December 24, 2007


from the Bad Eagle blog

Today, David Yeagley saw himself in the mirror. The great porcelain pontificator, as if ascending upwards in a puffy nimbus of shiny white grandeur, is crying foul on Rush Limbaugh’s discrimination against Indians based on inaccurate stereotypes?

Now, wait a moment ... like, WHAT?!

Yeagley — “Rush has no concern for Indians, in other words. If he did, he would not be so quick to make sport of Indians who are being used in this way. He would not be so willing to write Indians off... He would make a little effort to find out what Indians really think, and what most really believe.” (12-24-07).
Yeagley is mistaken about his conclusion that some grand “liberal” scheme is out to denigrate Indians, as that is Yeagley’s own slant and rant. Not liberals. But Yeagley is looking in the mirror, of course, so what ought we to expect from him, after all, a one-percent Comanche who sees things always as black-and white. Simpleton.

With his own simplistic dualism he sees evil against goodMuslims against Christiansand all the world is in a devious plot against America. He is the paranoid patriot, who is so confused that he cannot even see past his own image when confronted with it. Confronted with his own fakery, he doesn’t know how to even think it through correctly.
Yeagley — "the message of Christmas isn't political... but, that is the hope of many, certainly through legislating the moral values of the Judeo-Christian morality... Everyone, except Mohammadans, wants peace in the world" (12-25-07).
Warring to bring peace, what an concept. Legislating morality, another idiotic pursuit. Our constitution is, thankfully, godless. Whether founded by agnostics or not, it is intentionally godless and avoids religion — on purpose. Largely because Christianity has been one of the supreme destructive forces in the world, it was wise of the founders to exclude it from our Constitution.

It is amazing how many loyalist believers, like Yeagley, are willing to advocate killing to somehow foster peace. Yeagley's reasoning is ass-backwards. Killing to bring peacefulness? Yeagley's "faith" is nonsensical. Yeagley's morality is to wage war in the destructive pursuit of mono-culture, everyone believing in the same foolishness.

No thanks, simpleton. I place my trust in the Constitution and in evolution. If war-mongering adds up to Christian kindness, I'd rather see Christianity fail. Imagine the world with no religion, imagine peace.

Time after time, blog after blog, Yeagley has ranted against those of us who have been disgusted by the American Indian stereotypes, stereotypes that are negatively influencing our educational system as well as our common-day lives as Native people.

When we legitimately speak out on this abuse caused by these phony pseudo-Indian images masquerading as the real thing, Yeagley rails against us to support these degrading mascots. “Make more” of them, Yeagley pontificates, as if he had no skin in the game, which he really doesn’t to be honest about it.

So little david ends the year with sour-grapes, complaining that Rush has failed to see the real Indian, that Rush did not take a moment to look past the stereotypes of American Indians. Little david has confronted himself in Rush, one neocon pundit squarely looking at a clone of himself, and still failing to see the truth of the encounter.

What goes around, comes around. If the porcelain pontificator wants to spread disinformation and create more false stereotyped images, he is first in line to billow forth a misleading fog.

But when it works against him, Yeagley laments about a failure to see real Indians through the blanched-over whitewash.

It is truly astonishing that Yeagley cannot see the direct connection here, the causal parallel is exact. Yeagley cannot even see the stereotyped discrimination that he has created for himself — let alone for others — even when it appears to him in the magic mirror on a silver platter. If it causes war and hatred, Yeagley is all for it, no matter what it is, even defining patriotism and religion to justify his phony warrior face makeup.

Hands down, Yeagley wins the Bad Eagle Pixilated Hypocrite Award for 2007.

December 20, 2007


from Racial Justice

David Yeagley, a white supremacist who has made a career out of posing as both a mainstream conservative and part-Comanche, fared extremely poorly in a special election for Comanche Nation Vice President, coming in a very distant fourth place out of four candidates.

Yeagley only got 102 votes, or slightly over 10%, in an election that also had an extremely low turnout of only 10%. That means that the number of eligible Comanche voters who cast their ballot for Yeagley was about 1%. Already Yeagley's loss has earned him a new nickname in Indian Country, ""1% Yeagley."

Yeagley and his supporters, in a rather bizarre denial of reality, claimed victory since he expected to only get "about five votes." Yet elsewhere in Indian Country, Natives that are familiar with Yeagley's chequered career are celebrating his getting his head handed to him.

Yeagley became enrolled with the Comanche Nation by accident, because his stepmother was Comanche. Kiowa disabled rights activist Cinda Hughes investigated and uncovered that it is a fairly open "secret" among Comanches that Yeagley was adopted.

Comanche traditions do not allow for banishing anyone, no matter how contemptible their actions or beliefs.

Yeagley is a member of the white supremacist One Nation, which works against American Indians, especially on the issue of tribal sovereignty. He also is a speaker for the notoriously anti Semitic John Birch Society, best known for its bizarre conspiracy theories.

Yeagley also is a supporter and associates with members of the National Alliance, the neo-Nazi skinhead group Storm Front (a Storm Front member moderated a section of Yeagley's message board on Jews), the eugenics website Gene Expression, and self described white nationalists and anti immigrant vigilantes the Minutemen.

