing and murdering innocent civilians in Iraq, even falsifying evidence:

A Camp Pendleton Marine will plead guilty next week for his role in the killing of an Iraqi civilian last April, his attorney said Friday. Pfc. John J. Jodka, 20, of Encinitas, would be the first Marine to plead guilty in the case, in which six other Marines and one Navy corpsman were also charged with murder... Bacos said the squad took him to a roadside hole and shot him before planting a shovel and AK-47 to make it appear he was an insurgent planting a bomb.
This is yet another example of Mr. Yeagley’s treasonous murderer-in-chief, George W. Bush, who recently signed away the right of the accused to proclaim their innocence, or even talk to a lawyer about it before being tortured and disappeared. Bush’s new legislation for the war on terrorism is a bogus attempt to garner absolute control over America’s own population as would be afforded a monarch. Bush’s war on the US constitution is nothing short of treason, and Mr. Yeagley’s support of the current administration is 100% un-American:

It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court ... the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.”
However, no sooner did he champion American warmongering and war profiteering as moral “American” virtues, did Mr. Yeagley remained true to his usual attack-advice m.o. to slander people of color. Mr. Yeagley’s efforts are nothing but a game of contextual pile-on: to see how much added denigration can be piled onto the original slander to increase its rank stench:
“Perhaps, in the future, being an American black Muslim will provide the perfect "draft dodging" manoeuver. Such men are proving to be great risks to their environment... It's a bigger shame that black Muslim men are creating such a nasty image of black Muslims. Murderers they are...Beware, all.” (David Yeagley, 2003)
Just like his personal savior George W. Bush, Mr. Yeagley would never question the need to make war, nor think too much about which country to destroy and occupy. For Mr. Yeagley, however inconceivable this logic remains, he actually champions war as a means to achieve peace, as if this type of pseudo-peace could ever be lasting or genuine. Just as Bush calls incessantly for America to “STAY THE COURSE,” Mr. Yeagley advises us all to destroy and occupy other countries to end terrorism? The ill-logic of this notion is breathtaking in its recklessness. Then he adds another bit of attack-advice, slandering all Muslims as somehow anti-American. And to top it all off, he attacks the media for not reporting the so-called good news from Iraq, like if “one toilet flushes successfully,” conveniently forgetting or purposely ignoring the fact that America’s occupation of Iraq is and has always been an utter failure:
“War, real war, can end “terrorism’.” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“Everyone knows Islam represents the antithesis of American values” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“What we really need is more news about what is actually being accomplished in Iraq in the way of progress. We don't need daily reports of bombings. This is how the media turn everyone against Vietnam, and demoralized our troops there... I want to hear about it when one toilet flushes successfully... only enemies of truth will discount it as irrelevant” (David Yeagley, 2003)
What Mr. Yeagley would have readers ignore can be easily seen in this report below, that Iraq was physically better off before America destroyed and occupied it. Casualties are rising monthly, and Iraq residents are increasingly fleeing from their homes in ever greater numbers. Education is worse off than before the invasion, and the US has failed to oversee the war spending, allowing corporate warmongers and profiteers to loot the US treasury at the taxpayer’s expense:
GENEVA -- At least 914,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, more than a third since an increase in sectarian bloodshed at the start of this year, the U.N. refugee agency said Friday...1.5 million people are currently classed as internally displaced, though that includes 800,000 from before the 2003 invasion. Unlike casualty figures, which vary widely and have been the subject of much criticism from governments and non-governmental organizations working in Iraq, nobody has disputed the overall number of internally displaced...
BAGHDAD, 17 Oct 2006 (IRIN) - Mounir Zeid, 32, says he likes to remember the good old days before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, most people were employed and his income was enough to afford holidays abroad. Today, however, poverty has struck and he finds himself sharing one room with his four brothers. “We were having a good life in Iraq [before 2003] - good food, nice clothes and we enjoyed travelling - but everything went out with the occupation,” Zeid said.
BAGHDAD, 18 October (IRIN) - Thousands of students have been forced to stay at home due to escalating violence across the country. Attendance rates for the new school year, which started on 20 September, are a record low, according to the Ministry of Education.
(CBS) More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country's Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators... Iraq's former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects...
The point I am making here is that Mr. Yeagley, rather than appearing patriotic, actually appears anti-American by supporting the murderous behavior of the criminal-in-chief. Mr. Yeagley’s pseudo-arguments are mostly racial and misogynist attacks that are cloaked as advice, ‘attack-advice,’ that serve only to denigrate people of color and women. Mr. Yeagley appears to be following the standard ‘talking points’ coming from the right-wing warmongers and war profiteers, without any serious examination. His trumpeting for the US-led invasion into Iraq is clearly similar to his current diatribes against Iran and Muslims. The m.o. is identical. What Mr. Yeagley appears to say is contrary to what he appears to actually do. And what he does appears to directly coincide with those whom he wishes to please in order to keep his fake warrior facade alive. If he were consistent, he would be calling for the return of "Squaw Peak" but he has been found out.

October 28, 2006



by Brent Michael Davids, 10/28/06

Mr. Yeagley’s enthusiasm for doling out advice actually functions more like stereotype baiting. This baiting, dressed to resemble advice, actually deflects the original question into an offshoot consideration, which is largely designed to inflame and incite. It seems intentional because of the frequency of its use, each time working to deflect rather than answer the query at hand. His modus operandi seems to follow a familiar pattern if one examines it.

After responding to an attack that was disguised as advice, I noticed this pattern in Mr. Yeagley’s responses on blogs and his own forum. The truth of my own position was easily recognized by simply revealing the errors of the attack, already explained here. But it is this method of attack-advice — advice that functions as a deflecting attack — that is a striking feature of Mr. Yeagley’s writings.

