February 12, 2008


from the Bad Eagle journal

White supremacist David A. Yeagley is feeling the heat, and is suddenly wanting to retract the videotaped statements he so enthusiastically provided for the propaganda video: Historiens Fångar ("prisoners of the past" or "history's prisoners").

But the explanations Yeagley now gives, are just as inaccurate as the videotaped ones, and must largely be considered as mediocre attempts to backtrack and keep an imagined favor with Indian people. For two reasons, Yeagley’s retractions are simply half-baked:

A. he is not regarded in any positive way from Indian people so there is no logical reason to backtrack at all; and,

B. he is not actually retracting anything important.
Let’s take a closer look at the basic twenty points that Yeagley hopes to pass off as Historiens Fångar retractions, and why those rationalizations fail miserably.

YEAGLEY — “Prisoners of the Past,” a documentary made by Danish Television, has been recently posted on the internet. I was featured in a way I did not anticipate.”
So Yeagley didn’t think his words would be considered anti-Indian? That’s very hard to believe. Yeagley said what he said: we can see him saying it, we can hear it coming from his own mouth. There’s very few alternate ways his statements COULD be taken, not many alternative connotations there:
YEAGLEY — “When the warrior was finally defeated, he became the reservation Indian. Th, the loser. The alcoholic. The depressed, keep-away-from-me, leave-me-alone. They have enriched a few. A few families. Generally speaking, they have not enriched Indian people across the country. Casino money has a created a circumstance where all the weakness of Indian government are aggrandized, magnified, multiplied beyond tolerability. The idea that you can build a community with its own government, with its own economy, its own schools, its own language. That’s the idea that many Indian leaders are hoping for. They cut off themselves from participation, from successful positive participation in the world around them” (2-8-08).
From his video statements above, Yeagley makes several seriously erroneous assumptions:

A. Yeagley mischaracterizes all Indian people as a warriors, when only a percentage of the population were. He falls victim to his own warrior-esque stereotype, a common stereotype among non-Indians.

B. Yeagley misinterprets the problems faced by Indian people as self-inflicted, rather than accurately stating the causes as imposed upon indigenous people from outside those communities. Kill a people, corral a people, brainwash their children, and you’ll get exactly what indigenous people still endure today, no suprises here; it was and is imposed on indigenous people.

C. Yeagley uncritically reasons that ‘assimilation’ is the solution to problems created by the ‘self-inflicted isolationism’ that Yeagley wrongly attributes as the cause of indigenous poverty. However, poverty is systematically imposed on indigenous communities from the outside, not from within. Imposed poverty is forced on indigenous populations and is not a byproduct of indigenous or aboriginal behavior inside the communities.

YEAGLEY — “Comanche people were presented in a way which was not anticipated as well.”
You mean, Yeagley did not anticipate that Comanches would object to his speaking on their behalf like he did? So, let’s get this straight, Yeagley did it, but then thought he would not be seen as doing it? That makes no sense at all. Of course Yeagley anticipated it, he endorsed the anti-Indian implications and still does. What he did not anticipate, is the backlash he is incurring, and is simply trying to distance himself to avoid embarrassment, which we have stated before is not even necessary. Most Comanches already regarded him as an embarrassment prior to the video propaganda.

YEAGLEY — “In March of 2007, I was first contacted by Danish Television through Michaela Kirst, a New York liaison. Poul-Erik Heilbut was putting together an unusual documentary on indigenous peoples around the globe. Naturally, he wanted to feature American Indians, and the personal, psychological experience of American Indians in modern society.”
What is meant by Yeagley’s “unusual documentary” comment? It is very difficult to believe that Yeagley wasn’t told the video was a propaganda piece on indigenous casinos; and it is very clear that Yeagley was ‘noticeably eager’ to participate in the video. He probably knew all along what was happening, and only created this ‘half-baked’ retraction after he started receiving flack about it. If Yeagley truly objected to it, why is it still on his John Birch bio? Yeagley likes the exposure, and most likely knew the full intent of the video all along.

YEAGLEY — “In mid-April, he interviewed and filmed me an entire day, at my own home here in Oklahoma City. The next day, I escorted him and his camera crew to Lawton, Oklahoma, where he interviewed selected tribal employees of the Comanche Nation. I made great effort to insure that the appropriate Comanches were involved, namely Geneva Navarro, (Comanche language speaker and teacher), and Carlotta Nowell, RN, (professional and teacher). Juanita Pahdopony, an administrator, hosted the Danes. I don’t know that she was interviewed. I had not given them her name. I had told our chairman, Wallace Coffey, however, about this documentary, as I understood it. He was out of town at the time of the interviews.”
So Yeagley made a “great effort” to insure the “appropriate Comanches” were involved; you mean, like the ones sitting in the empty CNC classroom? Like those Comanches? Of course Yeagley is trying to take credit for ‘guiding’ the Danish video crew when he was the one begging to be in the video himself. If Yeagley made any recommendations to videotape other Comanches, it’s obvious they never made it into the final product. But it’s a far more plausible explanation to say that Yeagley only recommended himself as the “Comanche expert” that the video should rely upon.

YEAGLEY — “Heilbut was impressed that the Comanche Nation had its own college, the only tribally owned college in the country. I said our chairman was progressive, but that at present our college was not accredited. Heilbut was also interested in our casino operations.”
Yeagley’s opinion is not credible here at all; it smacks of an ill-conceived half-baked retraction in a lame attempt to shine up Yeagley’s badly tarnished image. Heilbut was not impressed enough to put any positive CNC footage in the film, “guided” by Yeagley’s advice, nor is there any attention given to Indians having successful colleges. Not only was Yeagley's video appearance misguided, but to declare the CNC as the only tribally-owned college is again nothing but Yeagley’s half-witted hyperbole. Yeagley continues to be absolutely wrong on his facts; and, considering the facts are relatively easy to find, we must therefore conclude (rightly so) that Yeagley is intellectually lazy. Take a look at all these tribal colleges:

And read this article about the vitality of tribal colleges: "Tribal Colleges are fighting for survival, new study shows."

The 24 tribally owned colleges, most of them started in the last decade on reservations in the West, represent "the most significant and hopeful development in our long history of failed policies toward Native Americans," said Ernest L. Boyer, the president of the foundation, a nonprofit group that studies education policies.

YEAGLEY — “I told him our operations were distinguished from many ‘Indian casinos,’ because we have avoided most of the socio-economic issues caused by many of the larger casinos on the east and west coasts. The Comanche Nation has always sought healthy cooperation with the Oklahoma people in Comanche environs. I knew of no major public issues with the Comanche Nation. I was proud of that, and commended our leaders.”
Wrong again. You clearly spoke “as a Comanche spokesperson” about how no one except a select few benefit from your casinos. You did not say Comanches were the exception, no. You did not indicate that most casinos are heavily watched, and are among the heaviest regulated operations in the entire country, more regulated than non-Indian casinos. In fact, Indians pay for the regulations to occur, at the Indians’ expense, and have become the supreme example of the cleanest-of-the-clean operations, far above any of the state or federal standards.