Yeagley has long been a notorious character in Indian Country. He routinely refers to nonwhites (including American Indians) as "darkies." He has called for the mass murder of illegal immigrants and the mass deportation of all Arabs and Muslims.

He frequently describes his admiration for Hitler, Columbus, and the Shah of Iran. Yeagley once compared Janet Jackson to an ape and called Martin Luther King "a blight on history." Yeagley received the strongest criticism when he attacked the Virginia Tech University shooting victims as "cowards."

Yeagley tried various tactics to boost his vote count in the campaign. According to one source in the Comanche Nation, literally every last vote for Yeagley was an absentee ballot. This suggests that Yeagley pushed his backers to vote early, before anyone could discover his unsavory past and beliefs.

Yeagley's campaign was marked by almost comical mistakes on his part. He gave a speech discussing Comanche clans. The problem is, the Comanche do not have clans. Yeagley was asked during a debate about the Indian Child Welfare Act, one of the most controversial issues in Indian Country. Yeagley was forced to admit he had never heard of it.

Perhaps the most amusing fumble in his campaign came when Yeagley went to the Comanche courthouse, only to hide out from a group of Comanche women asking why he had lied about his stepmother being elected to a tribal post.

Such mistakes in Yeagley's attempt to pass himself off as Comanche are not new, and have long made him the butt of jokes in both the Comanche Nation and across Indian Country. Yeagley has often become an unwitting source of amusement at tribal council meetings, where anyone enrolled may speak.

He once argued for the Comanche Nation to be the first to set up a tribally run bank. The first American Indian tribally run bank was begun more than twenty years ago, and more than two dozen exist today.

His attempts to "look more Indian" also make him hard for many to take him seriously. Yeagley straightened his curly brown hair and dyed it black, and is fond of pancake makeup and turtleneck sweaters.

Rumors swirl that he has had plastic surgery and have earned him another nickname, "Michael Jackson."

Yet his attempts to use dubious claims of American Indian ancestry to promote his white supremacy beliefs are no joke. Sometimes hardline conservatives find him useful to use as a token, and quote him as though he had a serious following within Indian Country.

In this he follows in a long tradition of others claiming to be American Indian being used by the right wing such as 'Princess Pale Moon" and "Chief AJ." (Dr. Al Carroll, 12-17-07)

December 6, 2007


from the Bad Eagle journal

Fresh from his great loss at the Comanche Nation elections where 99% of the Comanche people did not vote for him — a literal 99% — Yeagley is right back to his misogynist and white supremacist rants. Check out this recent gem:

Yeagley — ”Any bid for racial purity these days seems a lost cause—at least among the countries of Western Civilization. All is overrun with invading foreigners of the Third World... Obviously, the white world is the prize, and all darker races seek to mix with the white, both culturally and sexually. There seems a studied effort to obliterate nationality... the craze to destroy nationality and race ... I've said elsewhere (on the blogs), the seat of power in the world is white. The Great White Throne, I've called it. White people have charge of the world...” (Dec 2007).
When Yeagley tries equating nationality with race, he slips into his largest mistake about America — America is not white. America is a cosmopolitan country both racially and religiously. There was never a ‘good ole era’ when mixing stopped occurring, whether prescribed or not, biblically or not. The wide variety of codes and rules have historically mattered very little, as interrelations have always been the norm not the exception. Anyone fearing this reality is simply cultivating some revisionist and reductionist thinking, or some type of modern-day bigotry.

In truth, there is no “craze” to obliterate “race,” how ridiculous is that notion when race itself cannot even be defined with any accuracy beyond the cultural norms or genetic reductionism where everyone becomes an 'exception to the rule.’ Yeagley’s imaginary “throne” is pure nonsense and a rather destructive conceit designed wholly to race-bait and anger others.

What never fails to amaze me is the lack of awareness in other circles regarding the piano doctor’s outrageous behavior, such as in the musical communities and religious communities. Why is it that those who consider themselves good proponents of music, or good upstanding members of a religious community fail to put the stops on the piano doctor’s continued participation in public activities?

Sure, one expects him to be invited to college “republican” events, and pick up that $1000 check via the John Belch Society. Though one wonders why even so-called “republicans” would put up with Yeagley’s half-baked rants, save for their uncritical devotion to an agenda that only Karl Rove could love. If one believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that Adam and Eve’s children incestuously propagated the rest of the earth’s population, one can certainly entertain some white supremacy without flinching.

But what of the artists today, the American Indian organizations and the American Indian musicians and composers? What of the other so-called religiously faithful who see acts of humanity as a product of god’s goodness? Why is there a tolerance “blind spot” when it comes to what the scientific and reason-based community blatantly identify as racism and misogyny regarding Yeagley’s activities? Good question.

Bikers fed up with the destructive force of cars plowing into bikes on the highways, started a campaign to make motorists more aware of the obstacles and ‘blind spots’ of sharing the road with bikers. It is the same with music and religion, the parallel is identical and a much larger issue than the piano doctor’s particular idiocy.

In a country that is more polarized now than ever before, with warnings of nuclear dangers and terrorism being trumpeted from all corners, it is incumbent upon every citizen to make a concerted effort to deal head-on with the war propagandists and hate speakers. Tolerating hate — or ignoring it in hopes it will disappear on its own — are acts of complacency, not of benefit. Using religious quotations or biblical passages about not getting involved is a copout. Using the old free-speech argument is also a copout.