Most likely, I will be attending next year’s Comanche Film Festival as a guest clinician at the invitation of the Comanche Nation College, and I have been approached by the City of Lawton as well. For corroboration, go here. Despite the facts, Mr. Yeagley insists that I was not inclined to come for some unexplained shame or unworthiness, perhaps couched in a personal warning by Mr. Yeagley. It is easy to see that this constitutes unsolicited advice, despite the undeniable fact I've been praised by the Comanche Nation College and the City of lawton. It is attack-advice, especially notice the “for him” tacked onto the end:

“Oh, yes, here's an item: The Comanche Nation College ... is having its third annual film festival ... Low and behold, they invited Brent Michael Davids ... Turns out, he had already declined the invitation. It is a good thing, for him.” (DY, Oct. 16, 2006)
It is noteworthy that anytime an important piece of information must be revealed, a fact about his past to corroborate his claims, that it is unfortunately too secret to share. Somehow, posits Mr. Yeagley, revealing the facts might hurt someone, or bring harm to the innocent. By declaring the information off limits to avoid potential harm or being “offended,” Mr. Yeagley justifies its secretive hiatus.
“I know a lot more than you think I know. So watch out! [intelligence attack] ... I know a lot of things ... One day, I will reveal all [but not now]. Many people will be offended [this must be kept secret to protect the innocent], I'm afraid, and that's why my family line has kept it secret so many, many years. Frankly, I've never been quite sure how to handle it...” (DY, Dec. 21, 2004)

“I also intend to tell the full story of Bad Eagle, and all my relatives. I know who's who, and who isn't who, and much of this has been kept secret for a century. But I know. I due time, I will put it all down in writing. I think I will. Maybe I shouldn't. (DY, July 23, 2004)
“He is talented... Just a moral failure [immorality attack]... There are many, many things I could reveal... but, it would hurt some innocent people [this must be kept secret to protect the innocent]. I'm not sure what to do about all this just yet [feigns innocence for himself through uncertainty]. I may not have to do anything... Evil always destroys itself in the end...” (DY, Oct.).
Sometimes Mr. Yeagley uses direct attack methods, owing to his so-called “warrior” roots:
“The real problem is people here are AFRAID of Bad Eagle....Remember I come from a warrior race. Says so on my genes.” (DY, July 23, 2004)
But more often than not, he uses a gradation of attack-advice, (1) charging that you are not Indian and therefore could never understand, (2) then adding other racial, political, or misogynist declarations with the original attack, and (3) finally returning to the original claim of being non-Indian. Yeagley attacks with one charge, piles on additional and unrelated charges, then in a scheme of inescapably circular logic, uses those added charges as evidence for the observation he originally made — all without ever responding to the original charge. This circular method employed by Mr. Yeagley appears to be one of simple deflection and avoidance, by playing a game of contextual pile-on. Examples of his circular logic attack-advice are abundant:
“Your'e [sic] a great theorist, but I'm not even sure you're Indian at this point [non-Indian attack]. You might just be one of those professional Democrats [political attack]... Hajro [sic]. You GOTTA be kidding. She creates the image of the crying, helpless, complaining woman. That's NOT the image of the American Indian... [misogyny attack] Yes, this thinking is separate from true American Indian history, but they Communist racial agitators have taught all the lingo, the rhetoric, the language of protest, to Indians... [political and racial attack] I really doubt your tribalness at this point. It's not ringing true at all... [repeat non-Indian attack]” (DY, July 24, 2004)
“you're behaving in a pitiful way [behavioral putdown]. You should really stop [unsolicited advice]. But, then again, that what most people do here on Indianz.com forums... What kind of fake are you? [non-Indian attack] One who can't see herself, I guess [personal putdown] ... How utterly childish... [immaturity putdown] Yet you act like you [sic] some superior being [superiority projection]. You're not [personal putdown] ... How long have you been an Indian, and you act like you don't know this? [return to non-Indian attack]” (DY, July 27, 2004)
Sometimes he seemingly skips ahead in his circular logic, as if impatient, and cuts straight to a seeming personal projection as a direct attack. Can Mr. Yeagley understand what others “appreciate” or understand familial loves that others may or may not have? I would have serious doubts. The so-called sympathy below appears more like an attack disguised as pity. It also appears as unsolicited advice from a father figure, as if Mr. Yeagley is the all-knowing father needing to dole out his unsolicited advice to all his children:
“Even the apparent ‘thinkers’ among you simply have no appreciation for family love [projection and personal attack]. This is abundantaly [sic] clear now. I'm sorry that you have missed this experience in life [personal attack disguised as pity]. Perhaps it's cultural at this point, so wide spread that many of you don't even realize it [non-Indian attack] ... I'm quickly loosing any respect I had for your ability to read, think, or comment [immaturity attack]... This is kindigarten [sic]...” (DY, July 30, 2004)
“I care about Indians [admonishment to trust Mr. Yeagley’s unsolicited advice]. Thus, I see farther down the road than most of the juveniles on board here [immaturity attack]... I don't know who is more filthy minded or filthy mouthed [immorality attack], the women or the men the "blacks" here or the ‘Indians’ [misogyny and racial attack] ...” (DY, Nov. 2, 2004)
While the individual charges may sometimes appear like pro-Indian arguments, they are actually advice-attacks that denigrate others. In this example, Mr. Yeagley denigrates Indians:
“I'll be a noble savage any day, rather than an unhappy drop out of life, unable to feed myself, addicted to some abject vice [attack by mischaracterizing Indians]... The noble savage thing is an image which is truly deeply in the mind of the whites. We live with whites. Whites are essentially in charge of us [victimization of Indians]” (DY, Nov. 3, 2004)
Mr. Yeagley attempts, below, to paint his racism as a positive accolade. However, where most of us might see an issue of sensitivity to our fellow beings, Mr. Yeagley sees a plot dictatorship. If a person asked us to please not call them by a certain name, I should hope we would respond with compassion by acquiescing with the request. Instead, Mr. Yeagley argues that, because it is true in his mind, regardless of the factual evidence, it must be true for others, despite any request to the contrary. This would be considered projection and probably delusion. Again, Mr. Yeagley attempts to thinly disguise his attacks as advice: it is not racial sensitivity after all, it is “dictatorial” control:
“say a Negro leader, comes along and says, ‘Hey, Negro is a bad word. It offends me and my people.’ I consider that dictatorial toward me ... someone else can tell me what to say and how to feel, at will, at whim. Notice the Negro leaders have changed their ‘name’ a half dozen times in the last few decades [deflecting the issue here, with false facts no less]. This is shameful and rather stupid [immorality and immaturity attack], and doesn't fool me at all [attack by implying he is smarter, father knows best]. They just want to control other people, at the language level, the easiest victory, yet, the deepest. Thought control, it's called...” (DY, Nov. 5, 2004)
So is Mr. Yeagley really the father-knows-best who provides his pearls of unsolicited wisdom in a time of need for poor Indians? One can simply look at his published biography to see exaggerations, errors, and no justification for his superiority claims.
“David A. Yeagley ... is a direct descendent of Bad Eagle (quin-ne kish-su-it), headman of a Antelope (kwerharenu) Comanche band).” (DY bio)
No one has any claim to an undisputed direct lineage to Bad Eagle through any verifiable methods, no proof or direct lineage has been posited except by Mr. Yeagley himself. No other Comanche has ever made this claim. And however inconvenient to those requesting the facts, it appears that revealing such information would hurt innocent people, so Mr. Yeagley has refused to reveal it:
“Yeagley is an enrolled member of the Comanche Tribe, Lawton, Oklahoma.” (DY bio)
Dr. Carroll has discussed the fact that Mr. Yeagley’s enrollment is a separate issue from his being Comanche, that it remains a possibility he garnered a tribal enrollment number as a non-Indian by way of adoption by a Comanche woman. It does seem plausible, considering the purposely obscured dates on his posted birth certificate, as Dr. Carroll has already pointed out:

“State of Oklahoma — Department of public Health: Standard Certificate of Live Birth, Date received by Seale Registrar: Oct 3 [INFORMATION ERASED] ...
Full name of child: David Anthony Yeagley, Date of birth: 9-5-[INFORMATION ERASED] ...
Father of child: Full name: Ned Carlton Yeagley; Color or race: W, Age at time of birth: 37 yrs ...
Mother of child: Full maiden name: Norma Juanita Portillo, Color or race: W, Age at time of birth: [INFORMATION ERASED]...” (DY birth certificate)
To see the birth certificate, go here

Mr. Yeagley's published biography reveals no genuine evidence in support of his claims, but does contain one rather obvious padded resume attempt that any contemporary composer could easily pick out:
“Yeagley ... has created a new system of harmonic organization, and presented it in a formal lecture in Israel, 1998.” (DY bio)
As previously stated here, new systems of harmony are commonplace for contemporary composers and are not noteworthy in and of themselves. Most composers today either choose to work in preexisting tonal systems (such as using the church modes) or create their own synthetic harmonies. For some composers, every composition they write has a different and new harmonic design, so that their entire body of work constitutes many dozens of such new harmonic systems — none of which is noteworthy to include in one’s biography.
“Dr. Yeagley is an American Indian Patriot, and has advocated the mandatory teaching of patriotism in public schools. His proposal to the Oklahoma State legislature was endorsed by Governor Frank Keating, and is currently being considered and refined for presentation in the near future.” (DY bio)
First, if patriotism is love of country, or even respect for it, one cannot teach that to anyone else, it is earned on the grassroots level from the people themselves. One cannot impart patriotism onto another, anymore than one can force democracy onto another. I would think conflict resolution would be a far greater ambition than patriotism for any curriculum. Second, Mr. Yeagley has not outlined what he sees as the importance of patriotism other than the advice-attacks that serve to deflect rather than explain. There remains a great incongruity between Mr. Yeagley’s concept of loving an immigrant country as “patriotic,” while in the same breath denigrating those immigrants who constitute that country, also as “patriotic.” If one denigrates everyone other than white males as a form of patriotism, isn’t that ignoring all the women and non-white populations which are America’s majority constituency after all?
“Dr. Yeagley has taught at Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City, University of Central Oklahoma, and currently teaches for University of Oklahoma.” (DY bio)
Actually, as affirmed by Dr. Carroll and others, Mr. Yeagley teaches nowhere, and was quickly fired for poor behavior from the few instructor jobs he briefly held.

As to Mr. Yeagley’s claims to Indianness, he has not given one shred of evidence to support his claims to a “Bad Eagle” lineage, and chides all other Indians for simply being “internet” Indians, which on its face is hypocritical. Mr. Yeagley has accomplished for himself exactly the situation he uses to denigrate other Indians, namely existing as an apparent nonprofit organization. While no other Comanche people will claim Mr. Yeagley as one of their own, he does proclaim for himself a lofty status by declaring his very own 501c3 organization. It would seem he possibly projects his own fears of being discovered, or found out, onto others in the form of attacks disguised as unsolicited advice:
“I don't think ideas should be judged by the messenger. That's a kind of idolatry in itself. Ideas should be judged individually, by each individual. Connectedness is under dispute these days as well. Too many great and mighty professional Indian activists are simply not conntected [sic] to roots, but to their own kind, in 501-C3 extra-tribal organizations...” (DY, Nov. 3, 2004)
Even more, it is ludicrous to disassociate the message from the messenger. Would you trust an unknown unrelated middle-aged man with the phrase, “I love you sweetheart” if he was expressing this to your 10 year old son whom he had never before met? Probably not. But if the sentiment was expressed by the son’s mother, it would seem much more plausible and trustworthy. To the point, messages must always be judged by the messenger and are judged this way in the real world.

Further, the above individualism that Mr. Yeagley attributes to Indian activists looks like unsolicited advice, but is a denigration against Indian people in disguise. Mr. Yeagley claims that today’s activists are not “connected” to their roots as if they are pretend Indians, internet Indians, or Indians without the cultural knowledge of “being related.” Mr. Yeagley can apparently see right through this ruse, in his seeming role as protecter of the children, as he both denigrates today’s Indian activists and alludes to his own alleged superiority. Mr. Yeagley’s writings are riddled with such advice-attacks, denigration disguised as unsolicited pieces of advice.

