March 22, 2008

The Yeagley Logic, "Psychologically Speaking"

from the Bad Eagle blog

Yes, every so often, Bad Eagle dot ORG chances across some truth telling on Yeagley’s blog. Unfortunately, it does not come from him, however. Let’s tune-in to a recent string of comments, and see what’s shakin’ over at Yeagley’s white supremacy blog. From what I see, it seems to be a squabble over who is a real Indian and who is not, plus a recognition of Yeagley’s huge error in speaking on behalf of the Comanche People in the propaganda film Historiens Fångar.

For more backstory on Yeagley’s support for the film, and leadership role in it as the official Comanche spokesperson, you can go HERE and HERE.
Okay, let’s tune-in and see what’s going on at the great white throne blog:

BE Member — “DAY-Your refusal to accept any responsibility for actions or efforts concerning your documentary and the Comanche tribe is quite understandable.

Your bridge to Lawton is burned and you know it. Why waste time admitting fault when it won't unmake the film, reverse time or placate the enemies you've already made in the tribe. And it won't look manly to your BE audience if you admit any wrong doing. Better to turn tail and return to your true family.

Stick to what you do best, playing Indian. Forget trying to forge ties with the Comanche, they'll never trust you after this debacle. Forget trying to appeal to actual Indians, they were lost to you long ago. Yup, you've made the right choice.

Continue to play Indian by creating an Indian persona that the white-wing demands. Native stereotypes were created by your blood ancestors so you are following their traditions. Besides, it too damn hard to play catch-up and become a real Indian!

You must revel in the role of the anti-Indian Indian. That's double the "Indian"! And it's paid the bills so far, hasn't it?

Look, by blood you're far more white than Indian. Your appeal, as shown by the makeup of your audience, is white. And your love of the white throne makes your return to your white-wing family all the more timely and appropriate.

Hail the returning hero! Welcome home!
Phew. Some jen-you-ighn truth-tellin’ is goin’ down over at the white throne, for sure. Hallelujah.
BE Member — “On April 17, 2007 DAY wrote in the Latest Announcements forum under the heading "European TV, Indian documentary" DAY wrote:

"I'm involved in an intense few days of filming for a documentary on American Indians, about modern issues, for a European TV company. I'll let everyone know the details later.... [Yeagley]

"The History Channel episode I did was about the old days. This new doc is about modern issues, like casinos, education, trying to make it in the world, reservations, etc., you know, all the things I'm a perfect authority on. :D [Yeagley]

"Don't worry, I've lined up the "real" Indians, just like I did for the History Channel. Yeah, I'll get my two beads worth in, but, I always line up the elders when they're available. I want them to speak. " [Yeagley]

DAY obviously feels he is an active participant in this film project. He knows the subject matter ‘modern issues, like casinos, education, trying to make it in the world, reservations, etc.’ and feels he is the ‘perfect authority’. The emoticon used a big goofy smile which expresses an unbound joy for this opportunity.

"I've lined up the "real" Indians, just like I did for the History Channel," [Yeagley]

writes DAY. The statement confirms the depth of his involvement in the project.

On April 25, 2007 under the same heading DAY writes:

"The Danish crew was quite happy with their opportunities at the Comanche Nation College... [Yeagley]

"I made the connections for all this... So, this is the second major TV documentary I have helped put together. And yes, they did interview (me), too. (I was the first person they called, same as the History Channel thing in 2005. I think it's those nasty remarks I've made about casinos, and those support remarks I've made about mascots..." [Yeagley]

If you were going to make a negative film about Indians, who would be the first person you'd call?

On Nov. 21, 2007 in the BE Comanche Nation forum, Comanche History section under the heading ‘Comanche Warriors', A program displaying the Comanche Wars’ DAY wrote:

"HistoryChannel called me... HC found me through media. [Yeagley]

"I helped them shape the whole program. I said if they really wanted to make it authentic, and different, they absolutely had to interview our elder women... [Yeagley]
I know Comanches never wore those high plains chokers, but, I had brought different things, and gave the filmers their choice...what do I know about film impressions, right? [Yeagley]

I recently helped put together another one, for Danish Television (like PBS). I haven't got the latest word on that one. Once again, I insisted that they feature certain women, this time Geneva Navarro, one of our language experts, and the woman that runs our nursing program at our small college, Carlotta Nowell." [Yeagley]

DAY thinks of himself as a film producer,

"I helped them shape the whole program." [Yeagley]

DAY knows about costuming for films,

"I know Comanches never wore those high plains chokers, but, I had brought different things, and gave the filmers their choice." [Yeagley]

DAY is a producer for the Comanche segment of the documentary,

"I recently helped put together another one, for Danish Television...Once again, I insisted that they feature certain women..." [Yeagley]

In conclusion, DAY is not the deceived, innocent filmmaking neophyte he now claims to be and he knew exactly the purpose of this film.

Or DAY is merely a boorish, boastful, self-agrandizer who was deceived ‘Borat’-style by his own self-importance and a right-wing Danish film crew.

You decide.”
Whoo Doggie! Lotta good points in that post, yes-sur-ree. I especially like the fact that the piano doctor brought some chokers for everyone to wear on camera, nice hollywood touch, psychologically speaking.
Yeagley — “The film does not tell the whole story. Granted. It was given the whole story. For now, you have to believe me on that one. Mr. Heilbut has mentioned to me "the whole film." I want to hope there will be a different, more complete version.