One can use biblical passages to support just about anything, reasonable and unreasonable. The supporting rationale is what is at stake in the discussion, not the biblical citation; those using biblical justifications simply rely on some imagined ‘supernatural’ authority to argue their position rather than using commonsense or science to argue it; this bible citation practice is intellectually lazy.

Want to quote the bible, it’s a free country, but the bible holds no actual authority when held up to reason and critique. Hiding one’s head in the sand while the hate-mongering rages on around you cannot be justified using religion. Civil rights occurred because people drew a proverbial line-in-the-sand and said “here and no further” to those harboring ideas of slavery and a second-class citizenry in America. The message: start seeing equal rights.

Free speech is a right, yes. However, paying for hate-mongering to occur or harboring hate-mongering activities is not prescribed in the Constitution nor in any free-speech law. Because someone has a right to free speech does not mean the hate-mongers must be hired or employed in places that wish to be free of such blatant bigotry. One would not hire Hilter to show his paintings at the national Holocaust museum just to prove the principle of free speech, no.

There is a difference between allowing free speech on someone else’s dime, and directly or indirectly supporting the propagators of the bigotry. American Indian musicians, composers and organizations have a cultural responsibility to make sure they remain free of supporting directly and indirectly the career bigot. Turning a blind eye toward this issue is inexcusable.

propagators of racism and misogyny are the issue here, not whether they wear religious or musical hats, not whether they quote the bible or compose music. Recognize your own responsibility in your funding and performance decisions. Take responsibility. Your decisions affect us all.

Message for you bible-only-centrists and music-only-centrists: Start seeing the people.

November 21, 2007


from the Bad Eagle blog

As if his blatant white supremacy “rants” weren’t enough, Yeagley has now taken to asking white society for Indian handouts. It’s not enough Indians had their lands actually stolen, and have been supremely abused even today. No, for Yeagley, he wants the Lakota people to play 'kiss-the-aggressors' with heaps full of thankful praise.

Thankfully, most Indians can see through Yeagley’s erroneous reasoning, and refuse to accept the US government's pitiful offer to compensate them for the Black Hills with an increasingly worthless monetary settlement (have you checked the falling dollar lately?).

The land is the real valuable part of Lakota life not some paper the privatized federal reserve banking system prints up at will, at the behest of the immoral shock-doctrine capitalists. The Lakota are right to stand their ground and refuse the handout, that Yeagley wants them to accept and simply “move along” like good little Indians.

Yeagley — “Superior beauty is in the white race...In the darker races, everything is always the same, dark brown and black a beastly bore” (2002) ... “There is a tremendous drive in many white women to experiment with the darkies (2004) ... “I'm beginning to think there's no such thing as racism. If there is, it is very rare” (2005) ... Slavery, properly understood, is not an evil at all... Slavery and indentured servitude are both perfectly legal--as punishment for crime. That's what the Constitution says (2006)”
Let’s take a closer look at this recent gem (below), posted prominently on Yeagley’s anathema blog:
Yeagley — “There's an important lesson here. I hope Indians see it. Indians feel no shame in poverty or living close to the earth. The modern standard of living is not particularly prized by the Indian. He for the most part isn't even interested in economic "improvement." He might not reject it, if it is handed to him, but, he certainly isn't motivated to work for it. Why should he be? Many, many Indians are simply not attracted to American culture, and have no desire to be part of it, much less to excel in it” (11-21-07).
First, we see the piano doctor wanting to give unsolicited advise, I mean who asked him? And if anyone did ask him, what in the world should they expect as a response but one of his white supremacist-tainted replies?
Yeagley — “There's an important lesson here. I hope Indians see it. Indians feel no shame in poverty or living close to the earth”
No shame is felt because the fault does not rest on the Indians, it rests on the US government and the non-Indian disaster capitalists who stole all the land. If any shame is to be felt, is rests squarely with the non-Indians.
Yeagley — “The modern standard of living is not particularly prized by the Indian”
Actually, Yeagley is 100% wrong on this point. Indians want good water, electricity, and proper sanitation. Most times, however, they are unable to secure these basic needs because of corporate theft and disaster capitalism that keeps them at a poverty level subsistence.
Yeagley — “He for the most part isn't even interested in economic ‘improvement’”
Wrong again. 100% wrong. Improvement is exactly what Indian people want, across the board, no matter what tribe you are from.
Yeagley — “He might not reject it, if it is handed to him, but, he certainly isn't motivated to work for it”
Indians are proud and work hard. What Yeagley is doing with this distasteful comment is making Indians out to be lazy rez-loafers, who should get off their duffs and accept that government handout already: accept paper for the Black Hills and be a good little Indian. The reason reservations are places with high unemployment and depression, is because reservations were setup as US detention camps. Duh.
Yeagley — “Why should he be? Many, many Indians are simply not attracted to American culture, and have no desire to be part of it, much less to excel in it”
Confusing American culture with economic benefit is Yeagley’s big mistake here. We do not even need to know whether Indians do or don’t accept American culture; I suspect that some do and some do not. But that “attraction,” as Yeagley mischaracterized it, is not the same thing as jobs, economic development and clean water. People of other cultures want clean water too, being an American is not a prerequisite for drinking good water. One does not need to be a white Christian "father" to be American; in fact, one can be an Iraqi Muslim woman and still be more Patriotic than David Yeagley himself. She deserves good water too, as do all American Indians on all reservations no matter what culture or cultures they desire.

