June 25, 2007

Is David responsible? Perhaps he should apprentice with Wilma

from the Bad Eagle journal


Algonquin cultural center defaced by white supremacists.

David Yeagley and his white power blog go hand-in-hand with a demoralizing psychology of victimhood. Yes, victimhood. Yeagley seems to incessantly decry “I’m a victim” whenever someone disagrees with his baboonery, as if losing a battle of wits or word games makes him of lesser value as a person. Of course, he is of equivalent intrinsic value as anyone else despite his intellectually-challenged palaver. The difference between Yeagley and the rest of us is his victimhood, a victim-mentality that rears its ugly face in many forms, most notably in his ‘white power’ caterwauling (as if white folks need a leg up because Indians threaten their way of life).


Most of what Yeagley writes is nothing but variations on a theme: feigning the victim. Yeagley’s blog is a weakness factory for ‘white power,’ churning out linguistic blatherskite about the supposed superiority of one people over another. Yeagley reacts with false indignation whenever he feels his argument is derailed by commonsense and/or community, two realities that are incompatible with his utopian ‘white’ dream.


Meanwhile, American Indians suffer the real world indignities of hate crimes, racially-charged crimes often fermented by those who decry “I’m the victim here” as they destroy lives and property in pursuit of some imagined inequality. Yes, imagined. Indians pose no threat to any perceived ‘white’ existence, and there never was an old “time honored tradition” of white power as Yeagley mistakenly asserts, not today and not yesterday.


This “world-of-white” fabrication exists only in Yeagley’s imagination, and his weakness-induced rants surface in his decries of a special victimhood status. Yeagley is a “misunderstood” martyr you see, struggling against the “darkies,” and in league with those “darky” vermin, the “commies,” "Mexicans,” “homosexuals” and “Muslims.” He is the misunderstood savior who stands alone in the war against depravity and atheism. He is the misunderstood champion of ‘white power’ who Indians will someday recognize as the colossal Comanche savior, if we weren’t so blind and stupid.


Yeagley — the misunderstood victim — will rise up (by the bootstraps of his mighty intellect) to save us “for our own good” and despite our “sad condition.” In Yeagley’s world’o’white, we should be thanking him not chastising him, don’t you see?! He is the supreme victim, suffering alone the physiological persecution of his peers for “our own good,” simply from the kindness of his heart. “Woe is poor misunderstood me, as I suffer the criticism of liars!” discredits Yeagley.


Yes, Yeagley continually plays the victim card in his effort to whitewash American Indian life, rendering him largely ineffective, as well as rendering him unable to appreciate multivalent relationships like (1) responsibility to a larger community and (2) solidarity with others. It is a perpetual cycle of victimhood, ‘playing’ the victim which in turn makes Yeagley become victimized in real life, thereby feeding and sanctifying the initial victim delusion. Yeagley’s world’o’white dream is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy, a cyclic turnstyle of victimhood. Perhaps Yeagley should apprentice with Wilma Mankiller.


Wilma Mankiller could show Yeagley a thing or two about community and responsibility. Unlike Yeagley, Mankiller works to promote Native values and lifeways. If the Dalai Lama were to visit Wilma Mankiller, I’m sure the two would get along famously. Why? There is a certain level of ‘life respect’ that both seem to exhibit toward others, no matter what race or condition. This respect for a larger community and acceptance of others who seem different, is something that Yeagley lacks. Let’s look at one of his recent blog exchanges to illustrate this point; below, Yeagley feigns anger about the Dalai Lama’s easy acceptance by an American Indian community, and criticizes Indians for being so “naive,” as he puts it (6-22-07):