I cannot help it because there are so few students attending our little college. But, if it is not accredited, why would any student want to go there?”
Hold up there Bucko! The video was in fact wrong in several facts, not simply omitting facts. And, the Comanches ain’t gonna look too kindly on yur slappin’ all the students goin’ there. If I was you, I’d think twice ‘bout sayin’ stuff like that in public.
Yeagley — “We had a nursing training program, and we had graduates from that who could pass the state LPN license test, and get a job. I was really proud of that. I sent them to Carlotte Nowell. I don't know what happened to that. It was a but rushed.”
So, wait, the piano doctor is a nursing guidance counselor? Amazing hidden talents and profoundly ulterior credentials this piano player stashes away for a rainy day! ... psychologically speaking.
BE Member — “The Comanche Nation would've said thing differently than you because they don't think the same way you do.”
That’s true, they very clearly don’t think like Yeagley, and that’s a good thing.
BE Member — “I accuse you of not using better judgement. You lead them to the right people when it's those very people who should've done the leading and deciding if they wanted to participate with plenty of time to say yes or no. You just showed up...
Good point, and absolutely true.
BE Member — “'re always bringing Juedo-Chrisitan stuff into every forum. If anyone is mixing cultural values you are just as guilty. There's no more Indian or less Indian about this. It's about doing what is right when it comes to the Comanche Nation.
True again. Who is this BE Member? You ain’t gonna last long in there with this kinda talk, little david takes easy offense and likes playing a victim from such cavalier tete-a-tete.
BE Member — “Do you have the authority to speak for the Comanche? Do you have the authority to decide what they should participate in? Does being an enrolled member entitle you to such authority?
Aw yeah, we concur! Well, shucks, let’s take a gander at those questions ourselves, shall we?

Does Yeagley have the authority to speak for the Comanche? That’d be no.

Does Yeagley have the authority to decide what Comanches should participate in? That’d be ‘nother no.

Does being an enrolled Comanche entitle you to such authority? Again, nada.

Well, that ain’t so difficult. Wonder why little david ducks those questions. hmm.
BE Member — “... Again, I'll speculate that you didn't participate in this on behalf of the Comanche, however, it should've been up to the tribal government to say whatever they were going to say on such delicate issues.”
This video was being sent out all over the TV right? So, let me get this correct, the piano doctor stepped in as the official Comanche spokesperson? Wow, seems kinda arrogant, not letting the Comanche officials field that responsibility.
BE Member — “Most tribes have a spokesperson or media person who does the official speaking for the nation if the tribal chair deligates that task. If a project has to do with history/culture than the person in that position does the speaking for the tribe. That person is in that position for a reason.
BE Member — “It isn't a matter of can or cannot. Any tribal member can do all the speaking they want. DY can speak all he wants on the Comanche, however, other Comanches may look at him and question "who is he to speak about the Comanche?" That's just one of many questions I'm sure some Comanches have asked themselves.
Comanches have done more than ask themselves that, over and over again. Remember when Yeagley claimed his mother was the first woman elected to office? That mob of concerned Comanche women who confronted him outside the offices, didn’t think too highly of his public speaking that day, I can tell you. Sorta makes one withdraw a level of trust in someone who falsifies lineage and accomplishments in such a public way, don’t it?
BE Member — “Now if you're talking credentials, what credentials does DY have? He doesn't have a history degree, but he does have a degree. As far as I know he doesn't hold any position in the Tribal Administration. Has he written any books on Comanches? Or is it just that he has a website and is an enrolled Comanche? Ward Churchill felt his enrollment status (we know otherwise) gave him entitlement and authority to write all kinds of stuff about Indians, especially the Lakota Sioux tribe and their most recent history. Because he wrote such stuff he was an ‘expert’ in his mind, but anyone really can write all they want about Indians, even Indians and they do.”
Absolutely yes. It’s not a matter of degrees earned or intelligence, it’s a matter of being called upon by the Comanche community to speak on their behalf. That’s generally not something one person can do by themselves, the authority and permission must come from the Comanche people, or by way of the officials already entrusted with that responsibility.
BE Member — “... I expect more from DY in how he chooses projects and such to work on. I've been approached by some documentarians on Yavapai issues and such. I suppose I could do all the talking I want, but I leave that for the people in my tribe to talk about. It's my place as a member of the tribe to direct people seeking information to the right people. If they want my opinion I'll consider the offer, but most times I choose not to, not because I doubt myself, but because I have allegiance to the tribe and know that the people in those types of positions are the best to supply information especially for something so large...

DY has said things that are true to him from his perspective based on his upbringing. He shouldn't be at all surprised by the reaction of so many other Indians as many of us don't see eye to eye on a lot of his views of Indians.
We’d put that a bit more directly, that what the piano doctor imagines as “true” does not match what is considered true within the Comanche community. And yes, his rather supremacist activities do seem to be regarded as an anti-Indian sentiment by the Comanche people at large. Is this BE Member headed for a banishment from Yeagley’s blog?
Yeagley — “... Frankly, this story isn't over. I provided everyone with the contact information about the producer of the program... I think there will be more to come in the way of the rest of the film. That's what I'm being told. We'll see.”
That doesn’t sound so good to us, more of this racist propaganda video to come? No, not good at all. I’m sure the makers are promising Yeagley all the same things they did the first time, too. So of course he knows the overall direction and purpose of the video — to undermine indigenous sovereignty.

