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 — “...you'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.
Exactly.
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."

2 comments:

giordano bruno said...

From Neew Zealand:
About a week ago Yeagley was given a brief interview on Radio New Zealand National. He was introduced as Comanche, and his remarks were treated politely with little criticism.
I sent this email to the journalist:
(At the time I had no knowledge about the controversies around DY, I just responded to his words)
Radio NZ National has
David Yeagley Conservative American Indian, Oklahoma, USA
raving briefly with Bryan Crump
DY did NOT allow my comment on his site

re David Yeagley on Easter Monday with Bryan Crump
Hi Bryan Crump,
I was irritated by David Yeagley. Some 'code' elements in his speech included:

Talking about the 'Democat' party. This has long been recognised as an ill mannered tactic to insult the Democratic party.

Mentioning Iraq immediately juxtaposed with "September 11 2002" - it has become ever more difficult to blame Saddam for 11Sep2001,
so a clumsy link is the remaining strategy (note he got the year wrong... are the neo-cons trying to bring the event closer to the present, to maintain its usefulness as a knee-jerk prod?)

The crude juxtaposition of Hitler, Mao and Hugo Chavez. Yeagley was bold-faced enough to claim that Chavez (an indigine) was more likely to massacre indigenous populations, than the USA. DY called Chavez a dictator. A bold accusation, given that Venezuela's election machines were cross-checked against random paper ballots - the only way to ensure that Computer voting machines are not subverted - as has happened in USA , as clearly stated by computer programmers there.

I am not opposed to RNZ National featuring (short) interviews with neo-con shills such as David Yeagly. I would like to see some challenges made to absurd accusations, even at the risk of annoying such people. No great loss if they get so annoyed that they dont return.

BRENT MICHAEL DAVIDS said...

Yes, I agree with you. This is exactly why the corrective sites are here, to make sure that folks who actually realize that Yeagley is a flat-earther, can have places to get the truth. Anyone who takes anything he says at face value is not paying attention to reality. So I appreciate your comments. Thank you for posting.