David Yeagley — “Is that the Dalai Lama there, AJ? Shees. Every clown in the world wants to put their two cents in the arena... Indians are so naive some times... What presumption! What arrogance... Indians don't need the condescension of anyone... Indians bow to no man... I'm against all this hand-holding, this "shared values" of multiculturalism. It incites me to madness!”
Ajibik — “He was invited by the community at Fort Hall after Willow lost her husband and son in a vehicle accident. More of us love the Dali Lama... Here is the article:
‘HAILEY, Idaho September 20, 2005 (AP) — Willow Jack, a dancer from Idaho's Lemhi Shoshone Indian tribe, lost her husband and 4-year-old daughter in an Aug. 12 car crash on a southern Montana highway. One month later, the Fort Hall woman was in a resort town south of Sun Valley, where she met the Dalai Lama at a ceremony attended by some 5,000 Idaho children and their families. Though they practice different faiths, Jack, 24, said meeting the 70-year-old holy man to 20 million Tibetan Buddhists and having him bless her surviving son, Nakeezaka Jack, 6, helped ease her sadness... ''I think we ended up in the right place,'' Jack said from her wheelchair. ''He [the Dalai Lama] put his arms around me and hugged me and said, 'Everything is going to be OK from now on'.'' ...''Holy men, regardless of where they come from, are respected by Indians because we share the same spiritual depth,'' Jack said.’

However, according to your blogs, its important to hear what all these white experts have to say about Indians! I think I see why you are drawing heat lately.”


Respects Nothing —
[countering Yeagley’s Columbus Day ranting] “Columbus Day is about honoring a foreigner who has absolutely nothing to do with the making of the United States. Why can't you comprehend that! ??? You get all offended because the Dahli Lama comes over here and brings his blessing and blesses people, but you're not offended by honoring some ‘foreigner’ who has nothing to do with our country? Why aren't complaining about being blessed when some white person says "God Bless you" in kind? ...I for one would be honored and be respectful if I were to ever be in the presence of the Dahli Lama. If it's about culture than respect is at the core of an American Indian culture and your position shows a lack of it.”


David Yeagley —
“I still don't get it. Why cater to a complete foreigner, with a complete, antithetical, foreign "religion"? Why act like he has anything at all to offer? ...I see the Mexican Chicken at Red Earth and the Dalai Lama at an Indian funeral as very much the same thing... Brahmans have come to America before and put on their show... This just rubs a real sore spot in me, this Indian naivete toward the affection of foreigners... These foreigners have only one thing in mind: to denigrate America. Christian America. White America. White Christian America is the only 'group' or 'religion' over here that ever face the Indian head on. These other people are manipulaters [sic!]. Glory riders. Opportunists. At least white people spilled their own blood against us. They are worthy. These others are worthless, to me... Man! I can't stand this! It's all about foreigners trying to show they're better than white American Christians, and showing it in the most insulting, denigrating, and dissembling (false) ways.”


Respects Nothing —
“IMHO some things are better than your precious white america. Your white americans don't care anymore about Indians than the very people you claim don't care either, cause if they did than all those treaties you talk about would still be honored. Custer didn't die with Comanches, he died at the hands of the Cheyenne, Sioux and other tribes mixed in. Give credit where credit is due don't lump us all into one red victory package, that's a liberal mind set according to you. ???”


David Yeagley —
“What blessings? ...A homesless [sic!] alcoholic can wish well on people. What's the difference? What's special about the Dalai Lama?”
Yeagley, as we see above, absolutely refuses to accept that the Dalai Lama could be, might be — and probably is — helpful and benevolent for American Indians, preferring to attack and belittle the impressive monk instead. Yeagley exudes a fundamental weakness here, that Indians are too stupid not to see through the Lama’s ruse, and recognize the ‘covert’ and ‘sinister’ intent of the Lama’s visit. Yeagley, here, declares that American Indians are stupid, and in great need of Yeagley’s ‘insights’ to guide and direct us.