In short, Yeagley has once again advocated for Indians to remain subservient to his “fighting whitey” image of America, rather than supporting the indigenous right to self-determination and true sovereignty. If Yeagley had his way, he’d have every Indian become a slave to “white superiors” asking for a few crumbs of sovereignty — as if sovereignty is something granted and not inherently inalienable.
Yeagley is the worst politician in Indian country, with a self-serving ambition that far outweighs his actual abilities laced with a white supremacy streak that falls like snowflake dandruff in hades.

The Comanche people were right to confront Yeagley outside the Committee House following his (in-a-word) weird nomination for tribal office, reported by several witnesses. It is not surprising that he was seen quickly slinking back inside the building, as the “heat” outside was something Yeagley could not weather. It is good to know that strong Indian people faced with such a toxic buffoon, stood up that day and compelled that merry-andrew to shrink away in cowardess.

Bravo Comanches!

November 18, 2007


from the Bad Eagle journal

The students killed at Virginia Tech — considered victims by most — were blasted as weak cowards by David Yeagley. If he had been there, he would have stood strong and triumphed, according to his own imagination. No sympathy from Yeagley, no sir. If you’re too weak, you deserve to die, according to him, with his inflated fake-warrior fantasy.

Yeagley — “The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond... Thus, they are totally weak... Students are afraid to defend themselves... They are docile lambs... I say resist. Kill the killer, immediately. Don't stand around and watch... Throw a book at them, and they'll be terrified... respond immediately--with violence! There were no heroic acts in the VA Tech incident, contrary to liberal media reports. Hiding behind a desk, or jumping out a window is not a heroic act! ... There is no honor in escaping... You don't stand around and watch... You don't barricade yourself in a room, or behind a desk... I'm sick of the weakness” (April 17, 2007).
So why is it no surprise, that Yeagley finds no common ground, from an American Indian standpoint, at the Horowitz white supremacy weekend in Florida? Expecting to hear grand old stories of proud and denigrating American Indian mascots being churned out by well-intentioned elephants, Yeagley is shocked that no one really talks about Indians at all. Why, it must be the fault of complainers like AIM, and those liberal commies, reasons Yeagley. In other words, Yeagley erroneously reasons that racism must be caused by complaints about it, so why don’t Indians just shut up already?!
Yeagley — I was never so aware of this [sic] deplorable conditions, and the curse of AIM, until this Restoration Weekend, sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center... Conservatives don't want to talk about Indians. Indians mean trouble, protest, and unaswerable [sic] guit [sic] ... I see what AIM has done to the American Indian image, the profound prejudice it has created, and the near impossibility of doing anything about it... It is something conservative people shun. They would rather stay away from the topic. Why? Futility, negativity, regression, and generally unpleasant feelings” (11-18-07).
From Yeagley's twisted sentiment above, one would think Indians have no complaint whatsoever, and should praise and admire the death, torture, rendition, and exceedingly poor conditions forced upon them. How ungrateful can Indians be?, wonders Yeagley. Everything is respectable now, no racism, no inequality, no reason for complaints, and we have many fine stereotyped mascots to lead the way. So why go on and upset the white rulers sitting upon the ‘great white throne’ that is America?! "Oh, if only the poor, pitiful Indians would be nicer to the elephants, I could be more welcomed as a hero at the white supremacy camp in my pocahontas jammies," laments the piano doctor. Indians, if you're reading this, please donate a smile to the RNC on behalf of 'woe-is-me' David Yeagley, won't you?

Yeagley’s illiterate view of modern Indian life, coupled with his own fear of being shunned as a pseudo-Comanche, create the most interesting mix of self-loathing rhetoric and hate politics.
What everyone else would see as a legitimate and justified response to racism by American Indian victims — racism that remains alive and well in today’s America — Yeagley sees as simply out-of-touch with the stereotyped distortion he identifies as the "American Indian image" in America.

But Yeagley is yet again blaming the victim.
No matter what one thinks of the American Indian Movement (AIM), one cannot argue with the reason it was founded — racism against American Indians. But rather than identify racism as the culprit, Yeagley blames the ones fighting racism, he blames the victims. If you want to better understand racism in America, forget Yeagley’s knee-jerk "shoot-the-messenger" analysis, and check out this article from Indian Country Today instead.

Death by Holocaust — 100 million Indians,
28 million Blacks, and 6 million Jews.

Racism in Indian country

"Just as assimilation is the emotional issue in Indian country, racism and discrimination are the most avoided, the most ignored and the most covered-up issues. There is no book on racism against Indians, even though one is sorely needed.

The first time I went to South Dakota, in 1965, there were signs in the stores, bars and restaurants saying: ‘No dogs or Indians allowed.’ The next time I was in the state, in 1970, the signs were still up. Shortly after that, they started to come down. But the attitudes stayed up when the signs came down. It is still not a good idea to be an Indian in South Dakota. There is an excellent chance you will be discriminated against.

