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.