Of course, it is Yeagley that is playing the victim card himself — Yeagley is the one victimized by the Dalai Lama’s presence, and is angered at the ease by which other Indians can accept the Monk’s generosity and kindness. Yeagley uses victimization like a crutch, and slams others with it on his blog, such as blacks and women.
Perhaps Yeagley should apprentice with Wilma Mankiller, former chief of the Cherokee Nation. When Wilma visited Dartmouth recently, she was there on a mission of peace.
“Mankiller, now 50 years old, came to Dartmouth as its 1996 Montgomery Fellow after leading the 156,000-member Cherokee tribe for 12 years as its first female chief. During her time as its leader, she gained national recognition not only for her work championing the rights of Native Americans and Native American children, but for her efforts to aid women and minorities in general. She has talked personally with three presidents, was Ms. magazine's Woman of the Year in 1987, and was recently named one of ‘50 Great Americans’ by the Marquis publication, Who's Who... ‘I hope to be able to eliminate negative stereotypes (New Englanders) have about Native American people,’ she said. ‘Because there is such a lack of accurate information about Native American people the vacuum gets filled with nonsensical stereotypes. By my being here, I can help talk about our contemporary life and our contemporary issues, and put it into some kind of historical context as well’.” (Kent Fischer, 6-16-07)
Although I doubt Yeagley would recognize the supreme value in studying with a learned and experienced Native scholar like Wilma Mankiller. Look at his martyred response to Mankiller; according to Yeagley, women like Wilma Mankiller were “excluding men” as a plot born of “envy” and “revenge.” Yeagley’s argument here is that men are victims of the Wilma Mankillers of the world, and he relies heavily on the victim metaphor in his response to Mankiller’s positive message for women:
David Yeagley — “American Indian women are beating the drum... The Mankillers are pounding away at pow-wows... Why do these women want to do what men do? Why would they want to presume to annex the last vestiges of manhood from their ancient traditions? ...Indian women's drum groups have given rise to all-Indian women pow-wows. So what is the victory there? ...The exlusion [sic!] of men... It is envy... it's all about revenge. 'You have something I don't. Therefore, I'm taking it. It was never mine, but, I want it” (10-5-05).
But if Yeagley did study with Wilma, he would be a better man for the encounter. The largest lesson he could learn is best summed up in the word “tolerance.” If Yeagley learned that one concept alone from a great woman like Wilma, it would be the transformation of the Century. If he took that concept ‘to heart,’ Yeagley might even become a gentleman. One could only hope.

June 20, 2007

Yeagley, the 'green horn' powwow enthusiast

from the Bad Eagle blog

We’ve all read his misogynist and racially charged anti-black pontifications, and we now see the racially insensitive anti-Aztec ”ranting” of the accredited piano player David Yeagley as well, probably more times than is palatable (i.e., once is enough for life). Any non-Indians happening across his blog will turn away just as fast as all the shocked American Indians dismayed by Yeagley’s bigotry, not to mention his anti-intellectual assiduity — perhaps “assiduity” isn’t the right word, make that “imagination” instead.

Yes, Yeagley’s imagination is lily white and not grounded in any sense of common purpose with Indian people. Yeagley prefers insignificant word games, poorly constructed ranting, and ever-struggling to prop himself atop a tower of power when neither his “lineage” nor “intellect” warrant such a razzmatazzical leap of fate.

His misinterpreting a simple Native powwow is one recent illustration of Yeagley’s anserine thick-headedness, glaringly free from ambiguity. Are we seriously supposed to believe his particular brand of imbecility comes from a so-called “gourd dancer”?

David Yeagley — “I participated in the formal gourd dancing, the evenings of June 1 and 2... There were not an enormous number of gourd dancers this year, probably because Red Earth actually excluded the gourd dance last year. That was a very un-Indian thing to do” (6-15-07)
Some powwows have gourd dancing prior to grand entry, and some do not. Both are considered “Indian” despite what Yeagley thinks. In fact, Yeagley seems blissfully unaware of the racial bigotry he exudes that even his supposed “Comanche friends” find disturbing.
David Yeagley — “It was also an un-Indian thing to see as “Aztec” figure in the Grand Entry... He had on a huge feather crown that was taller than any other. I turned to a couple of Comanche friends and said, “Who’s the Mexican chicken?” They looked at me oddly” (6-15-07).
And no sooner does he disparage a fellow indigenous dancer, that he blames the whole supposed everyone-looks-the-same “problem” on the Sundance Institute — the same Institute which rejected his application into their film scoring program. After successfully completing my own participation in the Sundance Institute's Film Composers Lab, I recommended Yeagley (and Yeagley's 'racial apprentice' Jerod Tate) for the program, though neither of them were subsequently admitted; it is a highly competitive program admittedly. As for Yeagley's apparent unhappiness with Sundance, can you say “sour grapes” ten times really fast?


