Monday, April 30, 2007

Yeagley Lacks the Courage to Face His Critics

It's been one week, and he has yet to answer the "Call Out" by Multiplied By Twilight. (See post on April 22.)

For someone to call the Virginia Tech victims "cowards" and "weak" for not taking on a heavily armed maniac, when Yeagley is afraid to face words online, only shows hypocrisy.

Critic after critic noted that.

From comments at

When I first read the referenced "article", I was appalled, disgusted, and horrified beyond belief. Armchair bravery is so easy. But when has Yeagley ever showed any true courage? I've never seen even a hint of it.
I can just imagine what Yeagley's response would have been, had he been in one of the classrooms under attack at VT. His only "action" would have resulted in soiled, smelly britches.
Yeagley rails on and on about a "victim" mentality, while he is full of excuses for never really facing the world. He doesn't even seem to realize how often he plays the "victim" himself.
He whines about you, Dr. Al, and the_editrix, referring to you as his "ememies" and writes as though he is being "victimized" by you. Yet he doesn't even have the courage to let you critique his "new" harmonic theory. Such bravery he shows!
Keep up the good work here. Yeagley must be exposed for the racist, misogynistic hypocrite that he is. He is an embarrassment to true Indians and to all decent human beings.

Editrix (Nora, a German conservative):
It JUST dawns to me WHAT I find so repulsive about our Sitting Duck. It's certainly not each and every one of his views. If I had to name a single thing, I'd name this appalling lack of compassion and empathy he shows towards his fellow human beings, and I suddenly remembered... isn't it the narcissistic personality, which gets in the way of compassion?
We may even be dealing not just with a neurotic personality, but with a full-blown personality disorder here.


Steve Russell, Cherokee Law Professor, Indiana University:

Don't hold your breath, MBT.
Remember the time he came over hear and Pootatuck removed his hair?
Remember when he was taunting me to debate over at SadEagle where he has the delete key because he was getting hammered here?
I think he got enough of Indianz.

I'd be more than willing to venture over to his board. I know he'd feel much more comfortable with his groupies to support him and his mods to console his delicate ego after I textually thrash him. I might just go over there and copy / paste this thread there but knowing him I'd get banned and deleted.
He's not banned from this board so we'll see just how "heroic" he can be online, without being shot at and fearing for his life.

I guess nothing Yeagley says should surprise me. However, his statements about the VT shootings is too much even for him.

Everything that I have ever read here says that David Yeagley won't come over here and debate anyone. He doesn't have enough gumption.

The point is the victims were murdered. They were not the ones murdering anyone, they are the innocent victims. Both, Yeagley and the Baptist quack, are wrong anyway they try to justify their odd attacks against the victims.

I applaud you wanting to tear him a new one.. but I think it gets him off. Ewwww. He is a sick, tormented, twisted soul who needs to be smacked across his snout with some rolled up newspaper.

i quit reading his site long ago... my boot-scraper wore out.

It takes balls to hang out here.
Yeagley does not have any!

Time Warrior:
Mr. Yeagley loudly proclaims that the Indians are "warriors, therefore there could have been no holocaust." At the time of the Red Lake massacre, he proclaimed it happened because "there were no warriors." Same song and dance he most recently used for the Virginia Tech massacre. Odd to see how little of the warrior he has in him, eh? When a real call comes, he won't step over the line in the sand for fear of falling on his keister. When somebody coined the phrase "You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk," his was the personage they had in mind.

He is such a sad, pitiful little creature. I won't call him a man, he is far from being that!

Michelle Shining Elk:
The dumb doc, the Ph.D of puppetry, manipulation and absurdity is quickly losing his fan base on a daily basis. Poor lil piano man. Does he not get that he has done it all to himself...he calls us his enemies, but he doesn't understand that he makes his own enemies with the crap he writes and the rumors and lies he starts.