Yes, Yeagley should apologize to the Comanche people in a big public way, for a start. Second, he should find ways to start making amends to the Comanche Nation. Not that the remedies would truly erase the initial racism, but the Comanche people themselves could make that determination, generally speaking.
Yeagley — “...still hung up on the ‘apology’ bit? Well, it's a girl thing, I suppose. Apologies are very meaningful to women, generally speaking... I don't see that the concept applies to this situation at all... no Indian has ever apologized to me about anything. It's an alien concept. There are many mean women out there. An apology from them would not have much meaning.”
A ‘girl’ thing? Wow, sexism too. You sure can find it all at Yeagley’s supremacist blog, no doubt. But, let me get this straight; little david won’t apologize because it’s a ‘girl thing’ and therefore his apology to the Comanches won’t mean anything as a result? Implying that his apology would be a girl apology? A 'girl apology' coming from David Yeagley? That’s very interesting, considering that about half of the Comanche population is female. Very interesting, psychologically speaking. Very interesting in deed.
Yeagley — “I'm more than qualified to talk about the things I talked about. This was a national thing. These were national perspectives, and yes, international. One has to have been around a little bit to speak from that perspective.”
Actually, little david is not qualified to represent the Comanches in any TV video without permission from the Comanche officials, no. Yeagley’s claims of speaking from a ‘national’ or ‘international’ perspective is blatantly false. If you actually read what he said HERE, you can see that he was specifically referring to Comanche life. He was ranting on about how troubled Comanche life is to a national and international audience, yes.

But Yeagley’s perspective was not from a wider perspective no. The nationalistic remarks came from recognized supremacist Keith Windschuttle and Oklahoma’s own Barb Lindsay of One Nation United, the acknowledged white supremacist organization with which Yeagley himself aligns. In fact, Yeagley and Lindsay have co-authored several anti-sovereignty articles arguing that tribes are subservient to states and not the federally recognized nations we currently are.

No, in the video propaganda TV program, Yeagley mainly took direct swipes at the Comanche Nation and at the Comanche Nation College. Of course, when Yeagley says he guided the videographers to Comanche ‘leaders,’ what he really means is that he led them to One Nation United and Barb Lindsay. The result is that Yeagley along with his supremacist companion Lindsay took the main stage as official spokespeople for the Comanches.

I wonder if little david will ever acknowledge his wrong doing, or come to apologize to the Comanches for his personal foolishness. The Comanches certainly deserve an apology, a big one, and a very public one, along with a deep effort at fixing his bigoted blunders on their behalf. And a good start would be to answer the BE Member’s simple questions.
BE Member — “No, don't consider myself qualified and I'll always defer to the elders on who is. I thought it was an honest question from her that you either ignored or overlooked. I wanted an answer as well and now I have it. Since you spoke for me and my family, no, it isn't irrelevant.”
Looks like at least one BE Member is an Indian, and not happy about Yeagley usurping a self-indulged phony authority to be a Comanche spokesperson.
Yeagley — “That is a wrong thing to say... It is utterly disrespectful. But it is also very typical of the mind-set among many Indians. This is why there little social progress. Condemnation, reprimand, resentment, disagreement--over nothing. Over abstolutely nothing.”
What?! Indians don’t get upset when someone else speaks for us? I guess we must like being told what to do and what to think, and relish the many inaccurate histories and fake mascots written on our behalf without our input, and that shape our lives. Yes, that’s it, we must actually like being slaves in our own country. Boy, that is “nothing” sure. Absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I feel all warm and comfy inside now, thank you for sharing.

In reality, the questions by the BE Member to little david are totally reasonable, and answerable. Yeagley again turns to attack his questioner rather than respond to the issues under consideration. Of course, Indians apologize all the time, and Yeagley’s so-called ‘manly’ postering is not Comanche at all, not even particularly Indian; it seems more like some type of psychological insecurity by all appearances, and that’s not an affliction that is confined to indigenous cultures as a rule.

Social ‘progress’ is probably a myth at best, like mistakenly applying the ideas about evolution to social order, when evolution is a biological method of change in a process, not an proactive agenda. Yeagley is simply confusing factual principles of scientific biology and erroneously applying those observational results to his pragmatic and socially supremacist propaganda campaign.

Contrarily, Indians regard the issue of sovereignty, and the inherent right to make our own decisions and speak for ourselves as of supreme importance. It is very revealing that little david regards the effort to preserve Indian sovereignty from assimilation into the larger world as “absolutely nothing.” It shows that he is psychologically disconnected from Indian thought and life, probably from birth, generally speaking.
Yeagley — “You obviously have not bothered to watch the film. This is gossip mongering, and you have no right to comment... You are utterly out of place in what you are saying. You don't know what the Comanche segment of the film was about... So why are you commenting?”
Actually, it’s rather easy to see and hear what Yeagley said, just go HERE (and scroll down a little).
Yeagley — “No one speaks for the Comanches but... People come to me for interviews. I talk. If you have a problem with this, I'm sorry... This is so very petty and very wrong. This is the attitude of Juanita Podahpony as well. I spoke in Nyack, New York a few years ago, on Indian mascots. The town highschool had the Nyack Indian logo, and invited me to speak.

The Nyack (Rockland county) news paper was apparently contacted by Juanita... She got an interview, and said, "I'm Comanche. I'm educated. Why didn't they ask me to speak?"

Now, isn't that glorious? Isn't that a wonderful representation of grandeur of spirit, of transcendent class and generosity? Isn't that a grand representation of the Comanche people. "Why didn't they ask me to speak?"