Composers must submit work samples to be accepted into
the highly competitive Sundance Institute Composers Lab.

David Yeagley — “I suppose next we’ll see the Negroes from New Orleans in their Mardi Gras ostrich feathers. That’s the George Soros plan through Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute. All non-white peoples of the world belong together. The Polynesian, the Asian, and the African are all the same. And homosexuals are included in the Soros/Redford Sundance!” (6-15-07).
Just because Yeagley is too dense to respect the differences inherent in distinctive people as equivalent, does not mean whites are ad-hoc superior. It simply means that the world has moved on, progressed, and Yeagley has not. All the whining in Yeagley’s lungs won’t change that fact; he is out-of-touch with America and stuck in some imagined past of racial purity which never, in reality, existed.
David Yeagley — “Sure enough, there was some strange ‘cross dressing’ at this year’s Red Earth. The most famous of men’s dances, the Fancy Dance, was performed by a group of young woman!... I was speechless. I inquired of an elderly Comanche woman, and dear friend, “Is it true that women did this dance in the past?” “Yes,” she admitted... There was one girl amongst the Fancy Dancers who also is well-known as a jingle dancer. I have requested an interview with her about all this. Will we see 'prairie fairy' men doing the jingle dress dance next year?” (6-15-07).
“Cross-dressing?” Fancy dancing is a newer dance for both men AND women, as is Jingle Dress and Hoop dancing. And yes, it is called Jingle DRESS dancing and Women's Fancy SHAWL dancing, to correct Yeagley's error. The Jingle Dress dance was created when an Anishinabe man dreamed of a specific healing ceremony, and saw the dance in his dream (along with the creation of the jingle dress from tobacco lids). Jingle Dress dances are still performed as healing ceremonies here in Minnesota, in fact.

If Yeagley knew any of the actual history of ceremonies, powwows and Native dances, he'd know this already. But of course, Yeagley knows very little, being a book-learned wannabe. Only a distorted mind so imbedded in non-Indian society would mistakenly see powwow dances as “cross-dressing” or inappropriate.

In truth, Yeagley mistakenly identifies powwows as a “Plains Indian phenomenon” when actually the modern powwow has always been pan-Indian and tribally mixed from its outset.
David Yeagley — “Powwows are a Plains Indian phenomenon, and Indians that participate, even if they are Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, or Seminole, generally dress in the basic plains mode... So it looks like the old Plains Indian powwow is become the center of the tribal universe. I can accept other American Indian tribes becoming part of it, certainly—though I think the Eastern Indians ought to establish their own nationally recognized gatherings, rather than crowd their way into the Plains scene” (6-15-07).
Contrary to Yeagley’s infantile pontification, powwows are named from an old Algonkian (and Mohican) word designating a healer (the person) and the healing ceremony (the event), both. It has many different phonetic spellings, including ‘pauwau’ and others. The modern day powwow is borrowed from this early Northeastern ceremony, but is more a social event rather than specifically a healing one today. Again, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of powwow history would know this fact, of which it seems Yeagley is blatantly ignorant.


Comanche Fancy Dancer Rudy Youngblood

Probably the first modern powwow was hosted by the Ponca, their “intertribal” gathering, in 1879. Another important event in powwow history was the Anadarko Fair of 1916, specifically an “intertribal” gathering.

The “Fancy Dance” is a modern dance started after W.W.I, when many of our Native soldiers came back and began participating in powwows with the creation of this new dance. Some of the earliest powwows were school-related, such as the Haskell powwow in 1926, where the first National Fancy Dance Competition was held and the “greatest fancy dancer” was chosen from that period’s field of competitors, the honor going to Gus MacDonald (Ponca). Haskell garnered students from all over the country, and many tribes from many cultures participated in those popwwows.