Yeagley is trying to “damage control” his shameful appearance in the propaganda video, but it’s all too convenient to claim he said things that were not edited into the film, after-the-fact. No, we must regard Yeagley’s backhanded retractions now, as a grand “suck-up” strategy, in hopes that the Comanche people might not loathe Yeagley more than they already do. But it’s easy to see through the smoke at Yeagley’s real intent by participating in the video so eagerly: Yeagley willfully intended to speak against Indian sovereignty and declare a war on Indian people to sovereign self-government. We see his lips moving in the video, and nobody can deny that proof, not even Yeagley. To try spinning that ‘extra’ footage and ‘unseen statements’ never made it into the film, is nothing more than unsupported hearsay.
YEAGLEY — “Who rules the world? ... White men... Christian men... European white. Judeo-Christian, "Bible" white. This throne, in this world, will not change. It is secure. White man will not be de-throned. The position is permanent... it's still the Great White Throne” (2007)

YEAGLEY — “But I propose the idea of guilt... American Indian guilt... American Indians are responsible for whatever misanthropy exists in the United States government... The throne is white. The whites built it, and anyone who tries to deceive the races into thinking that throne belongs to all people is a psychological criminal, a moral thief, and an ideological terrorist” (2007)
YEAGLEY — “I did speak, however, of Indian issues on a national level, and noted ideological concepts which apparently cause social inhibition and lack of development. There are numerous historical images of the American Indian. I led Heilbut through the different images—the host, the warrior, the reservation Indian, the protester, and now the gangster.”
Yeagley is not a national spokesperson, and has little knowledge outside of books what the historical or contemporary American Indian is all about. Besides having no authority to speak in this way, Yeagley has quite frankly no knowledge about the Indian populations nationwide that he is pontificating about. The so-called stages of “development” that Yeagley espoused are nothing more than a bunch of indigenous stereotypes, over-simplifications that often plague the poorly-researched books obviously coveted by Yeagley uncritical curiosity.

Though Yeagley set himself up as a so-called “authority” on the issues of sovereignty, he did not recommend the video producers talk with actual authorities like the president of the National Congress of American Indians. No, Yeagley simply ran off at the mouth in his mother’s old living room, without considering the ill effect that his lies and distortions might have on indigenous peoples around the world, let alone Comanches. Yeagley simply wasn’t thinking, which appears to be his usual modus operandi, if you follow his blogs.

Added: Someone just emailed that Yeagley self-admittedly 'doesn't read books,' so it's more likely he has little knowledge outside the internet, not books.

YEAGLEY — “Heilbut was advocating the idea that it is harmful for indigenous peoples the world over to remain separate, and to refuse assimilation. The film asserts that indigenous peoples suffer psychologically and sociologically devastating consequences from their isolationism. The reservation concept, according to the film, is disastrous.”
Yeagley is only half correct. While the video unequivocally promotes assimilation of indigenous peoples, it states absolutely NOTHING about psychology, nor sociology, nor the impact of those ‘-ologies’ on the indigenous people. The video does not address any of that.

To try deflecting “just criticism” away from Yeagley’s unruly appearances by inserting ‘-ologies’ into it that were not there, is a failed attempt at deflection and distraction. Yeagley is attempting to sway readers who may not have seen the footage at all, and attempting to reinterpret the actual footage by interjecting his own distortions into it.

The video actually questions why Indian leaders are forcing their people to live in primitive conditions, and posits the false notion that leaders are controlling and hurting their own populations. The video did not speculate on psychology, nothing on sociology either. Again, Yeagley is fabricating what he wishes was in the video, not what was actually there. He is making things up. Go watch the film yourself and decide, or read the transcript of his statements.

YEAGLEY — “Prisoners of the Past” does not present false material, or inaccurate material. It merely presents incomplete material.”
Actually the video presents false material as well as inaccurate material, just like Yeagley does in his half-baked retractions:

A. The video falsely blames indian leaders for keeping people in poverty.

B. The video sets up a false dichotomy between one indigenous people against other indigenous peoples that does not exist in reality.

C. The video creates a false straw man argument about Indians in the past versus indians in the present, and then uses that fake argument to attack Indian sovereignty.

D. The video mistakenly deduces that Indians are responsible for their own impoverished conditions, without explaining the true causes that are imposed upon Indian people from the outside.


YEAGLEY — “Heilbut however insists that the worst of the story is the weight of the story.”
Actually, there is no such amendment nor retraction from Poul-Erik Heilbut. Heilbut has never made such an apology as Yeagley suggests. Nope. This opinion is nothing but a half-baked explanation and is a complete fabrication by Yeagley. Search for it yourself, it exists nowhere. Yeagley is hoping you will ‘take his word’ on this lie, but most Comanches already know what his word is worth.

YEAGLEY — “The addictions, the physical abuse, poverty, etc., are highest among the reserve peoples of the world. Depression is rife, and endemic. This is what is important.”
Not endemic, no. The word Yeagley is searching for, but cannot utter for political and ideological reasons, is “imposed,” not endemic. “Endemic” would be mischaracterizing Indian hardships as a disease. There is depression and other negative results from imposed poverty, like suicide. But those negative conditions are a direct result of abuse caused to the Indian people from outside the tribe — imposed upon them — not by choice but by force. What is important and not mentioned at all by Yeagley, is that Indian people are contemporary and living in today’s cultural milieu, which is a complex situation of surviving genocide and its lingering affects, combined with the ongoing abuse still carried out by non-Indian people outside the Indian communities.

YEAGLEY — “But nowhere does the film deny the right [of] people to maintain their traditions. Nowhere does the film advocate racial intermarriage. The film does not recommend the elimination of culture. It simply notes the dangerous effects of social isolationism and separatism. I don’t see that as mistaken.”
If you actually watch the video, you’ll see that it does recommend the elimination of indigenous cultures, contrary what Yeagley may ask you to believe with his half-baked retractions. Of course, the video does not implore the supplanting of non-indigenous culture, no. But it absolutely advocates for a welcomed destruction of indigenous cultures, yes. The video goes further than that, actually, by questioning whether Indian leaders are “hobbling” the Indians to the past, and answers that question by calling for the traditions to be given up, lost, forgotten, as a better path toward material wealth and material happiness.

YEAGLEY — “What is mistaken is the fact that the film doesn’t show the other side of cultural preservation, and the indomitable will of certain people to maintain their identity—and the benefit to the world such determination demonstrates. In an age of multiculturalism, when every culture is threatened, the message of the indigenous ought to be seen as hopeful and encouraging.”
This assertion by Yeagley is an attempt at misdirection yet again. But Yeagley’s attempt at slight-of-hand is riddled by a huge stupidity. The video clearly argues for the desolation of indigenous cultures, but fails to identify the true culprit: the continued oppression of indigenous people by non-indigenous people. In fact, the video goes-out-of-its-way to make sure that all the blame — 100% of it — rests squarely on the indigenous people themselves. The fact of this erroneous assumption cannot be denied, it's in the video. Just watch it..

The major problem for Yeagley though, is that culture is not static, and could never be misconstrued as such, except by, perhaps, ignorant anthropologists or by Yeagley himself. Cultures grow, shift and change, continually; it is a natural state of cultures to do so. What is at stake in this explanation is the TYPE of change: mutual change versus forced change.