I hope you can get a sense of the crippling spirit so often manifest among Indians.”
Ooooo, another not-so-nice thing to say about your own alleged people, ‘crippled spirits’ are they? Not nice at all, especially considering Yeagley’s own status outside the Comanche community.

To be clear, Juanita voicing her concern was not ego-based. It was a public objection to Yeagley wrongly setting himself up as a Comanche spokesperson, the same transgression that currently landed him in hot water with the propaganda video. Yeagley, in his apparent egocentric mindset, mistakenly regards Juanita’s efforts in NY as a selfish attempt to garner media exposure for herself. She was objecting to Yeagley's arrogant self-aggrandizing, plain and simple.

But the truth is that Yeagley isn’t being truthful here, he has failed to recognize the truth both in NY and in the propaganda video — that he is not a spokesperson for Comanches and the Comanches don’t like when he does it. He obviously has no interest in being part of the tribal community, either in the past incident or in the current one. Another possible answer would be that Yeagley is a slow learner, psychologically speaking.
Yeagley — “It's all because some people disagree with what I say. Nothing other than that simple starting point. The rest is, I'm afraid, pure envy. Envy by people who simply don't know what they're talking about, and who, in fact, are not very educated... I think your concerns are wholly unfounded, and it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of anything, because you simply don't know what matters you are addressing here.”
Zowee Slam Blam! So now the Comanches who almost uniformly disagree with Yeagley are simply envious and ‘not very educated’? Another swipe at Comanche people, phew, not a very good way to begin a healing process with the Comanche community. Talk about ‘projecting onto others’ what Yeagley is himself obsessing over. Ouch. Not very smooth.
BE Member — “You are not my elder therefore it isn't disrespectful. I expressed no objection, accused you of nothing, and simply requested an answer. You have taken a defensive position in that answer. Very curious because I voiced no criticism yet you attempted to demean and marginalize me.
Yes, the questions were not disrespectful at all, especially considering the circumstances. After all, it was Yeagley who set himself up as the Comanche national spokesperson, and instead of guiding the videographers to other more qualified Comanches, he took them to fellow supremacist Barb Lindsay at One Nation United. That’s gotta hurt, Comanches! You got punked big time by Yeagley; so publicly too, ouch-o-rama!
BE Member — “Yes, you're right I dont' know who is qualified among the Comanches, but I know it isn't you, that's for sure... I don't disagree with you on being Comanche, however I know you're not a full blood."
Less than half Comanche, if you consider the best of all possible scenarios (100% white father, and part Chickasaw/Mexican mother). But we still hold out for future discovery of that 'second birth certificate' scenario as well, the one issued in sealed records by an adoption court.
BE Member — “How are you qualified; that's my question. What is it that makes you qualified? Being enrolled? Being a descendant of Bad Eagle? What makes you qualified to talk about things on a national level? Simple questions and there's nothing complicated about them.

Is it that you're older than me? Is that what makes you qualified? Are you involved with the Comanche community moreso than you let on? Is that what makes you qualified?

These are not my concerns. These are the concerns which I pulled from all the talk about your lack of qualifications on all the blogs and forums, however, your continued evasiveness in answering simple questions can only lead me to conclude that you're not as qualified as you think you are to talk about issues in which you have no speciality. You can only give an educated guess at best.”
Amen and amen. Finally, some truth comes from Yeagley’s blog, but not from him, of course.
BE Member — “... yes I am educated. I have a Master's degree (Museum Studies) just like DY. I never said I know what it means to be a Comanche... however I do know some Comanches I've met in all my NAGPRA consultations over the years and I've never heard one of them speak positively about DY.

So your family is able to determine who is qualified to speak for the Comanche? Comanche Moon is Comanche so that must make her just as qualified, but DY won't allow her to post here. Wonder why? ???

DY sure needs a CDIB to detemine his qualifications. He rants about it all the time and if he is so qualified why doesn't he hold a position in the tribal council? He did run for office, but the Comanche people didn't vote him in. Why is that?
The election wasn’t even close, a mere 1% of the Comanche population voted for him. That must have been a truly enlightened moment in Comanche history, considering that his own mother was the first Comanche woman elected. Oh wait, that was a story that Yeagley fabricated. Sorry.
BE Member — “An educated Indian, especially one who holds a degree in music, doesn't qualifiy one to speak on national issues, but that's an open game board for any education Indian. I suppose if he were to work on such issues with a legitimate organization on a national issue i.e. National Indian Gaming Commission, NCAI, NIEA than that would appear more concrete. Last I read he doesn't."
Nope, he sure doesn’t; all I ever see of him are various white power articles and his association with white supremacist groups, like One Nation United and Stormfront. If it’s any indication, Yeagley’s doctoral thesis was an original paper describing portions of a piano composition he liked and why he liked it. So much for applicability of piano doctorates to the world at large. Doesn’t instill much confidence in Yeagley’s other so-called and self-proclaimed qualifications, does it?
BE Member — “I would suspect that someone who has either or currently holds a position in any area of tribal administation whether it's Indian gaming, Substance Abuse, Cultural Preservation etc. etc. would be able to make more of a concrete statement about the on-goings in the Comanche Nation. DY has never held nor currently doesn't hold such position.”
That’s correct, he doesn’t.
BE Member — “He can certainly make any statements he wants as does every other Bob, Jack or Jill about Indian issues, but such statments are more credible and believable when such statements come from someone who has been or currently is in the hoop of all things tribal related...