From the very beginning of modern powwows, there was a racially mixed and tribally mixed participation. There has never been an important history of racially or tribally “pure” powwows, and anyone who thinks so is imagining a past that never existed.

So you see, Yeagley is the greenest of 'green horns' when it comes to powwows, and not being a veteran himself cannot dance the gourd dance as a "warrior" but participates (if he does) in a supportive position. Gourd dances are specifically held for veterans (or their family or friends in a supportive capacity), making the nonmilitary Yeagley's own participation exclusively a "supportive" one.
David Yeagley — “Chairman of the Comanche Nation Wallace Coffee [sic!] was there ... standing among Comanches doesn't make you Comanche. Hanging out with Indians doens't [sic!] make you Indian” (6-22-07).
As for the above whining, I have two pieces of advice for Yeagley. First, try spelling the name of your Tribal Nation’s Chairman "COFFEY" correctly, as if you actually knew and respected him (pretend to do so, at least).

Second, if you’re in a glass house, perhaps throwing stones is not the wisest move? I mean really, your last two statements are mirrors of your own condition, “standing among Comanches doesn't make you Comanche. Hanging out with Indians doesn't make you Indian.” Perhaps a quick look in the psychological mirror and tossing away that adoption court-issued birth certificate, might yield a healthier and happier existence.

June 2, 2007

David Yeagley fancies himself a "Super Comanche"

from the Bad Eagle journal

David Yeagley loves President Bush and all things war. Yeagley is a “warrior,” you see, a “real” man, a man’s man, the kind of “man” that allegedly “honors” women by relegating them (in rather disgusting ways) to a secondary status while, in the same breath, hoisting his own mother onto a pedestal as the most honorable of the species. Yeagley treats “warriors” likewise, hoisting his own image onto a pedestal while disregarding and more often degrading the true warriors who still fight for justice and compassion.

David Yeagley is a fake warrior, never serving, and never growing up Comanche. He is a “small, unworthy” white piano player masquerading as an Indian curiosity (an Indian who is championing all things non-Indian) to garner his own praise from other non-Indians. He is a zoo specimen, a white guy made-up to look like a plastic Indian sitting in a supremacist zoo, patting racism and genocide on the back for a job well done.


What exactly does Yeagley think of Bush? From the quotes below, we see he regards Bush as a “Comanche warrior,” as “strong,” as “brave,” as “smart,” as a “nobleman,” as a “great man,” as a “humble man,” as a “gentleman,” as “faithful,” and as “charitable, responsible and compassionate.” But we also see that Yeagley is a relativist, no right, no wrong, but reliant on a misguided position that 'whosoever is stronger' is the one who is “right” and “moral.”

Yeagley — “Yes, Reagan and Bush are definitely Comanche warriors. They understand that ultimate strength is in defense. Opponents of the anti-ballistic missile defense system are not brave men. Their misguided ideology threatens the safety and survival of America herself” (12-13-06).

Yeagley —
“The world belongs to the strong. If you are strong, then you can be charitable, responsible, and compassionate. But pulling your moral pants down and exposing yourself with some elaborate apology for irreparable ‘wrongs’ does not accomplish justice, nor represent any worthy sentiment... This is about strength. Strength alone decides what’s going to be considered right or wrong in a society” (6-24-04).
Using Yeagley’s illogic, Bush actually did ‘too little’ by resisting the genocidal urge to purge this country of all of its Arab Americans. Apparently, for Yeagley, denouncing citizen rights is more “charitable, responsible, and compassionate” than applying a measure of restraint and actually discerning the multicultural reality of America.
Yeagley — “What would you have done after 9-11? I don't think Bush did enough. I would have deported all Arab Muslims immediately!” (1-25-07).

Yeagley — “Bush is a nobleman... Bush is a great man. He may have made some really wrong decisions, but he is a great man, personally. Humble, and faithful. Maybe he just makes some wrong decisions. That's all” (1-24-07).