If a culture changes because it is advantageous to do so, on a mutually respected footing, cultures will adapt without any threat whatsoever. No threat. But when one culture tries to dominate and force another culture into submission, that is coerced culture change.

It is a false argument to imply that cultures are static and are under “threat” unless you also acknowledge that only forced culture change threatens a culture — not mutual culture change, which is under no threat whatsoever. Again, the video’s rationale, wholly supported by Yeagley, is an argument ignorant of the flexible realities of culture change.

No, the “threatened” culture that Yeagley hopes you, as a reader, will envision is the white culture, which holds true for, at a minimum, 90% of his blog rantings. “Multiculturalism” is not a genuine threat; only forced contact change is a threat, and only threatening to those who are oppressed, like indigenous people being threatened by imposed poverty. Again, Yeagley is merely attempting to distract readers away from his own video blunder by interjecting things that have no basis in reality in hopes he can distract criticism away from himself.

YEAGLEY — “The historical and ethnological circumstances of the Laplanders are simply incomparable if not irrelevant. And there are numerous American Indians, for example, who are talented, educated, and modernized, yet who still love living with their own people, and still observe their cultural traditions. The film is completely silent about Indian success stories.”
Actually, the Sami people are very relevant, and are a wonderful comparison. They suffer from similarly imposed poverty from non-Sami people outside their communities, they struggle to maintain their cultural and political independence in the face of voices trying to silence them. Yes, they are very much like American Indians, totally comparable and totally relevant.

The fact of the video not trumpeting any success stories, is exactly what Yeagley hoped would happen when he inserted himself as a national “American Indian” spokesperson. We have already proven that his half-baked attempts at distraction, deflection and interjection are simply attempts to avoid just criticism toward Yeagley himself. We need only look to the Comanche Nation College footage to see Yeagley’s direct influence on the video, the empty classroom. He admittedly accompanied them to Lawton and to the CNC.

Remember that Yeagley advised the producers on which people to videotape, and what was “appropriate” for the video’s purpose. The film is silent on true indigenous life BECAUSE Yeagley personally advised them and went along with it himself. His retraction now, after the damage is done, is implausible and lame.

YEAGLEY — “any streak of white superiority in the film might rather be a subliminal gesture of self-defense, considering the cultural threat Northern Europe currently suffers from the hands of the murderous Mohammadans [sic].
The three words “might rather be” are Yeagley’s mistake here, as they are pure hyperbole on his part. Yeagley knew full well when appearing on this video what he was saying and doing. To try deflecting the white supremacist goal of this video is nonsensical and ridiculous. Nowhere does the video, even remotely, mention Muslims — not one solitary time. No, this is clearly another attempt at deflection, with race-baiting thrown in for added impact.

Yeagley’s wishful assessment treats viewers as if they are stupid, pandering to intellects supposedly ‘lesser than himself’ who cannot see the “subliminal gestures” like he can. Apparently, Yeagley has a need to explain the video’s ‘hidden meanings’ to us, so that we ignorant immature younglings can understand the mysterious and ineffable realities that Yeagley, by way of mighty intellect, can discern as a gifted psychological sooth sayer.

To be clear, the major problem with this half-baked retraction is — it’s all made up — literally. Yeagley’s suggestion here is complete nonsense. It is nothing more than imaginary second-guessing, and is intended purely to divert criticism away from himself.

The video purposely intended to posit a white superiority over indigenous people, only find one apparent “shining” exception in the Sami people, who the video used to race-bait every other indigenous group. Yeagley has remained committed to that same ideology himself, even championed it. But Yeagley’s anti-sovereignty activities have developed at the expense of indigenous people around the world this time around, including his own supposed tribe, the Comanche Nation.

YEAGLEY — “it makes our Comanche college look like a big failure. That was certainly not my intent... Maybe he showed up on a bad day or something, when the weakest classes were meeting. Geneva Navarro is one of the most honored Indian laguage [sic] teachers in the state of Oklahoma. One student is shown in class with her.”
This statement above is really an outright denial of the truth. It was exactly Yeagley’s intent to show the Comanche Nation College as a failure for a couple of reasons. Yeagley argued on camera that Indian leaders are ‘wrongly’ trying to preserve an independent nation, economy, culture and schooling. Yeagley contrarily argued, on screen, that Indians are ‘wrong’ to maintain their “isolationist” sovereignty:
YEAGLEY — “The idea that you can build a community with its own government, with its own economy, its own schools, its own language. That’s the idea that many Indian leaders are hoping for. They cut off themselves from participation, from successful positive participation in the world around them.”
Though after-the-fact, Yeagley tries to reassert a more positive view of the Comanche educational and economic system that he so blatantly trashed, we must remember that it was Yeagley himself who directed the producers to the “appropriate” people and appropriate “Comanche” representatives personally. He even drove them to Lawton, the tribal offices and the CNC.

This fact, when combined with another, is probably all the information necessary to question Yeagley’s motives here. Remember, that Yeagley was unable to be accepted as an instructor, or even a janitor, at the CNC, because he is not welcomed there given his dismissal from the Oklahoma university for misrepresenting himself as a university spokesperson. In other words, he embarrassed the university so badly, they apparently dismissed Yeagley for his inability to control what he says.

YEAGLEY — “The film showed the worst of the problems. Now, the fact that there are huge success stories doesn't mean that the problems are any less significant or unimportant.”
Actually, the success stories would put the problems in proper perspective, mostly by putting the issue of indigenous sovereignty in proper perspective. But even with this criticism, Yeagley is ignoring the larger piece of information missing from the the video — that reservation poverty and inequality comes from continued discrimination against the indigenous peoples. Yeagley’s opinion that these problems are caused by the Indian people themselves, with their “isolationist” tendencies, is a phony argument. Yeagley uncritically skirts the real cause, which is continued racism.

YEAGLEY — “I think this film is a kind of reaction against the threat of Danish culture by the Mohammadans [sic], who destory [sic] every culture in their path... hey, everyone needs to assimilate into modernity... the film makes an heavy, undeniable point. I think is good for thinking.
Again Yeagley fails to speak the complete truth here, by completely ignoring the fundamental root of imposed poverty today, and the continued results of oppressive policies and attitudes still directed at indigenous people. As for Yeagley’s assertion that “everyone needs to assimilate,” Yeagley can be regarded is an obvious advocate for white supremacy. Yeagley can attempt to deny this fact, but his blog writings, along with his inability to speak against the racism in non-imaginary ways, tell a truer picture of what Yeagley advocates: the loss of sovereignty, and the assimilation of indigenous peoples.

YEAGLEY — “The material presented is not false. No, it isn't complete, but the elements it did not show do not make false the elements it did show.”
Again, Yeagley is wrong. The video misrepresents everything about indigenous cultures; it presents a ‘false representation’ argument. The video skews the idea of individual cases that unfortunately result from living in oppressive conditions, and tries to pin them on the indigenous communities. The video completely omits the true cause: the systematic and sustained abuse that is institutionalized by non-indigenous cultures against indigenous people.