I disagree that DY has any credentials to make such statements about National Indian issues and anything pertaining to the Comanche. Why? I'll speculate that he is viewed as an outsider looking in and currently doesn't have much to do with the Comanche Nation except for attending district meetings and keeping up with what is written in newspaper, both on a local and national level. Anyone can do that, but it holds more merit when such statements come from individuals who in those trenches everyday."
Absolutely correct. The truth of these ‘speculations’ is highly probable, yes.
BE Member — “The only thing, by your logic, that qualifies him is that he is educated. Well I am too, but that doesn't make me qualified to make a statement on issues that afflict every Indian Nation or non-Indian for that matter. However I am qualified to observe and make assessments, ask questions and such. I'm a practical person who prefers to decide the best outcome first, then find enough evidence to support a conclusion.

What evidence is there to support DY's qualifications except that he is an educted man who is an enrolled Comanche, a conservative American Indian patriot. Not even the Comanche tribe supports his views, which is why he wasn't voted into a position on tribal council. So far the evidence suggests that he's just as qualified as Ward Churchill”
Yes, he lost by bigger than a landslide. And it’s well known that piano performance majors do not focus on the logical methods of gathering and interpreting factual evidence. No, they tinkle the ivories pretty and write a thesis on music they like. Good for piano music, bad for science.
Yeagley — "like a fool, I keep trying to communicate... see if you can relate to this:

1) what do you thing [think?] constitutes "speaking for" Indians? This is the accusation, but what exactly do you mean by that? When any Indian speaks about anything? What is speaking for Indians."
Actually, the intent was very clear from the start. The issue has always been about Yeagley’s willing participation in a blatantly racist film, and guiding the videographers to other pundits they could film, including Yeagley’s white supremacist friend Barb Lindsay. What “constitutes” speaking for Indians? Well actually, speaking for Indian Nations, like the Comanches, without their expressed permission, is the issue.
Yeagley — "2) so, if I had an Indian job, that would qualify me to speak for Indians? Is that then your criterion? You have to have an Indian job, be employed by an "Indian" organization, tribal or non-tribal?"
Well, yes quite frankly. One’s ability to obtain a leadership job and keep it, is a qualifying feature, yes. A civic leader answers to a constituency, a community that gives permission for the leader to act responsibly for the group. It is no small feat to obtain and successfully hold onto a job like that.
Yeagley — “I think you are revealing all that is weak in Indian country. This kind of thinking is what keeps things small, non-progressive, and yes, racist--in the crippling sense. This is what causes the interminable strife within our tribes and our peoples across the country.”
Hmm, I wonder what Yeagley means by his word “this” (above). ‘This kind of thinking’ meaning what exactly, what kind of thinking? Logical and rational thinking? So, by Yeagley’s reasoning, it is “weak” and “racist” merely to ask logical questions about a person’s qualifications, or to ask under what authority one might become a Comanche spokesperson? Very interesting, psychologically speaking.

And, what exactly is “crippling” about asking rational and reasonable questions? It seems to me that the crippling feature of such an exchange rests on the one who cannot answer the simple queries, especially considering the importance of doing so after creating a propaganda video with non-Indian videographers who have a clear anti-Indian agenda.

It would seem that Yeagley’s own creation of the propaganda video, together with his half-baked retractions, and his unwillingness to smooth things out with the Comanche Nation, is far more crippling for Indian Country than asking a few valid questions. Weigh the effects, I mean, which is worse: asking Yeagley questions, or Yeagley appearing on TV and spouting anti-Indian propaganda?

Again, it is painfully clear that Yeagley doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and is clearly outside what Comanches themselves consider proper and acceptable behavior. Even more, it is now clear that he had a chance to apologize to the Comanches years ago for his usurpation of Comanche authority as a phony spokesperson in NY, and failed to take advantage of the opportunity for redemption.

Instead, it appears that Yeagley is set on making the same mistake over and over again, most recently in the vile propaganda film he helped develop. But for this article, I’ll let this BE Member (below) have the last word, a bit of truth from Yeagley’s blog, but as I stated earlier, not from him:

BE Member — “Who is more the fool - the fool the leads are the fool that follows? ???

What I feel constitutes as someone speaking for Indians are people who are in DC working at National American Indian Organizations such as NCAI, NIEA, NIHA. At a local level the Tribal Chair, then Co-Chair and so on and so forth.

It appears that I always answer or rather clarify for you my posts. I expect the same from my you, but in your mind it's not a two-way street. It's only one way and that's DY's way with you. I'm more open. Not so closed off like you.

So what do I mean by "speaking for" Indians or any Indian speaking for Indians. Just that, speaking with no qualifications, no experience with the people, no personal attachments to their own communities. How can a detached person speak of Indians on a national level?

If you held an job with a reputable Indian organization long enough than yes that most likely will qualify you.

I think you have avoided all that is strong in Indian country and you have revealed all that is weak with the issues... If any one is racist I will have to say it is you and your thinking and that is what cripples you and whatever agenda you have.

There are no interminable strife within Indian people across the country. We're all in the same boat pretty much and have our own problems and issues at a tribal level. That's the way it has always been and will be. We are not one United American Indians, except when we come together for common causes, which is why there is an NCAI, NIEA, National Indian Gaming Commission.

To start, maybe you should go work for your casino so that you'll have more of an insider's perspective and work your way up the ladder. That could be a humbling experience for you, but you refuse to be humbled because you put yourself above that type of work.

All you have, from what I can gather, is a website where very few Indians comment."