A contributor to Indianz.com probably best characterized the hidden agenda of Mr. Yeagley’s degrading attacks:
“Mr. Y has infuriated the sensibilities of about every Indian person, with half or more a brain, that have become aware of him. He does not build bridges and understanding between Indian peoples and the dominant culture that preserve Native rights. He ruthlessly burns bridges and insults Indian and non-Indian alike with his pompous and occasionally snobby treatment of those he genetically claims are peers. He desires that others consider themselves lesser human beings than himself. He throws about his academic credentials as a symbol of authority rarely taking into consideration the hearts and needs of those he claims to be the patriot representative of. He rhetorically bludgeons and prejudices those who have good will for Indian people colorizing all natives with his views. His language regarding other races and institutions suggests to the naive that his ideas are representative of the native community” (Indianz.com, July 23, 2004)
Lastly, Mr. Yeagley repeatedly misrepresents himself, by distorting the facts. In this statement below, Mr. Yeagley attempts to bolster his own position as a father figure and a superior male warrior in an on-air debate with Winona LuDuke. However, he not only utilizes the same advice-attack approach, but omits important information:
“I'd have really lost the game if you heard me on NativeAmericaCalling a while back, contradicting Winona LaDuke. I said historically, Indian women weren't tribal leaders [factually wrong], at least not out here on the plains [again, factually wrong], and rarely elsewhere [unsupported speculation]. She immediately validitated [sic] herself in this way, ‘Why, I'm a mother, I've raised two children,’ etc. As if that had anything specific to do with Indian leadership [non-Indian attack]. It was a white culture American answer, seems to me. [racial speculation]” (DY, July 27, 2004)
Mr. Yeagley implies there were no women warriors, which there were, and implies that Winona LaDuke could never be a warrior because she is a mother and therefore literally — in her own words — a woman. If she declares herself a mother, she must be a woman, because only women can be mothers. Apparently for Mr. Yeagley, LaDuke “validated herself” by declaring she is a mother, and not some gender-bending male in disguise. The entire so-called "validated herself" argument was ridiculous — and totally useless — though Mr. Yeagley focused his entire spotlight on it. However more importantly, Mr. Yeagley omits much of what actually took place during the debate, on Friday, September 28, 2001:
“Why am I talking to an Indian woman about this issue, where are the men!” (David Yeagley, radio debate)

“I have as much right to talk about this issue as you do, especially since I'm the mother of two sons.” (Winona LaDuke, radio debate)
Immediately in the debate, from its outset, Mr. Yeagley chastised the Native America Calling host, Harlan Mckosato, that there should be a man on the other end of the debate. Winona LaDuke quickly fired back that Yeagley was not going to mischaracterize her and that he knew nothing about her, nor her tribe. He was wasting his time with such an obvious deflection of the issues, and he was not a spokesperson for her tribe nor Indian people. They were debating Indian mascots, and rather than start the debate by defining the issues, Mr. Yeagley launched into a misogynist attack that both set himself up as superior while denigrating woman. LaDuke went on to explain how mascots are stereotypical and do not portray Indians properly thereby fostering bad environments for Indian youth. Yeagley’s sole argument was that Indians are today overrun with non-Indians and Indians should therefore be pleased and embrace the negative stereotypes as honorable tributes, no matter how degrading they are. You can go to NAC web site and hear the debate yourself, but from this author’s viewpoint, Winona LaDuke cleaned his clock.

October 24, 2006

Did Yeagley Have Plastic Surgery to Look "More Indian"?
Originally Posted by Dr. Al Carroll, 10-23-06

This first link below is David Yeagley as he looked back in September 1999, before he made a calculated career move to become a (white imposter playing a) professional token Indian who would defend virtually any racist claim about Natives and dedicate himself to undermining every Native cause he could. As you can see, David Yeagley back in 1999 had short curly brown hair, wore no Indian jewelry, and did not pose at all as the stereoytpe of what he believes an Indian should look like.

That's Yeagley in the middle, despite the paper's false ID. The student paper writer, Erin Wallace, confused Yeagley with his friend Jerod Tate. That can easily be confirmed by doing an image search for Tate. (Tate is virtually the only Native to have anything to do with Yeagley, though there is no sign Tate agrees with Yeagley's politics.) Here's the photo in context:
By September of 2001 and in all later photos, Yeagley's appearance changed dramatically. As you can see, Yeagley's cheeks, cheekbones, and eyes look entirely different.
Yeagley also grew out his hair, straightened it, and possibly dyed it from what earlier looked to be medium or light brown to its present color resembling black shoe polish. We can surmise Yeagley's hair is medium or light brown because it appears the same color as Jerod Tate's, and Tate had brown hair in the photos I found online, such as at his own website at
Notice also that in the second photo Yeagley is using makeup on his cheeks as well as eyes. He did this to hide what seems to be very bad acne scars, evident in this later photo.

Incidentally, I'm not the only person amused by Yeagley's choice of what he thinks are "Indian looking" clothes. Where did he get the idea that Natives wear a lot of turtlenecks and 1960s Nehru-style jackets and shirts?
How do we account for this dramatic change in appearance in such a short time, less than two years at the most? One of the most widespread rumors is that David Yeagley had plastic or cosmetic surgery. It's become something of a running joke, one that's earned him the nickname "Michael Jackson." For example:
(Yeagley's use of makeup, effeminate appearance, and speculation about his sexual preferences also play a part in his nickname. In his mid-30s, Yeagley has never married or even mentioned a significant other, either male or female, in his life. His frequent gay-bashing and intense anger towards women, even joking about and defending sexual violence against women, adds to that speculation. A number of members of his own message board tell me they believe he is either a self-hating gay man or had such disastrous relations with women that he remains celibate. Several also believe he is actually masturbating when he is spouting racist abuse or hatred for women and gays.