Then, by taking this skewed rationale, the video reasons that this ‘prison’ is of the indigenous and aboriginal people’s own making. The propaganda video argues that the unequal caste system is created and maintained by the indigenous people themselves. The video wrongly suggests that assimilation is the best response to this condition, completely ignoring the actual causes: genocide and continued racism.

Further, it is painfully obvious to those of us who have now witnessed David A. Yeagley’s disgusting statements on the propaganda video, that such racism is still a problem for indigenous peoples around the globe, as demonstrated by propaganda videos exactly like this one. Yes, this video actively contributes to further oppression, and in no way leads to any solutions, except for one historically-coveted “assimilation” model that is loved by the white supremacists.


YEAGLEY — “Our Indian reservations have problems. Why? ...How do we get Indians to stop being alcoholics? Does their alcoholism have anything to do with the reservation? There are people who advocate the dissolution of the reservations. Are they right? Can we prove them wrong? I say, yes we can. I also have to say, we haven't proven them completely wrong just yet!”
Actually, these questions are infantile, and largely answered already. Of course, reservations are impoverished because the isolation was imposed upon indigenous people from OUTSIDE the reservations by NON-INDIANS. Yes, reservations are now, by default, the main places you can find concentrated indigenous culture, also the direct result of imposed poverty. Reservations, reserves, indigenous and aboriginal communities are living repositories of living cultures. Why? Because they were herded up and forced to live there without the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

Although reservations and reserves certainly can be improved from within, there still remains the continued racism and oppression that comes down on the heads of the indigenous peoples from the outside. By continuing this immature practice of indigenous holocaust denial, Yeagley is directly responsible for contributing to the efforts that keep ‘imposed poverty’ in place, as well as undercutting genuine indigenous sovereignty where it now exists.


Yeagley could, and I suspect will, try to deflect criticism away from his own blunder, using all sorts of slight-of-hand rhetoric to redirect, race-bait, and even outright falsify with pure imaginary fabrication. However, every argument Yeagley may wish to put forth, really rests on one underlying assumption about the video: does the video advocate for indigenous assimilation?

We know, from his own blog, that Yeagley has continually argued for a ‘supposed need’ for American Indians to assimilate into the superior white race, or the “great white throne” as he likes to call it. As ridiculous as this may sound, Yeagley has on many occasions denigrated people of color (which includes the Comanches) as “darkies,” while in the same proverbial breath advocating subservience to the “great white throne.”

Of race and politics, Yeagley is clearly a white segregationist, which is why many actual Comanches regard him as an Indian-in-name-only who pushes for indigenous people to give up their sovereignty to better satisfy the superior race. Yeagley will, most likely, continue to obfuscate in lame attempts to better his name, after his recent video blunders. But let us examine the fundamental question, is the video advocating for assimilation?

The clear answer is yes.

A. The video questions whether traditional culture holds the answer to the imposed caste system, without ever asking the alternative (and more historically sound) questions regarding oppression and the generational effect of genocide on an abused people.

B. The video admonishes Indians to “no longer live as victims of the past,” falsely setting up a straw man argument that dismisses past indigenous cultures in favor of present day cultures, but failing to regard all indigenous cultures as 100% present-day cultures.

C. Keith Windschuttle mischaracterizes the aboriginal lands as “wilderness” areas, relying on that mythical stereotype for the foundation of his rationale. Indigenous lands were never considered wilderness areas except by non-indigenous people. The ethnocentric discrimination of Windschuttle becomes even more blatant when he starts referring to indigenous land as the mythical “garden of eden,” which is actually a Western-European mythology, and not indigenous at all. Moreover, Windschuttle falls into an anthropological trap, one practiced by the old armchair anthropologists, of not distinguishing between what is actually happening within indigenous cultures versus what Windschuttle himself imagines is going on. Windschuttle falls victim to the already defunct Western myth of “the primitive” vs. “the modern” archetype, when all indigenous people are of the modern variety.

D. The video falsely states that Indian people were “given autonomy” (Keith Windschuttle), and it has been a failure. The truth is, of course, that aboriginal people everywhere have not been given equal status nor equal opportunities, despite proclamations to the contrary. In a very practical sense, no justice means no equality. By mistreating indigenous people as victims of their past, as victims of their leaders, or of their culture are all false straw man arguments, intended only to preserve racist inequality. These imaginary justifications are all completely ahistorical.

In the video, Keith Windschuttle states that Indian languages should die off, because they are of no further use. Obviously, they are considered of no use only to Windschuttle and most probably David Yeagley. But Windschuttle is completely ignoring important calls of the indigenous communities themselves to maintain indigenous languages and thought. Windschuttle’s view is reductionist and utilitarian from a purely Euro-centric point of view, and he should have no proper place on the ABC board, his recent appointment under increasing criticism.

Also, in the video, Windschuttle clearly states that white society should get the indigenous “children” to white schools, to assimilate them into society even if their parents will not be assimilated. Am I mistaken or does this sound exactly like the Carlisle Indian boarding school failure instituted under Col. Pratt? Our advice to Windschuttle is that it’s already been tried, and already failed miserably.

If you really want to hear it straight, it’s a reality that Indigenous people around the globe will not be ‘put down,’ it’s that simple. This propaganda video, Historiens Fångar, including David A. Yeagley’s eager but egotistical contribution, are actually part of the same assimilation propaganda they seek to overlook in their own video.

Windschuttle’s ethnocentric lack of empathy, Yeagley’s uncritical racial pandering, and even the disordered speculations of One Nation United’s Barbara Lindsay, are all three contributing factors to the continued ‘putting down’ of indigenous people. Any back-peddling Yeagley may attempt in the near future, will not alter his willing participation — as a national “Comanche” spokesperson — that clearly advocates for an anti-Indian agenda.

Yeagley both assisted, and appeared in, this ill-conceived propaganda video with his own eager-beaver support, fully aware of his own egotistical role as an assumed ‘national spokesman’ for indigenous people everywhere.

We may never know why Yeagley (or the other two) do what they do, but Yeagley clearly does most of what he does to pitifully bolster his personal notoriety. From the observations above, and from Yeagley’s own misstatements, it appears that Yeagley’s participation had very little to do with genuine altruism. But this time around, Yeagley set himself up for obvious criticism, desired or not, by directly arguing for continued assimilation of indigenous peoples and by advocating for forced culture change that exists for the sole purpose of keeping indigenous people buried under imposed poverty.

February 8, 2008


from the Bad Eagle journal

David A. Yeagley appears twice in the propaganda video, Historiens Fångar ("prisoners of the past" or "history's prisoners"), on Danish TV1* (2-4-08), with distortions and falsehoods videotaped in his mother’s old living room.

The video points out that indigenous people are suffering
, but not from the net results of continuing racism and discrimination, oh no. The video falsely heaps that undeserved suffering on the indigenous people themselves and their leaders; it is all their own fault according to the video. It is a classic case of indigenous holocaust denial, denial of the continued harm that non-Indian discrimination causes, and another instance of a blatant blame-the-victim rationale.