Yeagley —
“President George W. Bush delivered his 6th State of the Union Address. He carried himself as the strong man he truly is. He has a steadfast character, and invites courage from others. He is a humble man... He is a gentleman, and very fine one... He does not belittle his enemies” (1-23-07).
Okay, so we see Yeagley is sucking on the kool-aid with regards to praising a draft-dodger who masquerades as a “war” president. We can psychologically understand this gutter-level praise, because it’s similar to the praise Yeagley himself hopes to achieve: being lifted up as a fake warrior. But seriously, Yeagley is missing major points of contention with his pedestal fantasy.

For example, Bush is notorious for seeking retribution on those who oppose him; remember Valerie Plame Wilson who was endangered in retribution when her husband exposed the major lie Bush was using to justify the Iraq war? It was unequivocally ‘deadly retribution’ by putting American security and innocent lives at risk for political reasons, and it was maliciously vindictive on Bush’s part.


Don’t think Yeagley is THAT out of touch? Okiedokie, devil's advocate then, take a closer look at his mistaken Valerie Plame declarations back in 2005, and the 180-degree reality today. It is painfully clear (for him) that Yeagley is sorely lacking in discerning the truth of the world events unfolding before his very eyes, and he either lies deliberately about them or is ever-so 'slow on the uptake.' In either case, he is absolutely proven to be out-of-touch, and largely because he values loyalty to his deluded agenda over the actual facts on the ground. Sadly, it is a case of blind loyalty over personal intelligence, and goose-stepping over honest inquiry.
Yeagley — “Never mind that Plame was not a covert CIA operative when her name was mentioned. Never mind that there was no law broken... It's all a plan to bring down the Bush Administration, specifically, to end the war effort in Iraq... This is...evil... One of the most important principles in a successful society is honesty. It's time to remember one simple command: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’ Exodus 20:16. Has the country completely forgotten this?... Wilson's mission was wholly cosmetic, to come back and smear the Bush administration and the war effort” (Oct. 25, 2005)
MSNBC — “In the ‘unclassified summary’ ... cleared by the CIA ... Fitzgerald provided new details about Wilson’s previously classified activities at the agency. In January 2002, she was working for the agency “as an operations officer” in the Directorate of Operations’s Counterproliferation Division (CPD) and serving as “chief” of a unit with responsibility for weapons-proliferation issues related to Iraq. In that capacity, he added, she traveled overseas in an undercover capacity. ‘She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries ... When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity … At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States’.” (Newsweek, 2007)
No, the “character attributes” that Yeagley attaches to Bush and his administration are not admirable in any sense, because those claims themselves are based on false perceptions of reality, a cherry-picked pseudo-reality of loyalty-over-truth. For Yeagley, loyalty trumps truth, and strength trumps democracy, just like “commerce trumps peace” as Bush has revealingly decreed. Yes that’s right, when asked why he allows American corporations to sell clusterbombs to Israel so they can bomb Lebanon civilians, Bush actually replied “commerce trumps peace.”

Fundamentally, Yeagley is not in touch with reality of Americans nor the country. For one who seeks to masquerade as a “patriot,” being out-of-touch with the object of your fantasy seems a major problem, not to mention the denial of his adoption into the Comanche tribe as a non-Comanche. It appears that Yeagley entered the Comanche rolls by way of a Comanche stepmother, an observation supported by stark omissions on his own birth certificate; so claiming to be blood Comanche when the reality does not support the claim, seems a startling inconsistency in his wishful masquerade.

Of course, no one ever accused Yeagley of telling the truth, even when explicitly faced with contrary facts; his invention of a new “harmonic theory” was a blatantly false claim, bordering on the impossible to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of music and mathematics. To accomplish this feat, Yeagley would necessarily have to invent a new “E=MC2” that when applied to music theory would satisfy the mammoth feat, and of course he has refused (and failed) to show the slightest hint of his “new” theory.

No, from his imagined intellectual, psychological and patriotic pedestal, David Yeagley is striving to become “Super Comanche,” a Comanche hung with ripping cahonjes, able to jump small “darkies” without a dingle browned (“Darkies” is a monolithic term Yeagley eagerly applies to all non-whites).