Within most American Indian cultures, whether he were actually gay would not be any reason to condemn him. Many American Indian cultures traditionally accepted same-sex marriages, for example. It's his likely hypocrisy and self-hatred which is the issue.)

Proving he had plastic surgery is difficult. Medical records are confidential, after all. Even professional plastic surgeons disagree on the degree of Michael Jackson's (the actual Jackson) surgery, for example. His drastically changed appearance could also partly come from severe illness causing a dramatic weight loss. Finally, one of the members of Yeagley's board suggested to me just the opposite, that at a younger age Yeagley appeared "more Indian." Then later on he experimented with trying to make himself look as white as possible, curling and dying his hair brown and wearing makeup to lighten his skin.

Which of these is true is ultimately only known by Yeagley and his doctors. His doctors are sworn by oath to say nothing, and Yeagley has never been inclined to be truthful about ANY subject, period.

The hair and clothing we can be more definite about: Yeagley changed them to fit his bizarre stereotype of what a "patriot Indian" looks like. But whoever told him either Natives or rightwingers wear turtlenecks and Nehru jackets, or pancake makeup? And why aren't those on the far right laughing as much at Yeagley's bizarre appearance as Indian Country is? After all, Yeagley's attempts to "look Indian" are as laughable as his claim to speak for ANY Native people, or be one himself.

October 22, 2006

A Lovefest Between Two Deniers of Genocide: Ann Coulter Speaks with Faux-Comanche David Yeagley
Originally Posted by Dr. Al Carroll, 10-21-06

When will the mainstream media develop enough spine to call Ann Coulter what she is, a virulent racist rather than a conservative?The late father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was dead set against bigotry of any kind, as are many other conservatives. Goldwater received some support from American Indians and displayed a Navajo tattoo on his forearm. But Coulter and Yeagley and others posing as "conservatives" routinely show themselves to be to the right of Pat Buchanan (in Yeagley's case, to the right of David Duke) and rarely get hard questions from an easily intimidated or ignorant mainstream media.

Within Indian Country, a white supremacist posing as Comanche named David Yeagley is widely regarded as either a pariah or a joke. Nothing could further confirm these impressions than Yeagley's embrace and embarassing outright worship of Ann Coulter. In Yeagley's interview, offensively titled, "The Great White Woman Speaks," Coulter spent most of her time denying or defending genocide carried out against American Indians.

Much like Coulter's writings, Yeagley began his race baiting in the title. US presidents were generally "great white fathers" by American Indian leaders, which Yeagley is certainly not. Coulter has no simple human decency, much less greatness about her. She displayed her racist hatred for American Indians in a previous article, "The Little Injun That Could." In it, Coulter gleefully reveled in tasteless and viciously racist jokes about genocide: "Time to pack up the tipi and hit the Trail of Tears!"

Yeagley obviously knew nothing behind the actual meaning of terms like "great white father." Washington and other presidents were give this title to remind them that fathers protect their children, not destroy them or abuse them.

"Dr. David Yeagley interviews Ann Coulter."
The public should not be confused by Yeagley's title of "doctor." Yeagley routinely claims expertise in history, culture, and current affairs. His actual degree was in music, and his accomplishments in academia are almost nonexistent. Yeagley is largely a paid blogger for the far right, hired by David Horowitz to be a professional token Indian. (The problems is that all evidence points towards Yeagley as a white imposter.)
"I think of Ann as the Great White Woman--not to be confused with the Great White Buffalo Woman, of course."
Here Yeagley is deliberately trying to bait American Indians who hold White Buffalo Woman as a sacred figure.
"Yeagley: My place in society as an American Indian patriot is regarded as disingenuous by many."
Actually it would be regarded as treasonous, were Yeagley actually Indian. For a Native to call one's self a patriot would mean they were an "apple Indian" (white on the inside) and no longer identified with their tribal nation. All further quotes below come from Coulter.
"The record of Medals of Honor won by Indians is astonishing. Their service in the military is well known to every American who is not a half-wit—i.e. everyone but liberals. "
What should be astonishing to Coulter is the number of Medals of Honor denied to American Indians (as well as Blacks and Latinos) who deserved them, because of racism. What also should astonish and disgust anyone is who not a half-wit (i.e. everyone but Coulter, Yeagley, and their supporters) is the way Medals of Honor were awarded to soldiers who slaughtered Native non-combatants. The most notorious case is the massacre at Wounded Knee. Despite protests by American Indians for decades, the military refuses to rescind the awarding of those medals.

What also might astonish Coulter is the amount of draft resistance long practiced by American Indians, as well as how American Indians overwhelmingly opposed the current war long before the rest of the American public. Natives oppose this war (among other reasons) because they see parallels between how Native tribes were treated then and how the Middle East is being treated today.