The video confuses indigenous culture as a past reality that is no longer present today, versus the modern material life of non-Indians. On the one hand, the video champions the contemporary material life of “modern convenience,” of which indigenous people are culturally accepting, of course, because indigenous people also are modern people. But the video falsely equates ‘material life’ with the requisite abandonment of modern indigenous culture in order for indigenous people to make use of those modern conveniences.

The video uses a straw man argument, by first relegating modern indigenous culture into the past, and then shooting down that hypothesis because indigenous people are not living in the past anymore. It’s a false argument to say indigenous people are culturally responsible for their own impoverishment, as — even today — indigenous people are still denied equal access to the same resources and opportunities readily available to non-indigenous people.

In other words, the video compares apples and oranges, in a double-standard, by falsely placing traditional indigenous life in the past and then denying the value of indigenous culture in the present day, completely forgetting that indigenous cultures are also a present-day reality.

Today’s indigenous people remain poor due to contemporary racism and predatory poverty, and it is to their credit that indigenous people have been able to maintain their cultural roots while facing the American holocaust, and ongoing oppression that still occurs from the aggressive colonizing powers.

The main reason indigenous people suffer today, of course, is from continued discrimination by non-Indians, massive abuse of indigenous rights and treaties, endemic theft of land and resources by the United States of America, and population control through imposed poverty.

Historiens Fångar
is a propaganda video that uses a straw man argument against contemporary indigenous people, and David Yeagley has happily contributed his own racist and misogynist voice to aid the film’s mischaracterizations and falsehoods.

There should be no remaining doubt why the Comanche people shun David Yeagley, not after his latest “Comanche” impersonation in this latest attack of holocaust-denial propaganda. The script of Yeagley’s four appearances in the
propaganda video, with screen shots, is below. Try not to puke.



“Traditional Aboriginal culture
is gone. It’s a museum piece.

Most people don’t want to live
in a museum.”

[images of an Indian, chains,
and caged monkey behind bars]


“Across the globe, we admire

indigenous peoples and their
pasts. But how do they and

their children live, once the

coach loads of tourist leave

their reservations?”


“When the warrior was finally

defeated, he became the

reservation Indian” (leaning

forehead toward camera for
added emphasis).

“Th, the loser. The alcoholic.

The depressed, keep-away-from-me,

leave-me-alone” (swipes hand in
air for added emphasis).

[video of someone getting arrested]


“In reality have the young

decedents of the proud warriors

and hunters of Greenland,

Australia and the U.S., been

trapped in all this by their
very own leaders?”

[nebulous, unidentified,
intended-to-scare image]


“It’s quite obvious we’ve

marched a lot of years, and

nothing’s changed. So there’s
got to be another approach.”

[children playing in muddy water]


“Does what-once-was really

hold the answers to their


“Or have the leaders trapped

their people and hobbled them
to the past?”

[Title Screen: “Historiens
Fångar,” with feathered

mask image intended to
mischaracterize Indians as



[video of police
detaining someone]


“As the police take the little

girl away, we ask if there’s a

magic wand that could save the

Indian peoples. Would loads of

money prevent this human and

social deprivation at a stroke?”

[images of slave chains, and the
stereotyped ‘feathered warrior’

Indian on horseback]


“This is the way the proud Indians

were to be saved. It would bring

welfare to the poorest minority in

the country, the American Indians.”

[various generic 'B-roll' video
images from inside a casino]


“They have enriched a few. A few

families. Generally speaking, they

have not enriched Indian people
across the country.”




“Hidden behind gates like these
around the U.S.A., you’ll find
the small group of U.S. Indians
who make vast amounts of money
from the casino industry.”

[video images of some gated
communities someplace]


“Casino money has a created a
circumstance where all the
weakness of Indian government
are aggrandized, magnified,
multiplied beyond tolerability”
(leaning forehead into camera
for added emphasis).




“I’ve become, um, a very
unpopular figure partly
because I’m not afraid to say
the whole result is a
disaster, um. for a long time
you were not allowed to
criticize aboriginal people,
you’re not allowed to
criticize their position, ah,
you had to pretend that
everything was wonderful and,
um, because criticism, public
criticism, was regarded as
letting the side down, and,
ah, for that I, I’m called a
rashist [racist], um, I’m um,
I’m ca, called an enemy of
aboriginal people.”


“And while children and youth
stand outside waiting to be
old enough to join the daily
party, more and more people
across the globe are
questioning the sense of
these enclosed autonomous
reserves and nations.”


“The idea that you can build
a community with its own
government, with its own
economy, its own schools, its
own language. That’s the idea
that many Indian leaders are
hoping for. They cut off
themselves from participation,
from successful positive
participation in the world
around them” (leaning
backwards in chair to
emphasize “highbrow” stature).

One of the more disgusting features of this propaganda film, is race-baiting one indigenous people against the others. None of the dark-skinned indigenous peoples were presented anywhere in this film as anything other than populations of primitive “problem” people around the world.

However, when the video starts to posit hope for indigenous people, such as building colleges, creating chances for self-determination, employment and education opportunities, the producers sought out a white-skinned, blonde-haired young woman, Marit Anne Sara, from the Sami reindeer-herder tribe in northern Norway. The narrator described the Sami people as, literally, “the shining example” for the rest of the world’s indigenous peoples, without mentioning any other indigenous college whatsoever from anywhere else on the planet.

So, rather than use positive footage they shot while at the Comanche Nation College (CNC) in Lawton, Oklahoma, while they were there — to show an exemplary modern educational system by indigenous people — the propaganda producers utilized the light-complexioned Sami people as their uplifting example of indigenous empowerment, ignoring over 550 tribes in the mainland U.S. who also achieve professional success beyond the university and postdoctorate level.

And, what DID they show of the CNC? They searched for and found an empty classroom with no one in it, and then edited THAT particular footage into the video — not a very accurate representation. That's called 'cherry-picking' to serve an ideological agenda — in the video's case — to show tribes as "unsuccessful" in order to further rationalize removing them. That's called anti-Indian, or cherry-picking for an anti-sovereignty agenda.

Yeagley himself went 'on and on' about supporting this exact position, that tribes and tribal leaders are heading in the wrong direction, heading to sovereignty. According to Yeagley, these futile attempts by Indian nations to remain
sovereign, and remain self-governed, is a wretchedly isolationist pursuit not worthy of the pitiful creatures. But remember, Yeagley is also claiming to BE one of these woeful creatures he so easily disparages. Not a very positive position to take for a supposed "Comanche."

It was a disgusting thing to witness, the video actively trying to pit one indigenous people against all the other indigenous peoples; the basic plot of the entire propaganda video is one giant act of cinematic race-baiting. I mean, come on, exactly what are the
split-screen images of caged monkeys behind bars next to indigenous people supposed to mean?! There are not many ways to interpret it besides racist propaganda.

For more of the back-story on the video's so-called "historian" and other white supremacist commentators used in this propaganda video, be sure to read the latest article over at DavidYeagley.org: Yeagley With Other White Supremacists in Racist Film Prisoners of the Past,
as well. It is excellent.

