December 21, 2006

What’s Wrong With David?
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/21/06

For American Indians, generally, the “Creator” does not “ordain” anything, not as some anthropomorphic being. The Creator may be the Creation, or the universe, or any number of life concepts, but certainly one cannot justify any notion of the Creator by quoting the Bible. Christianity and American Indian religiosity are not the same, one need only read Vine Deloria, Jr.’s God Is Red to know that. Additionally, how is it that the great pontificator, David Yeagley, knows the “deep purpose” of any “Creator” when he cannot even figure out what a Comanche really is, except “blood” degree? No, David knows little about American Indian spirituality, and has blasted it on many occasions, often with misogynistic insults to the Elders (i.e., like describing Indians as “more pitiful than a helpless, dying woman,” etc.) and the ancestors in the process. And Yeagley states emphatically that Comanches had no god at all historically, as they were considered the “agnostics of the plains,” let alone being any sort of Bible believer.

We know, instinctively as well, that the Creator has ordained difference. (Genesis 11:7,8; Deuteronomy 32:7-9; Revelation 21:24.) The differences between men serve a deep purpose in the outworking of human events, and in the communication between heaven and earth. To toy with race, to try even to destroy it, is blasphemeous [sic]...

Folks do not fall in love, marry, or have kids, on “presumption” or some notion of “carelessness.” People join together because it’s right, and I would argue that they see it as a blessed activity. Being this race or that race, being this degree of blood or that degree, matters very little, and is certainly not worth agonizing over as if some notion of racial purity needs to be maintained.

One could easily argue that race mixing is also the Creator’s design, since everything that happens might be seen as ordained that way, even "evil" (i.e., the problem of theodicy, etc.). What the pontificator is arguing for is selective reasoning, or what academics call “proof texting,” finding only the evidence to support your preconceived notion instead of looking at all the facts before deciding anything. And again, what is this fascination with “blood” about? Certainly not the “mystical power of being an American Indian” which is a load of horse manure. Leave it to the pianist to use two anti-Indian slams in one breath: blood degree racism, and the noble savage stereotype:
The obsession with racial integration and intermarriage may seem inevitable in today's world of presumption and carelessness; it may ... appear to be a great thing, to transcend race and culture. But the mystical power of being American Indian is based on blood...

Your mixed up blood yourself David. As for honoring and defending, read my previous post about serving your country, and go do it. Do it and stop denigrating our Elders and ancestors with your shallow squawking. I’d wager very few give any credence at all to your warrior fakery, since you are the epitome of a chicken hawk, never serving whatsoever. You are all talk and have no genuine experience at all: war, cluck cluck, war, cluck, war, cluck cluck, blood, cluck cluck, war, cluck, blood.
I for one consider it precious. I for one will honor it, defend it, and protect it... Regardless of the carelessness and profligacy of Indian men and women since the reservation days, our obligation to day is to do, not as they did, but as they should have done. They were depressed, forsaken, and hopeless... Well, I say it is time to revive hope, while there is any blood left...

Speaking as another “Bad Eagle,” I have to say I am NOT continuing any efforts to discredit another Comanche Indian, except for the fake Indian David Yeagley, Indian by enrollment only, anti-Indian in mind and thought. Yeagley, you are A-E-I-O-U Descent: American Enrolled Indian Of Unverified Descent. I think the only Comanche resenting other Comanches is a guy named David Yeagley, who received casino money from the tribe but who blasts the tribe when it supports anyone else but Yeagley. Yeagley’s position here is selfish and egotistical, not to mention two-faced. And it uses Yeagley’s usual method of attack-advice, by throwing a bit of black race-baiting into the harangue, as if Yeagley straightening his own curly follicles denotes anything decidedly racial about Yeagley himself — which is complete nonsense. For anyone who knew him ‘back when’ and cares to remember, here is a photo of him (in the middle) when Yeagley was white-skinned and curly haired.
BadEagle continues the effort to identity him and his background... This is about Indian identity... Rudy has friends, supporters, and defenders. The Comanche tribal leadership has spent money on promoting him. This was money that could have been spent on real Comanche youth, and some Comanche people resent Rudy for this, as well as the leadership... He's dark, and as long as he disguises or hides in non-straight (kinky?) hair, he can pass for an Indian...

Again, anyone buying into or siding with his reasoning here is simply not looking deeper into the meaning of what he is writing, not taking into consideration who is doing the writing, and not considering what the objective is for such writing. If you are a friend or supporter of Yeagley, I would suggest a more skeptical approach to his rhetoric, and a healthy dose of critical analysis. With Yeagley, unfortunately, nothing he says can be taken at face value.