Among scholars who've written on Native veterans, you can find liberals like Alison Bernstein as well as conservatives like Donald Parman.
"The code talkers could have chattered away on open phone lines and the Japanese wouldn't have been able to break it."
Wrong. Coulter shows her ignorance here. The Code Talkers didn't just "chatter way" in their own language. They invented a complex code that other Navajos could not understand either, as the Japanese Imperial Army found out when they unsuccessfully tortured Navajo soldiers.
"Another interesting fact about Indians: As a group, they are generally immune from a fear of heights, which is why iron workers are disproportionately Indians. "
Wrong again. This is racist garbage designed to make Natives seem less human, much like the accounts I've found of white Army officers who thought Indians could see in the dark like cats. Plenty of Indians have a fear of heights, including friends of mine who work construction. Iron workers in the New York area are actually disproportionately Mohawk, who have a long tradition of ironwork going back to before Europeans arrived. In much of the country, ironworkers are mostly Latino. Paul Rodriguez jokes that the last time a white guy worked construction was one of the Village People.
"The relationship of the White Man to the Indians is a complicated history. By the standards of the world at that time, it was better than most."
Wrong again, and an outright lie. American Indian tribes generally treated whites far better than they were treated in turn. That's why so many whites eagerly left colonial villages to join Indian tribes. Anyone doubting that should read James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me.
"African Muslims were still enslaving anyone they could get hands on well into the 19th century."
Is that supposed to mean whites were somehow better? It's stereotypical for Coulter to claim that all of one ethnic group is collectively better or worse. Some white Americans were still enslaving Native from tribes such as the Navajo well into the 20th century, as late as 1910. Other whites in places like Brazil were still enslaving Africans up to the end of slavery there in 1880.
"The Apaches and Iroquois were brutal mothers -- not only to the White Man, but to other Indians."
Wrong yet again. Coulter is confusing being good warriors and having good military tactics with brutality. The historical record shows some whites slaughtering Apache and Iroquois civilians, women, children, elderly, burning villages and food stores, and the rape of women and girls, far more than the other way around.
"In fact, a lot of the initial contacts between European settlers and Indians in the East -- we're required not to know this now - consisted of completely unprovoked attacks by the Indians."
Interesting that Coulter could not name one single instance of that actually happening. The simple reason is that there were no cases like that. Some European "settlers," on the other hand, practiced genocide against the Pequots who had done nothing to provoke it. The Pilgrims and Roger's Rangers both practiced cannibalism, eating dead American Indian corpses. In King Phillip's War, many English colonists even slaughtered huge numbers of Christian Indians who had committd no offense.
"It was the Cherokees who really got screwed, which was entirely the doing of racist scumbag Andrew Jackson, Democrat. Jackson broke treaties, evicted the Cherokees and sent them off to Oklahoma. Did I mention that Jackson was a Democrat?"
Did Coulter also mention that the Democrats were a conservative party at the time? No? What a surprise.
"In New England, the settlers were perfectly fair to the Indians -- much nicer than the Spanish were. "
Wrong yet again, in several ways. In New England, the settlers WERE the Indians, who had settled villages and agriculture. Europeans were the nomads coming from thousands of miles away. Again, these Europeans wanderers practiced wars of extermination against the Pequots and even against Christianized Indians in praying towns.

The Spanish actually had a far better record, which is why there are so many more Indians south of the Rio Grande than north of it. Spanish heros like Bartholome de Las Casas argued conquest was un-Christian and the work of Satan. But of course Coulter has to smear the Spanish since she sees them as "less white."
"The French were supposedly the most benign, but that's because the French never sent people to America in great numbers."
Wrong again. Actually the French were the most benign because they depended on Natives for the fur trade.
"The first instinct of the English was to make treaties with the Indians and purchase their land, not to steal it."
The first instinct and practice of the English was to go to war. They generally made treaties when they were losing to Natives.
"The worst thing that happened to the Indians in New England was that they had no immunity from European diseases like smallpox. Despite the claims of semi-retards like fake-Indian Ward Churchill, it is preposterous that this was done intentionally."
Wrong again. We have the diary of British General Amherst himself stating that smallpox was spread intentionally.

And it's more than a little ironic for Coulter to complain about Ward Churchill when she's promoting a white supremacist imposter like Yeagley. Didn't Yeagley's resemblance to Michael Jackson, post-surgeries, give her a clue that he's not Native?
"The settlers wouldn't have known enough about transmission of diseases to do it on purpose."
Wrong again. Try repeating this after me, Ms. Coulter: You don't have to be white to be a settler. It is racist to equate white with settler or settled.

People knew enough about the transmission of disease to practice biological warfare even in ancient times. Many ancietn and medieval armies tried to break sieges using dead animals to infect cities or their water supplies.
"Violating Indian treaties was generally not official government policy."
Wrong again. Without exception, every last treaty the US had with Natives was broken.
"The problem was that settlers just kept moving into Indian territories and the government didn't stop them -- much like illegal immigration today."
So would Coulter deport all whites west of the original thirteen colonies?

Didn't think so.
"Republicans have a good record on Indians because we admire fighters. From George Washington and the Federalists to Richard Nixon, right-wingers have treated Indians well."
Coulter conspicuously left out Reagan, who directly caused the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Indians in Guatemala, El Salvador, and elsewhere. Washington called for the extermination of Natives. Nixon used federal agents to crush Native activism and civil rights movements. As my conservative mentor, Donald Parman, pointed out to me, Nixon made a few token concessions to Natives so his party could give the appearance of not being racist but would not have to give concessions to Blacks. After all, South Dakota and Oklahoma weren't important states for Republicans to win, but the Deep South was. Many important rights for Native people were also won during the Carter administration.
"Even when Democrats were supposed to be the big multicultural party, the one Indian in the Senate, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, became a Republican."
Coulter keeps falling for whom she thinks is an Native. Jodi Rave recently wrote an article pointing out that Ben Campbell is actually Portugese.
"All true right-wingers are big Indian fans."
A lot of rightwingers are big fans of what they IMAGINE Indians to be like. Many others, like David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are vicious racists who openly despise Natives. Many rightwingers also promote people they falsely believe to be Indians, such as Ben Campbell and, of course, David Yeagley. As I already pointed out, Reagan has the blood of a lot of Native people on his hands, and Nixon did all he could to crush Native activism.