Of course it must be pointed out, regarding Yeagley’s four appearances (above), that Indian “leaders” are actually Indians too, chosen by the tribes themselves — born citizens of indigenous communities with whom they serve — and therefore a democratic part of the vital tribal communities from which they come. The idea of indigenous ‘leaders’ cannot to be twisted into some foreign monarchy ideology of enslaving the indigenous masses.

The Indian people are the ones who decide who and what they are by inherent sovereign initiative, not by decree of the United States of America. Yeagley simply plays along with the slipshod propaganda, as an unquestioning and unreasoning enabler. Yeagley’s lack of honest intellectual curiosity is obviously one of the reasons he was fired from a briefly-held instructor position, and why the Comanche Nation College has never taken seriously his application to teach inside the Comanche community. More can be said about Yeagley's harboring resentment toward the comanche Nation College, which I will elaborate on in the next installment.

It should be noted, too, that many tribal businesses — including casinos — greatly enrich not only the casino-owning tribes, but through tribe-to-tribe agreements, the other non-casino tribes as well. In Minnesota, in fact, there are revenue-sharing agreements in place between casino-tribes and non-casino tribes, and even a sharing agreement with the State of Minnesota.

The indigenous people recognize the need to share, and to lift all people up together. It’s this indigenous foundation of sharing and reciprocity, that permeates all Indian cultures, from the potlatch ceremonies of the northwest, to the stick ball and stomp dance gatherings of the southeast. From an indigenous point-of-view, we are all-in-this-together, in other words, a concept that eludes David Yeagley’s individualistic, and rather selfish, ideology.

On a more direct note, Yeagley claims citizenship in the Comanche Nation, who themselves own and manage at least three casino businesses:

Comanche Nation Casino
402 Southeast Interstate Drive

Lawton, Oklahoma 73501

Comanche Nation Star Casino

Route 3 Post Office Box 82A

Walters, Oklahoma 73572

Comanche Spur Casino

9047 US Hwy 62

Elgin, Oklahoma 73538-2922
More importantly, it is confirmed from the tribal office, that Yeagley receives the same ‘per capita’ checks that all other tribal enrollees receive, an income generated directly from the Comanche casino profits. Yet, instead of giving back the tribal “handout” in protest, Yeagley keeps it for himself — every single time!

How do you say: "I'm living off indigenous casino money, and could not hold onto a real paying job my entire life," in Danish or Comanche?

So, for all his backwards propaganda, enabling ideologies, misogyny blogging, self-loathing rants, and pseudo-intellectualism laced with denial, we can simply regard “David A. Yeagley” as nothing more than a common hypocrite after all.

February 5, 2008


from the Bad Eagle journal

Are Comanches holocaust deniers? Well, let’s start with this quote (below) regarding denial:

“Denial is the psychological process by which human beings protect themselves from things which threaten them by blocking knowledge of those things from their awareness. It is a defense which distorts reality; it keeps us from feeling the pain and uncomfortable truth about things we do not want to face. If we cannot feel or see the consequences of our actions, then everything is fine and we can continue to live without making any changes. Denial comes in many forms” (CAIP).
According to the denial site (above), there are several types of denial. Let’s examine these types, and see where David “A” Yeagley falls, shall we? Then, perhaps, we can answer the basic question about Comanches with a bit more understanding of the facts. But truthfully, I suspect the “A” stands for ‘annoy.’

Simply denying being dependent on the condition.
Example: "You're a white supremacist." "No, I'm not."
Yeagley — “unity by common plight is offensive to me... I am not a racist” (2006).
— “expect an Indian to be a prick, a problem, an annoying guilt monger. I am not” (2008).

— “As I have pointed out, there was no Indian ‘holocaust’” (2005).
It’s easy to see that “A” has often denied what others have quickly identified and expressed. He often responds to criticism that he is bigoted or racist, and yet continues to denigrate Indian people and to deny the facts of Indian history as if he weren’t actually doing it. But of course he is, so what are we to make of that? Even his supposed ‘own people,’ the Comanches, are quick to disassociate themselves from him. Obviously, he depends on the social strength of Comanches that has held the Comanche people together historically, but “A” personally loathes that he must pay any homage to the “darkie” race at all (quoting his own characterization: “darkie”).

Of course, the reason Comanches keep their distance both psychologically and physically from him is because “A” maintains close ties to hate movements that Comanches find repugnant. Yeagley is tied to the following white supremacist groups: National Alliance, One Nation, Stormfront (Neo Nazi skinheads, a Stormfront member ran the section on his website on Jews, posting Jew-baiting topics like "How to Spot a Commie Jew"), Minutemen (founded by white supremacists), VDare (self described white nationalists), Gene Expression (eugenicists), and the John Birch Society (anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists).

Minimizing is admitting the condition to some degree but in such a way that it appears to be much less serious or significant than it actually is.
"I wasn't that bigoted at the party," "Yes, I pontificate, but not that much," "I had a few ranting moments but no one listened anyway," are frequently heard examples of minimizing.
Yeagley — “America did not commit genocide against Indians, and in fact was pleased to leave a good deal of land for relatively small population. The devil may be in the details, but, the gist of the story is that Indian people are still here, and we still have land” (2005).
— “If [they] were trying to commit genocide on my people, then I wouldn't still be here” (2005).
Of course, “A” is guilty of minimizing, yes. He denies the American Indian holocaust, and fails to ever blog about the victims or atrocities perpetrated on Indian people. He probably considers such talk “weak” with his fake patriot facade (“A” never served our country), and would rather we ignore the entire genocide issue altogether. “A” states that Indians should happily forget our history, and thereby act out of historical ignorance with respect to our future. For “A,” it’s best to forget the past, and move along like nothing ever happened, no complaints, no problems. Of course, this is the minimizing form of denial, and Comanches recognize that “A” practices his own brand of ‘revisionist history’ and find it very insulting. America did, in fact, practice genocide on American Indians.

Rationalizing is making excuses or giving reasons to justify the condition.
Examples: "Indians are bums, so I prefer the white race."
"Sure casinos help the community a lot but not me - they are not to be trusted!" are some of the examples of rationalizing. The behavior is not denied but an inaccurate explanation of its cause is given.
Yeagley — “Indians still create the worst statistics in the matter of poor health, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, etc. Casino billions have not affected these statistics one iota, no, not one fraction. Why?” (Jan 2008).
Of course, Yeagley is completely wrong. In fact, casinos do work, so well in fact that the U.S. government actually uses those success stories to try shirking its treaty obligations. “Governmental reports alleging that gaming revenue has been used to "reduce poverty and unemployment rates, build schools and hospitals, paved road and construct sewer systems, preserve and revitalize cultural traditions and build responsive and responsible government institutions such as tribal courts" are a smokescreen for the United States to escape its treaty obligations. If these treaties had been honored decades ago, the Native American communities would have enjoyed the same opportunities and the same standard of living as mainstream America” (Robert Robideau, 2006).

“A” moreover blames Indians for their own predicaments, and suggests that Indians cannot turn casino businesses toward societal health and prosperity. But not all tribes have casinos; many chose not to have them. And the ones that do, often use the proceeds for the betterment of reservation life. So “A” is rationalizing away the facts, that reservations actually benefit greatly from successful casino businesses, but why? The answer probably rests in his idea of the lowly vulgar Indian, and “A” cannot admit to himself that Indians are equal to non-Indians in every way.