However, while Yeagley mistakenly wraps his brand of white supremacy and misogyny up in the American flag, he is actually having the opposite effect; by touting unpatriotic characteristics as ‘American’ ones, Yeagley is largely ‘turning off’ Indians and non-Indians alike to the more salient democratic principles such as justice, civil discourse and negotiation.

Interviewing a non-Indian Hollywood writer about the justifications of the reservation system in America (Yeagley's "Robert Avrech on Indians"), is like interviewing Britney Spears on what it’s like to become an honorary member of the Menza tribe. The foundation of the effort itself is so illogical as to make it nonsensical and largely a waste of brain power. Yeagley doesn’t seem to mind though, so long as it bolsters his blog image as a Super Comanche and gives the "impression" — if not the substance — of a newsworthy interview.

When wrestling with the unpatriotic nature of a self-proclaimed patriot, it is preferrable to think of him the way Sinclair Lewis would have characterized him, as one of those “chaplains-at-heart, who, if there was no war in which they could humbly help to purify and comfort the poor brave boys who were fighting, were glad to help provide such a war.”

Yeagley endlessly recites biblical passages as if it therefore qualifies him to openly rant against “darkies” and “women” without restraint, all the while directly avoiding terms like “racism” in favor of subjugating the “darkies” before the “white throne” of the corporate military.

Just as Lewis had pointed out for an earlier generation, for this newer generation Yeagley — too — exhibits the same theft of honor the fascists claimed “under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty ... [and] To their purpose they could quote not only Scripture but Jefferson.” Dishonor mascerading as “honor” and anti-democractic turgidity mascerading as “patriotism,” this is the everyday ruse of Yeagley’s fantasy as a so-called Comanche iconoclast.


Rather than championing the destruction of negative stereotypes, he rails against the Indians who desire the removal of this negativity, chastising Indian people for not bowing to non-Indian power structures. To Yeagley, Indian ‘resistance’ is the culprit, and he is arguing to remove that stumbling block is to become truly ‘charitable, responsible, and compassionate’ like good ‘patriotic warriors’ ought to be: the 'ten little' patriotic Indians.

Yeagley argues that removing the negativity is itself negative, and argues that Indians must stop it. But, Yeagley never considers the double-negative inherent within his own logic. Indian people do not simply argue against negative stereotypes, but are more often striving for something supremely life-affirming and powerful — a positive goal — to achieve self-determination in the face of historic genocide, or what is now identified as the American Indian holocaust.

If Yeagley had a genuine desire to be helpful to Indian people, he could first acknowledge the holocaust in America instead of semantically denying it. Instead of bespattering Indian people, Yeagley should work toward the positive empowerment of Indian identity and culture in the continuing face of the genocidal attitudes that still linger in today’s America. Working to get rid of the negative stereotypes and degrading mascots would be the manly thing to do, and the strong thing to do.

As a holocaust denier, Yeagley makes the singular mistake of regarding Indians only in the past tense, in historic terms; the “problems” of Indian people, today, are largely concluded for Yeagley, over with and done with. The holocaust is over. The “best thing,” according to Yeagley’s logic, is to move onward by forgetting the holocaust altogether, as if discrimination against Indians does not happen these days in contemporary America.

As a result, anyone pointing out America’s rather racist practices, Yeagley will label them a “commie,” “homosexual,” “unpatriotic,” “leftist,” “lair,” or some other Yeagley moniker for being morally or psychologically “weak” in his eyes. The truth however, is that Yeagley, himself, is the weak one, by any peaceful standard one chooses to apply. War and violence are not a solution for making peace, and Yeagley’s blind loyalty to this unconstitutional US President is not only anti-American but morally weak.
Joe Conason —George W. Bush has repeatedly asserted and exercised authority that he does not possess under the Constitution he swore to uphold. He has announced that he intends to continue exercising power according to his claim of a mandate that erases the separation and balancing of power among the branches of government, frees him from any real obligation to obey laws passed by Congress, and permits him to ignore any provisions of the Bill of Rights that may prove inconvenient.

