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.