March 15, 2008

David Yeagley: Winter Chickenhawk

from the Bad Eagle blog

On Thursday, March 13, the true soldiers got together for a 4-day event: Winter Soldier, an event feature testimony from U.S. veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.

What’s important to know, is that all the “warrior” rhetoric one reads from Yeagley’s blog is nothing but romanticized hyperbole, and completely devoid of reality. Yeagley is a Winter Chickenhawk, waxing romantic about all things war, while never thinking of the realities of war, having never served.

Yeagley’s never been a warrior, not even in the Comanche sense of that word; he dances the gourd dance, a warrior society dance, as a “supporter” of warriors and Native military, but not as a warrior himself. Yeagley’s efforts would be laughable if not so lame and tied into the neocon punditry’s public noise machine.

Instead of Yeagley’s shallow rhetoric, why not consider the more important voice of Buffy Sainte-Marie. As for Yeagley, he simply cannot see the writing on the wall; having a doctorate of music is obviously not a prerequisite for intelligence.

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
He's been a soldier for a thousand years...

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall...

(Buffy Sainte-Marie)
Here are a couple articles that offer a more realistic view of war and warriors. So while Yeagley cries hopelessly over all the democratic candidates, who are all viable now because of the popular backlash against the elitist policies of his neo-con sociopathic idols, read these articles instead:

US veterans urge soldiers to speak out against Iraq war
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US veterans and active-duty soldiers on Thursday kicked off an event in Washington to protest the war in Iraq, urging other members of the military to join them in speaking out against the conflict.

"There's an upswell of disgust and disapproval for the Iraq war in the military," intelligence sergeant Selena Coppa told AFP at the launch of the four-day "Winter Soldier" event.

"The difficulty is letting them realize they are legally entitled to speak out about it, other than to service members," added Coppa, who is still on active duty in the US army.

Camilo Mejia, the first conscientious objector to the Iraq war, went a step further.

"I want our servicemen and women to know that standing up to an immoral occupation is not only their right but also their duty to their country and humanity," he told reporters...

The event is organized by IVAW, a grouping of around 800 military veterans and active soldiers opposed to the occupation of Iraq.

Vietnam veterans held a "Winter Soldier" event in 1971 at which more than 100 servicemen and 16 civilians described atrocities committed against innocent civilians in South Vietnam.

The name "Winter Soldier" is derived from the "summer soldier" described by American Revolutionary War writer Thomas Paine in "The Crisis:"

US/IRAQ: "We Reacted Out of Fear, and With Total Destruction"
SILVER SPRING, Maryland, Mar 14 (IPS) - Hart Viges joined the U.S. Army the day after Sep. 11, 2001, in the belief that he could help make the world a safer place.

He ended up stationed in Fallujah, and then Baghdad. "We were the only authority and took full advantage of that," he told an audience of roughly 300 people here gathered for three days of testimony by veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan about abuses of civilians. "Everything was haji...haji house, haji smokes, haji burger."

The term "haji" is used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq to degrade and dehumanise the Iraqi people.

Viges, like others who spoke, said that U.S. troops routinely detained innocent people during home raids.

"We never went on the right raid where we got the right house, much less the right person -- not once," he said.

He also said it was common practice for troops to take photographs as "war trophies".

"We were driving in Baghdad one day and found a dead body on the side of the road," Viges said. "We pulled over to secure the area and my friends jumped off and started taking pictures with it, smiling. They asked me if I wanted to join them and I said no, but not because it was unethical, but because it wasn't my kill. Because you shouldn't take trophies with those you didn't kill. I wasn't upset this man was dead, but just that they shouldn't be taking credit for something they didn't do. But that's war."

The event, which has drawn international media attention, was organised by Iraq Veterans Against the War. Its goal is to give U.S. service members a chance to talk about their experiences during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to show that their stories of wrongdoing in both countries were not isolated incidents limited to a few "bad apples", as the Pentagon claims, but were everyday occurrences...

Hurd said the situation deteriorated rapidly while he was in Iraq. "Over time, as the absurdity of war set in, individuals from my unit indiscriminately opened fire at vehicles driving down the wrong side of the road. People in my unit would later brag about it. I remember thinking how appalled I was that we were laughing at this, but that was the reality."

Hurd expressed what the over 200 veterans in the room appeared to agree with.

"We're disrupting the lives of our veterans with this occupation, not only the lives of Iraqis. If a foreign occupying force came here to the U.S., do you not think that every person that has a shotgun would not come out of the hills and fight for their right for self-determination?"

To rousing applause, Hurd ended his testimony with, "Ladies and gentlemen, that country is suffering from our occupation, and ending that suffering begins with the total and immediate withdrawal of all of our troops."

March 6, 2008


from the Bad Eagle blog

Three articles appeared recently on the web we just had to share. First, the anti-hate watch group One People’s Project has christened David Yeagley on their list of white supremacists; congratulations little david. Another important posting of Yeagley’s willing participation in that racist propaganda video “Historiens Fångar” was posted over at Open Anthropology. And lastly, Intercontinental Cry posted yet another article regarding Yeagley's disgusting display of anti-Indian self-aggrandizing. OA and IC both receive the official Bad Eagle "kudos" for today.