To paraphrase what Yeagley often says, Republicans do nothing for Indians but kill them, take away their rights, or tell lies about them.
"Ridiculous court rulings have made reservations havens for gambling, which is a real sickness."
Wrong yet again. Native gaming makes up only 2% of the gambling in the US. Christian churches, white businessmen like Donald Trump, and overseas gambling from Great Britain each make up a far greater share of gambling than Native tribes. Coulter is either race baiting or ignorant.
"[Indians] are a nationality, as distinct a group within America as the Mormons, the Amish, Hassidic Jews, and the Osbourne family."
Wrong one more time. Natives are actually HUNDREDS of nations, as distinct from each other as Swedes are from Greeks. Or as distinct as Coulter and Yeagley are from actual conservatives or decent human beings.
"[Indian mascots] is a completely synthetic issue ginned up by idiot liberals to create more whining victims."
Wrong yet one more time. Leaders opposing "Indian" mascots are all from within Native communities, highly respected people like Charlene Teeters and Dr. Cornel Pewewardy. I do not know of one single activist on the mascot issue who is either white or a liberal.
"The idea that Indian mascots are condescending toward Indians is insane."
Not condescending, which is what Coulter is being throughout this interview. Indian mascots are racist, ignorant, and stereotypical.
"Republicans consider Indians valued and honored members of our community and view them with real veneration -- not the sentimental crap you get from liberals."
It's curious that Yeagley didn't speak up here, because he's one of the biggest defenders of that "sentimental crap" i.e. stereotypes of the Noble Savage.
"Fenimore Cooper established the Indian as the archetype of American freedom."
Actually most scholars would say that happened much earlier with people like Ben Franklin and Rousseau. Cooper established many of the early stereotypes. More talented writers like Mark Twain mocked Cooper endlessly.
"Okay, fine, we'll live like the Indians, but start getting used to a fair amount of cruelty to animals."
Cruelty? Since when have American Indians done anything even remotely close to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?

Through this and other articles, Coulter confirms her place in life as a professional bigot for profit, a woman utterly out of balance with the world around her who should be pitied as much as defended against. She apparently has added American Indians to the list of groups she feels she can disparage without fear of damage to her career, alongside Arabs, Muslims, and gays. That Yeagley spent the interview soliciting these opinions and aproving of them only shows how little credilibity his claim of being Comanche or speaking for American Indians should be given.

To find out more about Yeagley's lies and false claims, see not only www.davidyeagley.org, but also the brand new www.badeagle.org.

Yeagley Humiliates Himself Repeatedly With His Ignorance
Originally Posted by Dr. Al Carroll, 10-18-06

Yeagley has lashed out at this educational website, and the response to him has been pretty uniform. We're all pretty amused at how Yeagley couldn't resist showing the whole world (yet again) just how ignorant he is. Not simply about Natives, but about the world of academia and his own lack of basic research skills.

From another website where we discussed Yeagley, we talked about his bigoted gay-bashing of one of his critics:

Dr. Al Carroll Says: October 16th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
"I had the same reaction: A guy like Yeagley who resembles Michael Jackson at his most effeminate likely goes into his frequent bouts of gay-bashing to hide his own “tendencies.”
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Just with Yeagley’s hypocrisy and hatred.
And I found that part of Yeagley’s post about me pretty amusing. The best he could do was sputter incoherently.
One final point: I will bet right now Yeagley will break his promise to say nothing more about my site, and in less than two weeks."
Charley Arthur Says: October 17th, 2006 at 2:18 am
"Interesting gaff in Yeagley’s super-Indian schtick.
Yeagley observes that Mr. Davids “says he is Mohican, but also says he is Stockbridge-Munsee,” apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that Mohicans are in fact one of the several peoples subsumed under the oh-so-indigenous title of “Stockbridge-Munsee.”
Just once, it would be really, really nice if Yeagley had some tiny clue what he was talking about before running that shithole he calls a mouth.
Here’s a news flash, you Klannish clod: The same situation pertains with regard to the “Siletz,” “Warm Springs,” and a bunch of others.
Next, we’ll give you a few tips on the Comanches.
What a slimy fucking fraud you are, Yeagley… "
John Moredock Says: October 17th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
"Well, the Michael Jackson comparison had me in stitches for about ten minutes, Mr. Carroll. So thank you.
And there’s no way in hell I’d take you up on any bet that runs contrary to Yeagley’s obsessive compulsions. I have no doubt but you’re right on there."
This isn't the first time Yeagley's embarassed himself like this. Several years ago he proposed that American Indians start their own bank. The problem? There ALREADY were more than two dozen Native-owned or operated banks and credit unions. Some of them were decades old and had been widely reported about in not just the Native press, but on shows like 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Frontline. Several of these Native banks were short distances from Yeagley's home address. When Yeagley made the proposal, Native audience members actually broke out laughing. Yes folks, he really is that out of touch. Many would also say touched.

I really should thank Yeagley for giving me so many belly laughs. Never have I seen someone make so many clumsy mistakes at once. To any actual Native, his ignorance about Native peoples and for that matter virtually any other topic exposes him as a fraud far more clearly than anything I can do. For the first time I actually am beginning to feel sorry for him since he seems to be cracking under the strain of his impersonation of what he thinks an Indian is like.

After reading this educational website on him, Yeagley was reduced to sputtering incoherently and largely admitted he could not answer my charges against him. So let's take a look at what he had to say and enjoy laughing some more:
"Dr. Al Carroll's DavidYeagley.org. (Yes, he snagged that domain before I did. I never knew that there were people that cowardly and dishonest, with no self-validation possible so that they must use someone else's name.)"
Yeagley uses the name of Bad Eagle for his own website to validate himself and his white supremacist beliefs, white imposter that he is. So by his own argument, he is cowardly, dishonest, and of course hypocritical.