Again, the Comanche people are gracious, loving, socially minded, and inclusive of friends and visitors; I know this from personal experience. They are wholly different from the image that “A” projects on the blogosphere about himself as a phony warrior and misogynistic patriot (“A” never served our country). It’s no wonder the Comanche Nation College would not hire him to teach there, and why two Oklahoma universities he once tried teaching for, fired him for misrepresenting himself as a university spokesperson to great embarrassment, and for harassing the students. “A” claims he was fired for his “patriotism” efforts, but the collegiate records show otherwise. Again, it is a case of denial, in this instance, of rationalizing. Comanches are justified in keeping their distance from him.

Intellectualizing is avoiding emotional, personal awareness of the problem by using theories about a condition, keeping it general and vague.
"Are darkies really reliable? Just the other day I was reading something about a gay darkie." "Lots of people feel sexually uncomfortable, are they homophobic?" "My family is Comanche, I have those warrior genes." "My childhood was so bad, patriotism is a way of coping with my underlying feelings." These all are examples of intellectualizing.
Yeagley — “I don't believe any of the One Nation people are racist, or are against Indians being Indians... I don't think these One Nation people are anti-Indian. They're only trying to protect their own businesses” (2006).
Perhaps “A” overheard one of his One Nation friends make this claim, that One Nation is merely a ‘business’ and is therefore not racist? It’s only concerned with making profits? Very general, and vague, and of course unsupported. One Nation’s white supremacy activities are well documented. The above generalizing reminds me of the time “A” grasped onto Lamb and Lynx, the Prussian Blue twins, claiming they were simply expressing pride in their “white race.” However, as it turned out, they were neo-nazis after all. Yes, “A” has a selective denial mechanism when it comes to intellectualizing and generalizing, always picking for the whitest cherry in his collected bushel of so-called facts.

Comanches are more honest than “A,” obviously. To run a nation, or a tribal college, one needs to rely on the best facts available and on science, not on excessive ideology and fanaticism. Could you imagine what disarray would happen if either the Comanche nation or college operated under the same cosmology that “A” uses to see the world? No, the Comanches have a far better grasp of what rests in front of their eyes, and have far less aversion to dealing with it than the paranoid world of “A.”

Blaming (also called projecting) is maintaining that the responsibility for the behavior lies somewhere else, not with us.
"You would rant too, if you were attacked by commie liars!", "The liberals are out to get me," or "I lost my college teaching job, that's what made me hate" are examples of blaming. The behavior is not denied, but its cause is placed 'out there', not within the person doing it.
Yeagley — “I think pushing tolerance of sexual preditors [sic] is pushing homosexuality. And I do consider a homosexual to be a preditor [sic]... Young persons are initiated... I call the priests homosexuals, not pedaphiles [sic]. I was struck by the inconsistency when the homosexual movement did not support the priests--their own kind” (2007).
— “Indians are more pitiful than a helpless, dying woman... All that we hear is the emasculated whining ...who think Indians deserve more pity than a helpless, dying woman” (2005).

— “American Indians are responsible for whatever misanthropy exists in the United States government... The throne is white. The whites built it, and anyone who tries to deceive the races into thinking that throne belongs to all people is a psychological criminal, a moral thief, and an ideological terrorist” (2007)
Of course there is a distinct difference between sexual orientation (which is a product of evolution, not a crime) versus pedophilia (which is raping a minor, and is absolutely a crime). Yeagley blames rape on sexual orientation, instead of the true causes of rape. In essence, he is not only minimizing rape, but engaging in a practice known as ‘blaming the victim.’ It is painfully clear from his ideology, that “A” is way out of touch with real Comanches by continually blaming his supposedly “own people” as emasculated and the primary cause of criminal behavior in our country.

Would you want a supposed citizen of your tribe mischaracterizing you as woefully evil to everyone else? Perhaps you see how distant the Comanches would become when “A” makes these grandiose pontifications that greatly embarrass the Comanche people. I hear the Comanches do not banish people from their midst, which is probably why “A” is permitted to hang around the fort at all. You can chalk this up to Comanche kindness, not to the acceptability of “A” himself. Comanches seem to tolerate him, no matter how crazy he acts out. They keep their distance though, of course. Yeagley ought to thank them for allowing him to be so vile and not kick him out, but like previously noted, “A” has a problem with the Comanche race itself and the Comanche social system.

Diversion is changing the subject to avoid a subject that is felt to be threatening.
A common example of diversion is responding with a joke, such as "You don't expect me to ‘turn-the-other-cheek’ while I rant, do you?" Other examples of diversion: "Yeah, I got execrated last night, so how about that latest beauty queen?" "My harassing bothers you? Your race bothers me!"
Yeagley — “I think the accusation against the white race ... has to do with the profession of Judeo-Christian values that historically has come with the white race into modernity” (2008).
Diversion is a favorite tactic of “A,” and is highly prevalent in his blog comments as the blog articles his constructs. Notice (above) that “A” seems to be defending the white race against some perceived “attack,” but instead of blaming or rationalizing, “A” simply inserts a diversion: Judeo-Christian. In this diversion, he baits Jews and Christians into the foray, who he hopes will rush to his rescue. In this way, “A” has diverted an attack against his own perceived white supremacy, toward a new attack on Judeo-Christian history. “A” has attempted to divert attention away from his own illogical and ideological shortcomings, to a new threat, to protect Christmas from attacking atheists, or some such paranoid fabrication. Of course, “A” never goes back to respond to the original embarrassment, but simply swipes along to other dirty little subjects, lathering up bible passages like Bill O’Reilly’s loofah.

Comanches are way too smart for this ruse: pitting white supremacists together with Judeo-Christian apologists against the so-called pagans or heathens? It’s another straw man argument really, the faux dichotomy doesn’t really exist outside of the description created by “A” himself, to divert attention away from his own bigotry.

Bargaining is cutting deals or setting conditions for when things will be right to deal with the problem.
Examples: "I'll consider the question of black Indians when liberals admit they’re commies" "I'll quit when Ann Coulter marries me."
Yeagley — “I see Negroe [sic] history and Indian history as completely separate, in ethos, pathos, and fact. Brotherhood based on anything but humanity, in this case, is a false, distorting view, and is inimical to Indians” (Dec 2006).
Here “A” is bargaining with a revisionist history. Rather than see the actual history of blacks and American Indians as connected, which they are, in several key ways (such as the Buffalo Soldiers, or the black Cherokee freed men), “A” invents his own separated history, “completely separate.” It is a made-up invention however, as “A” once again tries to setup a straw argument and then shoot it down, as proof of his intellectual prowess. It is pure hyperbole though.

The Comanche know their history, and are inclusive of friends and neighbors, not exclusive. They share a cultural richness with the Kiowas, Apaches, and others with a similar history including Oklahoma blacks. The imaginary pseudo-history that “A” has invented, never actually occured, and never will. By declaring this fake reading of history, “A” is putting forth a bargain that cannot and will not ever happen. The foregone result in this bargain is that “A” will never really have to account for his denial because the events of this bargain are outside the realm of reality. The bargain is imaginary, so “A” will not be held accountable for explaining it in this worldly reality. How convenient for him.