By One People's Project
VDARE is a racist white nationalist website providing an outlet for far right-wing writers and racists to vent their hatred. Since being founded in 1999 by Peter Brimelow, they have been a well recognized hate group by many civil rights and media watch group such as Southern Poverty Law Center (who lists it as a hate site) and Media Matters. Racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination against non-Christian fundamentalists, sexism, homophobia, and right-wing fascism have been the bonding themes which have identified the VDARE staff and audience.
There are a few dozen active writers and staff members of VDARE. While rogue profiles are available for several VDARE members (and we note them here), the whole lot of them are a trashy and hate-filled bunch, and their ideals and behavior define the racist ideals of the group, so to be honest, they all deserve a rogue profile. Some of the folks there that don't have a profile are on the backlog, but since writing them has taken a while, not to mention starting to sound a bit repetitive, we are providing a summarized group profile of the VDARE members.
The VDARE group profile lists the active members of VDARE, their personal information allowed by the law, and a brief summary. You can help us out for information missing on this page. If you have any information, any at all, feel free to drop us a line This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it . This kind of information can help us out.
Anti-Indigenous Film Broadcast in Sweden
By Open Anthropology

Ideologies designed to undercut any indigenous claims to their identities and territories have long been a part of Eurocentric imperialist propaganda, with the hope that the home audience will be consume this ideological material. Indigenous peoples know where they stand and are not likely to be “persuaded” by assertions that they do not exist.

In anthropology today, for example, once again we see the revival of arguments that indigenous peoples do not exist as such, at best they are ethnic minorities. There is indeed a debate that has been generated in part by the writings of Adam Kuper that the very concept of “indigenous” implies primitivism, exoticism, and racism, without however asking who reads it as such, and without investigating the myriad ways in which the concept is redeployed, adapted, and articulated by indigenous peoples themselves in the present.

There are two sides to a Catch-22 situation that has been set up for indigenous peoples:

One side is what I call anti-indigenous essentialism: indigenous cultures are those encountered in 1492, and since they are no longer identical to the cultures of that time, indigenous peoples have ceased to exist culturally, and even biologically if they dared to commit the sin of creating families with peoples of other nations. Thus an indigenous person today, who is seen to wear jeans and speak English, as two random examples, has his or her head forced under the water of anti-indigenous essentialism for daring to not be a carbon-copy replica of the past, for failing to be a breathing museum piece.

The other side is what I call anti-indigenous anti-essentialism: those indigenous groups that claim long historical continuity, that continue to wear traditional costumes during special ceremonies, that claim unbroken ancestry, are charged with being frauds. All cultures change, goes the argument, so anyone trying to show seamless continuity is simply putting on a show.

If you accept either of those sides of the debate, you find yourself in a Eurocentric Catch-22 designed to make the very idea of “indigenous” implode.

From First Nations Skyvillage: If you would like to express your outrage about this film, you can write the Director, Poul Erik Heilbuth, at You can also write to the documentary department of Swedish TV for airing it,
Anti-Indigenous Propaganda film airs on Swedish TV
By Intercontinental Cry
This past Monday,

Swedish Television aired “Historiens Fångar” (History’s Prisoners) - an anti-indigenous propaganda film that claims there are no traditional Indigenous cultures left in the world, and that the only chance of survival for the remaining ‘drunk and pathetic few’ is through assimilating into colonial society. “

The most notable voice in the program,” Jim Barrett explains, is Keith Windschuttle, author of “the Fabrication of Aboriginal History, a controversial book that attempts to resurrect an array of colonial fallacies toward indigenous people: that colonization was justified, “that Australia was never truly owned by its original inhabitants, that they were too savage to understand such a concept as property, too primitive to organise a war and too vulnerable to survive settlement.”

Another speaker in the film is David Yeagley, who, according to Wikipedia (once upon a time. The page has been gutted) is “a white supremacist who poses as a Comanche Indian. He was mistakenly enrolled in the Comanche Nation because the stepmother who adopted him is Comanche.

He falsely claims descent from the Comanche leader, Bad Eagle (1839-1909). Comanche elders and members of the tribal government all deny he is actually Comanche.

In 2006 Yeagley, his employer David Horowitz, and Front Page magazine used legal threats to try to silence Kiowa activist Cinda Hughes and the Native American Times for revealing his impersonation.

Apparently, the film also features someone from “One Nation United,” a privately funded, anti-Indian lobby group based out of Oklahoma.

The social and political integrity of these characters speaks directly to the legitimacy of the position maintained in the film. It’s propaganda — a film drenched in archaic and biased, insulated opinions that will utterly misinform every viewer. But don’t take my word for it. See it for yourself. “History’s Prisoners.” It is currently available online. (it’s in English). It’s also set to air on Swedish TV once more, this coming Sunday.

March 4, 2008


from the Bad Eagle blog

Fresh from his ego-induced rant against America Indian sovereignty and history, in Historiens Fångar ("prisoners of the past" or "history's prisoners"), Yeagley continues to make silly, illogical claims, one after another. Yeagley in one instance claims that a natural process, death, is a “chosen” state which, in turn, provides for its meaning; a totally idiotic notion since death is absolute and inevitable:

Yeagley — “Religion has always valued death. Choosing death for religious reasons has been thought, anciently, to validate the religion. It is a symbiotic relation. The religion gives meaning to death, and death gives meaning to the religion” (2008).
First of all, death is not the meaning of any religion that I know of, except maybe satanism. Religion results from the desire to discover purpose and relationships in the world, though Religion is, in fact, not a necessary requisite for pursuing that same agenda. Anyone can search for meaning — even atheists. So Yeagley’s above claim is pure nonsense.