L. Frank Baum, author of ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ was also an anti-Indian journalist in South Dakota. In the 1890s he wrote the following editorial:

‘The PIONEER has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination [sic] of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past.’
Murder is widespread in Indian country, and it is most often a case of non-Indians killing Indians. In the past decade, several series of murders of Indians have occurred in Lawrence, Kan.; in Rapid City, S.D.; and in Gallup, N.M. In most cases, the non-Indian murderer is not charged, not jailed, not tried and not convicted. In some cases, in what may be serial killings, police have still not developed a suspect or charged anyone.

In Chiloqin, Ore., the Klamath Indians have been under assault in recent years for their defense of the suckerfish, which to them is sacred. There have been drive-by shootings, intimidations and violence. The bumper sticker of the local hoodlums, who are ‘defending’ local farmers who want Klamath River water, is: ‘Save a farmer, fillet a sucker fish.’

Violence against the Makah Tribe and other tribes broke out after the Makahs decided to engage in a whale hunt. They had been denied this right for decades, but illegally and unfairly. When they landed a gray whale in 1999, some tribal members were attacked and one man ended up in a wheelchair.

Violence in the form of rape and sexual assault against Indian women is reported to be 3.5 times higher than the rate for the general population (source: National Sexual Violence Resource Center). The leading crime on the Navajo reservation is reported to be the rape of Navajo women. Much of the violence on this reservation happens in the border towns that draw much of their income from reservation spending. The NSVRC reports that 70 percent of the crime against Indians is committed by non-Indians.

State and county officials in many states have acted to prevent Indians from voting. In South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico and other states, lawsuits have been filed seeking to have the right to vote conferred upon Indians. Some of these lawsuits go back to 1948, while others have been filed within the past decade. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a voting rights lawsuit in South Dakota as late as 2002.

Some 88 percent of Indian students now attend public schools on or near reservations. This is in accordance with the wishes of the federal government, which since 1890 has pursued a policy of forcing Indians to attend public schools instead of BIA federal schools.

The dropout rate, or more accurately the ‘push out rate,’ for Indians is 250 percent higher than it is for the general population. The United States as a whole still has a 20 percent dropout rate, but for Indian country, the dropout rate is 50 percent. The dropout rate for states such as South Dakota, which Indians call the ‘Mississippi of the North,’ is caused largely by racist practices in the schools, according to the STAR Web site. The four counties of southern California - Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and San Diego - with dozens of small California tribes, have had a long-standing dropout rate of 90 percent, the highest in the nation.

Indian children are actually arrested and taken out of the classroom for minor infractions, according to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Indian students are regularly harassed and physically attacked by white students. When attacks occur, the Indian students (the victims) are arrested and punished while the white students (the attackers) are not cited or arrested.

In Red Rock, Okla., in 1992, an Indian student was arrested and placed into the school jail for chewing gum. (Yes, they have a jail!) At the same time, an Anglo student, the son of a teacher, who set an Indian student's hair on fire, was not punished at all!

Indian students have been arrested, jailed and fingerprinted for such minor offenses as refusing to sit where they are told or for making too much noise. They are systematically excluded from college preparatory classes, shunted into vocational and ''bonehead'' classes, not encouraged to be in school every day, and in general ignored in preparing them for higher learning and for life.

In Winner, S.D., near the Rosebud Reservation, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the school district, the superintendent and two principals in April 2006. When a white student pushed an Indian student against a locker and called him a ‘prairie nigger,’ the Indian student, a middle schooler, was arrested and jailed when he pushed back. Brian Naasz, the principal, had the police arrest the Indian student, but not the white student who instigated the fight. The ACLU documented that an Indian student was three times as likely as a white student to be arrested.

In Hayward, Wis., the white locals call the Indians ‘timber niggers.’ In my home state of North Carolina we are called ‘swamp niggers.’ In Arizona, the Indians are called ‘desert niggers.’

I am collecting data on these types of incidents, and would love to hear from you. It is time to stop sweeping this piece of dirt under the rug” (Dr. Dean Chavers, 11-07-07).

Dr. Dean Chavers is director of Catching the Dream, a national scholarship and school improvement program in Albuquerque, N.M. This is a condensed chapter from his book ''Modern American Indian Leaders,'' published in June 2007 by Mellen Press. Copyright (c) 2007. His address is The book can be ordered from

November 10, 2007


from the Bad Eagle blog

Before heading off for his second invite to the National Museum of the American Indian’s (NMAI) “Classical Native” music concerts, Yeagley posted a particularly vile piece of hate propaganda.

Yeagley — “Muslims have no rights... There is no place for such demonism in America... The Muslims don't care if they appear anti-American... Muslims knowingly provide camouflage for violent mass murderers in America... Islam is here to disrupt, to change, and to denigrate America... The Muslims are not moral beings... They are not worthy of hate. They simply need to be gotten rid of” (11-9-07).
The concerts are happening today, the performance of special significance to me is the tribute to our most experienced American Indian composer, Dr. Louis W. Ballard, who passed away earlier this year. The “Classical Native” concert series is a notable venue for contemporary Native composers and musicians, except for the choice to have Yeagley return for a second time (yes, they knew about Yeagley's negative activities last year too, and invited him back).