The question that we face in the era of terror alerts, religious fundamentalism, and endless warfare is whether we are still the brave nation preserved and rebuilt by the generation of Sinclair Lewis — or whether our courage, and our luck, have finally run out. America is not yet on the verge of fascism, but democracy is again in danger. The striking resemblance between Buzz Windrip [the demagogic villain of Lewis's novel] and George W. Bush and the similarity of the political forces behind them is more than a literary curiosity. It is a warning on yellowed pages from those to whom we owe everything” (2-23-07).
If we followed Yeagley’s blind lead, we would move ourselves toward a bleak dead-end, violence begetting violence, and the cleaving to things phony and misleading like fake warriors and warmongers-in-chief. We have seen, time and time again, Yeagley’s American Indian holocaust denial, global warming denial, and numerous artistic falsehoods, such as: a new harmonic theory (which would be a near impossibility), composing the "first" American Indian opera (which someone else achieved over 70 years ago), and writing the "only" epic poem in the 20th Century (just google this claim to discredit it). And, as is the case with Yeagley’s malfeasance in becoming a public nuisance, we cannot turn a blind eye toward the arrogant hubris of the White House.
Dubya — “I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground.

Major General John Batiste —
“Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out.
Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women. Senator McCain, protect America, not George Bush” (5-25-07).
The courage it takes to say what Maj. Gen. Batiste said, and his courage is far beyond what Yeagley would understand, let alone attempt himself. Waging peace is not as easy as waging war; and, Yeagley’s own incipient ‘warrior’ fantasy is nothing but self idolizing for personal gratification, but at the expense of the truth and ultimately the country.

Yeagley is anti-American and anti-Indian, but all gussied up to appear like a Comanche patriot — a supreme falsehood. If a true military commander like Batiste can admit he is now a better man for leaving the service, what does that say about Yeagley clinging to his fraudulent “warrior” facade? It says, unlike Batiste, that Yeagley is extremely weak.
Major General John Batiste — “Sure. Thirty-one-year Army veteran, two-time combat veteran, first Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, multiple tours of duty in the Balkans serving in Bosnia, Kosovo, commanding Army formations from platoon through division, commanded the First Infantry Division, most recently, for three years, an incredible career. But gut-wrenching decision in the summer of 2005 to put my uniform up and leave an institution I loved, because I realized I could do more good for my soldiers wearing the suit that I am today than the fatigues that I wore some time ago” (5-25-07).
The genuine weakness of David Yeagley is apparent to most who visit his blog, especially American Indians who have unwittingly ventured there. Yeagley doesn’t help Indian causes, he hurts them. Yeagley does not make knowledgeable and coherent comments about reservation life; Yeagley is fundamentally not Comanche and certainly not from a reservation. While denying the genuine reality of Indians today, Yeagley prances around in his whitewashed hollywood ‘warrior’ stereotype — Super Comanche — declaring the early demise of Indian people in favor of his hyper-veneristic and hyper-nationalistic fantasy.

The astute American Indian who goes by the name of “Angry Indian” gets it correct when writing about the indigenous people in America and the indigenous people in Iraq. While on the other hand, Yeagley, “Super Comanche,” remains flippantly clueless. The Angry Indian is absolutely right on this comparison, and Yeagley should be starting a new bachelor’s degree over at angryindian.com instead of wheeling that piffling piano degree around like a phallus-schlinging-dwarf in front of Snow White.
Angry Indian — “When President Bush says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq “until the job is done,” those poor Iraqis have no idea just how long he means. But the Lakotas do. The United States government has been “stabilizing” the Great Sioux Nation and promoting democracy for 139 years. Analogy is a dangerous form of argument, never precise. But sometimes analogy can give us insights into our history, and in this case, it’s worth considering: Maybe Iraq isn’t just the next Vietnam. Maybe Iraq is the next Pine Ridge. A good starting point is the recognition that the voice of our “better angels” is forever stumbling over the more powerful impulse of greed. Oil in Iraq. Gold in the Black Hills. As a good friend likes to remind me: We didn’t invade Iraq because they grow broccoli” (2-19-07).