Passivity is ignoring the situation, or being it's victim.
"I've tried being nice before, but the dark side is stronger than me." "There's nothing I can do." "If only I got more respect..." are examples of passivity.
Yeagley — “I refuse to feel intimidated... or otherwise limited by being Comanche. My white father apologized to me for my being Indian ... I've been told that wherein I have failed, it is because I am Indian” (2006).
— “It was that very submissiveness, however, that allowed the American Negro to carefully watch his masters, adopt his ways, and finally to open the opportunity to excel” (2006).
Ever painting himself the martyr while being persecuted by angry commies, homos and liberals (oh my), “A” lives inside a paranoia of his own making. We might call it ‘denial-land’ for lack of a better description. In this imagined cosmos, “A” acts and reacts as if he were the lowly ashamed child that once looked up into his disapproving father’s eyes. Seemingly racked by insecurities and perceived imperfections that never let go, “A” strives to be the bravest, the most intelligent, the lofty artist, the original composer, the glorious poet, and the best ‘whatever-you-or-I-might-see-as-important’ in order to justify his own self worth. But Comanches see right through this ruse, as well.

Actually, the Comanches have survived, and excelled, by seeing themselves as empowered sovereign citizens of the Comanche Nation, not as enslaved wannabe masters. On this point, “A” is creating a thoroughly revisionist view of history, an imagined one where non-Indians accept a secondary position and hope the “white throne” tosses Indians enough crumbs to survive, smiling, of course, in praise of non-Indian “generosity.” And because Comanches can readily see their own empowerment struggle regarding their own history, they can also easily recognize it within black history too. Instead of falling for the stupid ‘I’m a victim’ rhetoric that “A” pontifiicates for his own self-declared notoriety, genuine Comanches chose a path of strength and true sovereignty.

Hostility occurs when the person becomes angry or unpleasantly irritable when the subject of his inconsistency or facade is mentioned, scaring or threatening people away from discussing it.
A classic example is the situation where the white supremacist asserts that his former friends do not mention that he’s a sour person too much. In fact they used to mention it but haven't for years, because every time they did he got angry and it escalated into a showdown — so, they don't mention it any more. Examples of hostility: "l'm a clodpate when I blog? Fine, no more blog for you." "Get off my back, you’re banned from this site!"
Yeagley — “Bad Eagle is a class site, a leader in cutting edge thinking on the internet... It is clear to me now that you must be Negroid... Yes, that's it. You project the basest of otherworldly traits by demeaning the patriotic man... A vile spirit you are. I will warn you once again, as I have stated so explicity [sic] before, you will be banned if you persist in your dogged pursuit of not contributing positively to this beacon of light on the internet... This is most disturbing... you leave me no choice but to ban you... This is very deep, very spiritual” (2006).
Yeagley — “Think of it this way: the whites build the throne. They are obviously superior... If you can't build your own thrown, then in all sincerety [sic], shut up!" (2007).
— “I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists... Dracula’s bloody cruelties against the innocent... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today? We are still waiting for him to arise... He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear. Where is Dracula when you need him? (2001).

— "people need to be re-programmed to respond immediately--with violence! There were no heroic acts in the VA Tech incident ... There is no honor in escaping... You don't barricade yourself in a room, or behind a desk. You attack the attacker ...I'm sick of these killings. I'm sick of the weakness that allows them" (April 17, 2007)
On occasion after occasion, “A” has turned the tables on those who once even considered him friends, such as his boyhood friend who later became a minister but revealed he was gay. “A” took a dark turn on that former friend with all manner of degrading characterizations. But one need not be a friend or even a foe to incur the venom that “A” unleashes on a moment’s whim. Rather than defend the inner subtleties of an argument, “A” routinely works his way through all of the types of denial above, rather than answer directly for his off-the-wall behavior. And if all else fails, he goes for the rhetorical jugular.

This wearisome attacking, I know, absolutely turns the stomachs of most Comanches. Many of them cannot stomach his dreadful behavior for long; even the sight of “A” whenever he shows his face around Lawton, Oklahoma, is enough for Comanches to whisper "yuck" under their collective breaths. There is an unsavory quality associated with “A” in Comanche country; his phony warrior persona (“A” never served our country) and shortsightedness on Indian cultural matters, have led to an increasingly distasteful association whenever he intrudes on Comanche life. There’s only so much hostility Comanches can stomach, and mostly that levy has already been breached.


If you innocently came across David “A” Yeagley’s blog, you’d might think the Comanche people were really a bunch of holocaust deniers ... no matter if the “A” most likely stands for ‘adopted.’ But what if you knew little about Indian life, and started to actually believe Yeagley’s disjointed logic, selective memory, and revisionist history? Well, of course, this is the very reason the corrective sites exist, like DavidYeagley.org, BadEagle.org and the ever incisive David Yeagley: The Indian Apple, to provide better sources of information and reveal the truth about the white supremacist who is paste maked-up’d in Comanche garb.

Could David A. Yeagley be anymore of a personified straw man if he even tried? I doubt it. I doubt “A” even knows that he is one, a living sports mascot trying like pinocchio to become a real boy, all the while carving his so-called “new theories” from the wood block on his shoulders. “A” is a living straw man argument for the continued misappropriation of American Indians, both lamenting for more Indian mascots, but then crying foul when the only “historian” he trusts, Rush Limbaugh, doesn’t see anything but the stupid caricatures “A” has bolstered up. “A” is a straw man personified, a scare crow, dooms-dayer, who chicken-littles himself into a stupor for nonexistent blog ratings. Gotta give him an “A” for antics.

So, are Comanches holocaust deniers? No, of course not. But “A” is, because “A” unequivocally denies the American Indian holocaust ever happened. “A” thinks that it’s not worth mentioning or even thinking about. “A” doesn’t ‘spend-much-time-on-it’ to paraphrase one of his icons. “A” thinks Indians simply hung around while the peaceful settlers expanded into our lands, and then there might have been perhaps a few small skirmishes where Indians savagely attacked the innocent settlers. And, vwallah, Indians lost the war, and we are now the forever servants of the great “white throne,” according to “A.”

This Native holocaust denial is dependent on the type of illogic and revisionist history that could only make sense to someone with no humane or emotional investment in the Comanche people. “A” is devoid of empathy for Comanche history, and largely treats American Indians as a second-class citizenry except for his beloved Comanche/hispanic mother. His denial is probably so damagingly ingrained at this point, perhaps from childhood, that anyone crossing his path will actually feel the loathing radiate around him, that is, unless you’re in some kind of denial yourself.

Thankfully, the Comanches that I associate with, from the Business Committee, the Film Festival, the Chairman’s office, and the College, pretty much see “A” as a queer wayward oddball of a pinnochio struggling against his “darkie” lineage to become accepted for whatever it is he finally turns out to be in non-Indian society. The strange thing, though, is that “A” never really left non-Indian society all along. He never really entered the Comanche social system at all. Weird huh?

Comanches are NOT holocaust deniers — but "A" definitely is.