I, myself, was invited to attend the first year, but declined to do so in protest. I cannot speak for any other Native participants, the other Native composers and musicians in attendance today. I can only speak for myself, and it is important to me to make this one point, even if the Smithsonian does not “get it” or may not care about it one way or another, so long as they maintain the appearance of supporting Native people.

American Indian music is not a product. In fact, there is traditionally no such word for “music” in Native languages, because the narrow scope of that term is severely reductionist from a Native perspective. Music is printed, bought, sold and presented at Museum concerts, but American Indian music-ing (never a noun) is a process that involves much more than the westernized term “music.” For Indians, music-ing is tied to kinship, community, people’s voices, and has a long history embedded in every activity. Such a music-ing process can never be separated out leaving a leftover byproduct the West might call “music.”

Why is this ‘something-greater-than-music’ distinction important? Because, who creates the music-ing is speaking, using their own voices, telling a Native reality in a music-ing way. The music is not transferable nor performable expect by the originators themselves, traditionally. In other words, whoever are the creators of the music, it is their voices that are being birthed out in the music-ing process. To know the music-ing is to know the originators of that music-ing, the two cannot be separated for American Indian music-ing. One cannot experience music-ing without knowing the composers and performers, which is why I have actively boycotted the NMAI Classically Native series.

While I acknowledge the Smithsonian’s NMAI has every right to hire and present any artist they choose, it is painfully clear the NMAI has not taken a close look at Yeagley’s hate blog, and his negative influence on American Indian life. To present his music in the concert series is to promote Yeagley himself and endorse his hateful agenda. Yeagley and “his music” cannot be separated from an indigenous standpoint, and the NMAI’s continued endorsement of Yeagley’s particular voice, is disgusting and, in a word, anti-Indian. Until the NMAI changes its nonchalant attitude of endorsing hate politics, such as Yeagley’s Muslim bashing (and Mexican-Women-Black-Elder bashing), I will refuse to participate. Message: connect the creators to their creations please, and stop with the Westernized objectification of American Indian music at our nation's American Indian museum.

So there you have it, the NMAI and the First Nations Composer Initiative (FNCI), both endorsing the Yeagley voice. How disappointing. So while I wholeheartedly miss Louis Ballard, and do actively support the honoring of his memory, I cannot in good conscience endorse Yeagley’s NMAI countenance with my own tacit participation. I have composed music to honor Louis myself, and the music is receiving performances in other places, in other venues, but not at the NMAI.

As for Yeagley’s Muslim bashing above, Yeagley has failed once again to really think through the matter from multiple angles. Muslims are US citizens. They serve in the US military. Muslims are US patriots. Muslims have US national rights as well as international human rights. In fact, the US is actively recruiting Muslims into the military. Yeagley is calling for rights to be taken away from US citizens and military personnel, in his rush to propagate Muslim bashing and hatred. Yeagley, who never served, is clamoring that military men and women have their US rights taken away simply because they are Muslim?
WASHINGTON – As US troops battle Islamic extremists abroad, the Pentagon and the armed forces are reaching out to Muslims at home. An underlying goal is to interest more Muslims in the military, which needs officers and troops who can speak Arabic and other relevant languages and understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The effort is also part of a larger outreach. Pentagon officials say they are striving for mutual understanding with Muslims at home and abroad and to win their support for US war aims. Among the efforts to attract and retain Muslim cadets:
• West Point and the other service academies have opened Muslim prayer rooms, as have military installations.

• Imams serve full- and part-time as chaplains at the academies and some bases.

• Top non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials have taken to celebrating religious events with Muslims overseas and here in the US.
"There is a message here, and that is that Muslims and the Islamic religion are totally compatible with Western values," says Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in an interview.

November 7, 2007


from the Bad Eagle blog

It seems that Yeagley concocted himself into a nomination for the Comanche council? How interesting, considering his financial ties to anti-education fanatic David Horowitz, and with his wink-wink-nod-nod obeisance to the white supremacy group One Nation.

While the rest of Indian Country voices admiration for Native figures like Quanah Parker, Dr. Louis W. Ballard, or Vernon Bellecourt, Yeagley’s admiration is directed at his own personal heros like Adolf Hitler, Vlad III the Impaler, and the deposed dictator the Shah of Iran and his empress wife. No, we are not kidding.

In our struggles for Indian equality, education, and the natural environment we honor leaders like Winona LaDuke, Marge Anderson, and Wilma Mankiller. Who does Yeagley constantly rave about? In a word: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and his Mexican mother.

But how does Yeagley stack up on Indian cultural issues? In anticipation of the Comanche election, Bad Eagle has put together a point-by-point comparison gleaned from a detailed familiarity with Yeagley’s blogger efforts.