Secondly, living in a tribe does not “represent” any sort of death wish, as Yeagley tries to claim (below):
Yeagley — “Nationhood, and any form of extended family, clan, or tribe, also represents reason to die... America was born and bred for such a cause. American Indians still exist to day by reason of the same cause... Life is what we die for” (2008).
Living in a tribal community is about ‘being related’ and has everything to do with living in cooperation and continuance together. Death, of course, is another process of existence, but it is NOT the reason tribes exist. Tribes exist to be related, so that — as communities of extended kinship — we can help and nurture each other. Again, Yeagley is pretending a video camera is pointed at him, and he’s ranting “poetic” about his fictitious warrior prowess. It’s still amazing anyone actually swallows his patriotica rejectamenta.
Yeagley — “foreigners (Africans) who have enlisted in the United States military, fought in Iraq, etc., but who have having great difficulty becoming American citizens. Personally, I say military service is not particularly qualifying... We've had murderous Muslims in the US military. The uniform does not sanctify, nor guarentee patriotism or loyalty. Even the risk of death does not necessarily express ideological values” (2008).
Flip-flop Alert: didn’t Yeagley just present a grand ideological claim for death, the reason life exists and the main reason tribes exist? But no, when it comes to black folks, death has little meaning at all, not even enough meaning to be considered a citizen. Holy Chef’s Chocolate Salty Balls Batman! You mean, the death of white folks has meaning but the death of black folks does not? No surprise here, Yeagley is showing his white supremacist colors again.
Yeagley — “There was no dignity in wasting in the woods of Maine... I think of our soldiers. No wonder they keep going back. They love what they're doing! They have stark, raving purpose! ...Ah, those old romantic days. Our soldiers over in Iraq, and Afghanistan--they are the last of the romantics!” (2008).
Ah, those ole glamorous and romantic death-loving soldiers, the soldiers reveling in great ecstasy over their own deaths, how enticing and romantic is death, how very “stark” and how “raving” is this alluring and romantic death! All praise nostalgic and romantic death!

Give me a break, little david. Soldiers go back into these war zones to look after buddies, not to die a romantic death.

It is painfully clear that David Yeagley is still touting the same tired stupidity that makes him almost-universally despised by the Comanche people, puffing up a fake warrior image, getting all misty-eyed over the killing of others, and only assigning value to the lives and deaths of white people.

Instead of following Yeagley’s mentally-challenged larghissimo, Bad Eagle suggests reading this article (below) about the rise of hate in the country, and we respectfully request that you consider taking a much firmer stand in opposing the lowly hate-mongering behavior of Yeagley, and of anyone else you encounter. This means you, spiritually passive musicians and Christian Indians; looking the other way while this hateful rhetoric continues is no longer an acceptable response. Enough is enough. Sharing is the key to living — NOT segregation, hate and complacency. Again, Yeagley is behaving like he's sick-in-the-head.
Hate won't vanish until we all help

Many people want to blame classism for impairing some Americans, but two recent studies show that racism remains the biggest U.S. monster.

Instead of joining together to fight this common foe, people feed the beast so that it continues to let some advance while forcing others into the dark corners of despair. It is an uncomfortable part of black history, but the problems won’t end unless they are exposed so they can be eliminated.

A fall FBI report on hate crimes lets people know that the problem is trending in the wrong direction. Bias-related criminal incidents jumped 7.8 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Race remains the biggest problem. The report said 51.8 percent of the 7,720 single incident cases were racial bias; 18.9 percent, religion; 15.5 percent, sexual orientation bias; 12.7 percent, ethnicity/national origin; and 1 percent was against people with disabilities.

The report found that being black in America continues to be a lightning rod for hate. Of the 4,737 single-bias hate crimes, 66.2 percent were anti-black. But hate crimes don’t all go in one direction. The report said 21.3 percent were anti-white; 6.1 percent were against people in a multiple-race group; 4.9 percent were anti-Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1.5 percent were anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native.

Of the 1,233 cases that were ethnic/national origin bias, 62.4 percent were anti-Hispanic.

The study found that the greatest number of hate crimes, 31 percent, occurred in or near where the victims lived.

People point to the noose incident and fight at a high school in Jena, La., but such cases were also reported in Kansas and Missouri in 2000.

According to the FBI data, Kansas had more hate crimes reported than Missouri did with 109 compared with 78. However, Kansas had more agencies supplying data with 49 compared with 26.

But it is easy to hate when people of different races in the U.S. continue to live in mostly segregated communities. A Pew Research Center report found that “blacks remained the nation’s most segregated racial or ethnic group.”

“Roughly three-in-ten Hispanic and black students attended schools in 2005-06 that were nearly all minority, with fewer than 5 percent white students,” the Pew Research report said. The numbers have gone up since 1993-94 when they were 25 percent for Hispanic students and 28 percent for black students.

A re-segregation of America is taking place. The courts and U.S. communities have withdrawn from the civil-rights driven initiative like President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew U.S. troops from the South, ending Reconstruction and beginning a long period of separate and unequal conditions.

The Pew Research report said 62 percent of African Americans vs. 40 percent of whites favor residential integration. The study also found that only 23 percent of whites think it is more important to have racially mixed schools vs. 56 percent of blacks.

Equal education is unlikely to happen in the U.S. if whites — with the historical privilege of getting the best — won’t share with others. Stereotypes, prejudices and bigotry will continue to boil over scarring more people with hate crimes.

The problem won’t go away unless everyone helps to end the hate. The good news is that despite the differences and disparities, there is still hope that hate crimes can end and true integration with shared privileges can occur.

The Pew Research report found that eight-in-ten whites and blacks have maintained a favorable impression of each other. That can be the foundation for better relations.