If Yeagley is too ignorant to know that .org websites are only for educational purposes, that's his problem. The only validation I need is the praise of actual Native people, who have all been very kind with their words about my work, not just for this website, but for my book on Native veterans. My work speaks for itself, as do the kind opinions of the scholars who trained me.
"Dr. Carroll billed himself as a faculty member of St. Phillips College in 2005"
Wrong again. Actually in 2005 I taught at both St. Phillip's and San Antonio College. In 2006 I teach at St. Phillip's.
"St. Phillips is traditionally black/hispanic"
Wrong again. SPC began as a Freedmen's college, educating former slaves. Of course to Yeagley's bigoted eyes, that "taints" me.
"Dr." Carroll, otherwise not to be found on the internet"
Just how terrible are his research skills? I'm all over www.newagefraud.org, Blue Corn Comics, The World In Our Hands Foundation, H-Amindian, etc. It seems Yeagley can't even read, much less do an online search.
"he is somewhat familiar with the academic world...particularly in the fields of sociology and ethnic studies."
Wrong again. Not a single one of my professors were in those fields. All were in history.
"He thinks listing his professors somehow qualifies him."
To anyone with any academic accomplishment (which leaves out Yeagley), it does. And Yeagley shows himself a hypocrite again, because that's exactly what he did on his own website, right on down to listing ever composer or artist he ever met.
"Dr. Carroll feels completely competent and qualified to devote an entier blog to picking appart every sentence of mine he thinks is faulty."
Well, he just makes it so easy sometimes. And that's "entierly" true, as Yeagley says.
"he is wholly insignificant and pompous individual, with little comprehension of true academic thought and work. At least, he doesn't show any real rigour of thought in his blog. Every blog is a labored distortion."
Several people have emailed me to tell me Yeagley needs to look up "projection" in a psychology book. And why the British spelling for rigor? Is he going to claim he's related to a British lord next?
"He thinks listing books he claims to have written--which are not listed on the internetand listing articles included in other books with other authors (published by insignificant presses)"
Poor Yeagley just can't resist looking foolish. University of Nebraska Press is the most prestigious of ALL academic presses when it comes to publishing Native history.
Greenwood Press has more than its share of accolades too.
But it's hard to take someone like Yeagley seriously when he's only published by a tabloid, Frontpagemag.com, the National Inquirer of the far right. He's largely been a paid blogger, so naturally he seems more than a little jealous of actual published scholars. As I've said before, I have never seen anyone accomplish so little as Yeagley has in academia. The average person with a Master's has published more than Yeagley. A single scholarly article in his whole career is pathetic.
"I don't like liars...Liars are evil, and create only evil for all parties concerned."
I'm hardly the first person to note Yeagley's intense self-hatred.
"Both Brent Michael Davids and Dr. Al Carroll have lied, excessively. For this, I have no respect for them."
I take that as a badge of honor.
"My readers can pursue them"
Did he just issue a threat? Did he just call for his white supremacist followers to stalk myself and Davids? Let me serve notice now: At the first sign of any kind of threat from his followers, I will be sending the law to Yeagley's door.
"I'll have to take a Bill O'Reilly move here. I have spoken about this once. "You'll never hear from me about this again"
O'Reilly did so because his lawyers urged him to. He had no case, which is why they settled for an "undisclosed sum" that by most accounts was in the millions. O'Reilly also routinely refuses to say anymore when he knows he'll LOSE an argument, that he has no answer. So thanks again, Yeagley, for admitting you have no answers for any of my charges. But not content with embarassing himself repeatedly, Yeagley broke his promise to "never speak again" within less than a single day. He did so by expounding a paranoid conspiracy theory, that there is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy out to get him.
http://www.badeagle.com/cgi-bin/ib3/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=75f57d824f4b8b05d358d4da1f25c664;act=ST;f=1;t=6499;&#top "The truth is out about Leftist bloggers: they're paid....Dr. Al Carroll has been at it, almost daily...It is incredible....it's the only way I can account for the fact these blogs exist. It takes too much time, too much research. These few aren't just blathering. They are making a serious effort."
Poor, poor Yeagley. Apparently hard work is just too amazing an idea for him. And unpaid hard work, that's beyond his comprehension. Not only do I put out this website for free, I also teach, write more books and articles, do more unpaid volunteer work for NAFPS (www.newagefraud.org), and have also been caring for my mother and my wife during their recent illnesses. By contrast, Yeagley does little but be a paid blogger for the far right. Then again, what more can he do? He already got himself fired from his first (and only) job in academia for trying to indoctrinate his students. His graduate programs must not have been very strenuous. For mine I routinely put in 14-hour days. Hard work didn't bother me, I was already used to that after the US Army. (Remember, Yeagley never joined the service either.) It also apparently never occurs to Yeagley and his followers that what makes doing this work (really, any work in Indian Country) much easier is networking, the old Moccassin Telegraph, and other ways people help each other out. I get a lot of material sent to me by people, so much that it's often hard to know which to use first. Material from actual Comanches and other Indians, or people who know (or once knew) Yeagley, and especially from people within Yeagley's own forum. That includes people that Yeagley personally deals with on a daily basis, that he naively thinks he can trust. This also includes actual conservatives who are upset with how Yeagley gives conservatism a bad name. It just apparently never occurs to Yeagley that none of what I do is part of any Vast Leftwing Conspiracy. (For starters, I'm not even a leftist.) It's a Vast Indian Country Conspiracy that Yeagley is facing. To paraphrase what Edward Murrow said about Joe McCarthy: Since Yeagley made no mention about any mistakes that were made in my articles, everyone should assume Yeagley admits I made none.
"my readers, probably all of whom didn't even know his blog existed until I mentioned it here."
Again, Yeagley admits his incompetence. The number of views is right there on my site. More likely, he was so choked up with anger over being exposed he failed to notice the counter.
"Fanatic devotees? (The word is "fanatical.")"
Poor Yeagley is as grammar-challenged as ever. Fanatic is also an adjective.
"I'm not very significant myself."
Amazing. I never would have thought I'd find myself agreeing with Yeagley. We'll close this article with some more kind words from Tryworks.org:
"Dr. Al Carroll (whom we like a little bit, as you may have noticed) takes apart David Yeagley’s Comanche dreams, lie by fucking lie.... Get your ass over there and get to reading. Dr. Carroll has the goods, including links, testimonies from Comanche elders and interviews with Yeagley’s childhood neighbors. Dare we say it yet again? Of course we do. How does it feel, Yeagley, you fucking ethnic fraud? * By the way, Dr. Carroll has promised the tale of David Yeagley’s undergoing fucking plastic surgery to make himself look more Indian. We haven’t been this excited about a story since we heard of Dan Caplis’ penchant for beating up pregnant women with flagpoles."