INDIGENOUS CULTURE . . . . . . . .

v e r s u s

. . . . . . . . LIFE IN YEAGLEYLAND

power in reciprocity
power in individualism
global warming very important concern
global warming is a hoax
inclusive of “others”
deport the “others”
other cultures welcomed
other cultures excluded
cultural & racial diversity is good
white supremacy rules (great white throne)
reservations are home
reservations are worthless
race based on ties to community
race based on blood (BIA-imposed)
racial makeup not too important
racial makeup very important
gender equality
male superiority and misogyny
life by social (group) consensus
life by paternal (father) figurehead
holistic approach
us-versus-them dualism
living in balance
living by control
existence & people mutually responsible
white men in control
flexibility toward change
rigid and draconian
oral tradition & stories grow
static doctrine etched in stone
diverse tribal lifeways
christian assimilation
community comes first
self comes first
supports the common good
craves personal attention
respectful of elders
maligns elders (including deceased)
values Indian education
calls educated Indians “commies”
community-based reality
media-perceived reality
against negative stereotyping
wants more stereotyped mascots
black indians as positive reality
wants the word “nigger” brought back
two-spirit people are welcomed
wants laws prohibiting gay rights
indians “are related”
indians are “warriors”
tribes are sovereign
tribes subservient to white control
the people come first
blind patriotism comes first

October 19, 2007


from the Bad Eagle journal

Be Afraid. Be very afraid. The world of men is full of “very nasty, bad, naughty boys” (Republican Larry Craig). Humanity comes from the chimps you see, and American Indians are the lowest of the human species, closer to being chimps ourselves. Warfare, savagery, and all things war, are in the Native DNA, so decries David Yeagley.

Yeagley — “Chimpanzees were vicious, male-dominated, practically rapists, and all too willing to reap the reproductive benefits of dominance... Yes, [Jane] Goodall's work contained the requisite denigration of humanity--via the exaltation of the animal... This work pertains to the American Indian, and his way of life. It is abundantly clear that he was the "blood-thirsty," heartless savage everyone always thought he was” (19-14-07).
Okay, so Jane was ‘exalting’ animals to an unnatural equivalent status to humans, as if a lower form of being. First mistake, chimps are not of lower value, they are simply different. Comparing Indians as somehow lower too, when compared to non-Indians? Mistake number two, though Indians have been sometimes on the warpath, it is not war that defines Indian culture, it is “being related” in communities of love and solidarity.

It is this relatedness that is the bond holding Indian cultures together and sustaining us throughout time. Being "related” is the reason Indians are still around — including David Yeagley himself — though he would be blind toward acknowledging that birthright with his fake warrior persona that obscures the true reason he evens exists, of course, as the born offspring of a Mexican mother.

There are many great socialistic heroes of humanity that according to Yeagley’s notion, would also be included in his “blood-thirsty” DNA theory, such as Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, the Dalai Lama, and many others. All these great people seem to understand that being human (and being Indian) does not involve fighting but avoids war. Being human involves the sustainability of kindness, the vibrancy of peace and the respect for community. Native people call this living in the hoop, the cycle of life, the circle, or simply of being related.

With his ‘who-would-Jesus-kill’ mentality, Yeagley simply cannot “get” this fact. As we have pointed out before, it is stereotyped nonsense to try positing that being Indian means being a warrior. This is reductionist and an outright mischaracterization of the heart of Indian culture.

Being Indian is being related. Yeagley misses this holistic truth, probably because he did not grow up Comanche and did not grow up around other Indians. Yeagley is a book-learned Indian, an Indian who only knows about Indians from books but not from real life experience. And just because a Mexican man can read books about Indians, does not mean he understands anything of Indian life. It is painfully clear that David Yeagley knows little beyond what he so desperately clings to: warmongering, blind patriotism, narrow-minded white supremacy, and most things considered anti-community and anti-Indian.

Don’t be afraid, but recognize the respect of a larger community that cherishes the common good, in a life reciprocity that we call “being related.” Being Native is not about fear — Being Native is about respecting other cultures not fighting them for oil. Being Native is about kindness for others, not the “nasty boy” intolerance of the world’s David Yeagleys. Instead of sucking up to little david’s outlandishly inflated ego, why not read something from a true American Indian leader. It is far better to learn from someone who has earned the respect of her community and is a champion of Indian rights and culture.


Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Delivered to the First Friday Club of the Twin Cities, Sponsored by St. Thomas Alumni, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 5, 1999.
Aaniin. Thank you for inviting me here today. When I was asked to speak to you, I was told you are interested in hearing about the improvements we are making on the Mille Lacs Reservation, and about our investment of casino dollars back into our community through schools, health care facilities, and other services. And I do want to talk to you about these things, because they are tremendously important, and I am very proud of them.

But before I do, I want to take a few minutes to talk to you about something else, something I'm not asked about very often. I want to talk to you about what it means to be Indian. About how my people experience the world. About the fundamental way in which our culture differs from yours. And about why you should care about all this.

The differences between Indians and non-Indians have created a lot of controversy lately. Casinos, treaty rights, tribal sovereignty - these issues have stirred such anger and bitterness. I believe the accusations against us are made out of ignorance. The vast majority of non-Indians do not understand how my people view the world, what we value, what motivates us.

They do not know these things for one simple reason: they've never heard us talk about them. For many years, the only stories that non-Indians heard about my people came from other non-Indians. As a result, the picture you got of us was fanciful, or distorted, or so shadowy, it hardly existed at all. It's time for Indian voices to tell Indian stories.

Now, I'm sure at least a few of you are wondering, "Why do I need to hear these stories? Why should I care about what Indian people think, and feel, and believe?" I think the most eloquent answer I can give you comes from the namesake of this university, St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas wrote that dialogue is the struggle to learn from each other. This struggle, he said, is like Jacob wrestling the angel - it leaves one wounded and blessed at the same time.

Indian people know this struggle very well. The wounds we've suffered in our dialogue with non-Indians are well-documented; I don't need to give you a laundry list of complaints.
We also know some of the blessings of this struggle. As American Indians, we live in two worlds - ours, and yours.

In the 500 years since you first came to our lands, we have struggled to learn how to take the best of what your culture has to offer in arts, science, technology and more, and then weave them into the fabric of our traditional ways. But for non-Indians, the struggle is new. Now that our people have begun to achieve success, now that we are in business and in the headlines, you are starting to wrestle with understanding us. Your wounds from this struggle are fresh, and the pain might make it hard for you to see beyond them. But if you try, you'll begin to see the blessings as well - the blessings of what a deepened knowledge of Indian culture can bring to you.

I'd like to share a few of those blessings with you today.
Earlier I mentioned that there is a fundamental difference between the way Indians and non-Indians experience the world. This difference goes all the way back to the bible, and Genesis. In Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, God creates man in his own image. Then God says, "be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of the heaven, and all living animals on the earth."

Masters. Conquer. Nothing, nothing could be further from the way Indian people view the world and our place in it. Here are the words of the great nineteenth century Chief Seattle: "You are a part of the earth, and the earth is a part of you. You did not weave the web of life, you are merely a strand in it. Whatever you do to the web, you do to yourself."

In our tradition, there is no mastery. There is no conquering. Instead, there is kinship among all creation-humans, animals, birds, plants, even rocks. We are all part of the sacred hoop of the world, and we must all live in harmony with each other if that hoop is to remain unbroken.

When you begin to see the world this way - through Indian eyes - you will begin to understand our view of land, and treaties, very differently. You will begin to understand that when we speak of Father Sun and Mother Earth, these are not new-age catchwords - they are very real terms of respect for very real beings.

And when you understand this, then you will understand that our fight for treaty rights is not just about hunting deer or catching fish. It is about teaching our children to honor Mother Earth and Father Sun. It is about teaching them to respectfully receive the gifts these loving parents offer us in return for the care we give them. And it is about teaching this generation and the generations yet to come about their place in the web of life.

Our culture and the fish, our values and the deer, the lessons we learn and the rice we harvest- everything is tied together. You can no more separate one from the other than you can divide a person's spirit from his body. When you understand how we view the world and our place in it, it's easier to appreciate why our casinos are so important to us. The reason we defend our businesses so fiercely isn't because we want to have something that others don't. The reason is because these businesses allow us to give back to others - to our People, our communities, and the Creator.

I'd like to take a minute and mention just a few of the ways we've already given back:
We've opened new schools, new health care facilities, and new community centers where our children get a better education, where our elders get better medical care, and where our families can gather to socialize and keep our traditions alive.

We've built new ceremonial buildings, and new powwow and celebration grounds. We've renovated an elderly center, and plan to build three culturally sensitive assisted living facilities for our elders. We've created programs to teach and preserve our language and cultural traditions. We've created a Small Business Development Program to help band members start their own businesses.

We've created more than twenty-eight hundred jobs for band members, people from other tribes, and non-Indians. We've spurred the development of more than one thousand jobs in other local businesses. We've generated more than fifty million dollars in federal taxes, and more than fifteen million dollars in state taxes through wages paid to employees. And we've given back more than two million dollars in charitable donations.

The list goes on and on. But rather than flood you with more numbers, I'll tell you a story that sums up how my people view business through the lens of our traditional values. Last year, the Woodlands National Bank, which is owned and operated by the Mille Lacs Band, was approached by the city of Onamia and asked to forgive a mortgage on a building in the downtown area. The building had been abandoned and was an eyesore on Main Street. The city planned to renovate and sell the building, and return it to the tax rolls.

Although the band would lose money by forgiving the mortgage, our business leaders could see the wisdom in improving the community. The opportunity to help our neighbors was an opportunity to strengthen the web of life. So we forgave the mortgage.
Now, I know this is not a decision everyone would agree with. Some people feel that in business, you have to look out for number one. But my people feel that in business - and in life - you have to look out for every one.

And this, I believe, is one of the blessings that Indian culture has to offer you and other non-Indians. We have a different perspective on so many things, from caring for the environment, to healing the body, mind and soul. But if our culture disappears, if the Indian ways are swallowed up by the dominant American culture, no one will be able to learn from them. Not Indian children. Not your children. No one. All that knowledge, all that wisdom, will be lost forever. The struggle of dialogue will be over. Yes, there will be no more wounds. But there will also be no more blessings.

There is still so much we have to learn from each other, and we have already wasted so much time. Our world grows smaller every day. And every day, more of our unsettling, surprising, wonderful differences vanish. And when that happens, part of each of us vanishes, too. I'd like to end with one of my favorite stories. It's a funny little story about Indians and non-Indians, but its message is serious: you can see something differently if you are willing to learn from those around you.

This is the story: Years ago, white settlers came to this area and built the first European-style homes. When Indian People walked by these homes and saw see-through things in the walls, they looked through them to see what the strangers inside were doing. The settlers were shocked, but it makes sense when you think about it: windows are made to be looked through from both sides. Since then, my people have spent many years looking at the world through your window. I hope today I've given you a reason to look at it through ours. Mii gwetch.