I didn't wake up one morning and say "hey, I think I want to become an enemy of some assinine blogger today." Nope. I didn't. I'm not an enemy in so much as I believe in putting that little man in his place and pointing out to anyone who "might" be interested in him that he is merely one small unworthy little blogger of a man who is a lot crazy in the brain and constantly says really STUPID things that all come back to haunt him.

Multipled by Twilights...he won't come out of his closet to take you on. He's too deeply hidden in it. He'll just keep on living in that little fantasy world he has created on his little fantasy site with his little fantasy fan club continuing to listen to the circus music playing around in his head.

Sunday, April 22, 2007


From Multiplied by Twilight, a longtime poster at

Please repost as widely as possible.


Since nobody is addressing the obvious I will. David is a coward among cowards, hiding behind is comp screen spewing his pseudo-intellectual antics. But what's worse, disrespecting the dead not even a week after they were murdered by stating such rants as...

"The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond. They didn't know how to respond. They have been trained to think responding is wrong. Morally wrong. Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared. They can only be victims."

My ancestors at Sand Creek were afraid to respond while they were being massacred but you and I weren't there, you damn sure weren't in the classroom so to make a generalized statement about people being murdered is wrong, on many levels. You don't know if those kids fought back or not but to go off with some commentary about how afraid they were or disrespect the horrific violence that occured is nothing short of disgusting, inhuman. I can't imagine a native that could think like you do or would be willing to. In fact, I'm not given into even comprehending a mind like yours that would attack the dead.

"Hiding behind a desk, or jumping out a window is not a heroic act!"

This coming from somebody that's too afraid to allow people to remain on his little message board. Too afraid to come to and assert himself. Too afraid to answer for his imbecilic notions nor willing to simply and quietly respect the memory of those who were murdered.

"I'm sick of these killings. I'm sick of the weakness that allows them."

That you attack those who were massacred, to me, is also attacking my people at Sand Creek or the Knee and any countless number of locations were natives were murdered in cold blood. You are calling my people weak for not fighting back and I'll be damned if I'm going to let that disrespectful note be the end of it. Much like Churchill, you're unable to express yourself intelligently, thoughtfully and respectfully. So, when your cronies read this and get back to you at badeagle perhaps you could all pool your intelligence and see that I'm asking for a public apology. Not to me but to the young people and staff whose memory you've chosen to attack for not being "heroic" enough for you. I know you're obsessed with Youngblood but since you have time to dishonor murder victims in the name of sensationalism then I've sufficient time to illustrate just how f*cking stupid you really are. I'm surprised you've survived the overwhelming waves of your own idiocy for as long as you have.

Calling people weak and not heroic because they received bullets in their chest, heads and throughout their bodies is inhuman and deplorable. And to do so without even a hint of consideration to their families merely demonstrates just how weak, pathetic and sadistic you really are. I challenge you to come and defend your ill conceived jargon, assuming you're able to do so. The way I see it, you've disrespected all slain indians who were too "weak" to fight back which is a spit in the face and I'm calling you on it. Time to see just how brave you really are when challenged on your emotional meltdowns. Consider this my blog to you and you've got seven days to respond to it. After that, if you don't apologize I'll post on as many sites as possible to show others your disrespectful convictions. Trust and believe I can do it, even ask others to pass it along so people know that trash like you exists. You've got seven days, b1tch. Make your move.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Scathing Criticism of Yeagley's Attacks on Virginia Tech Victims

It seems to be the view of a lot of people that this is the worst thing Yeagley has ever done.


"He and Churchill have this in common. In the process of "representing" as Indians they made remarks that Indian Country, if polled, would disagree with by about 99%. This is beyond being controversial.
"Being controversial" was when Harjo spoke against frybread."
-Steve Russell, Cherokee law professor, Indiana University

"What would Yeagley have done if he had been in the building while the shooting was going on?
Would he have tried to wrestle the gun away from him?
Would he have crafted a weapon out of whatever was at hand?
He would have been the first one out the window, probably knocking down women in the process."

"You people are giving him tooooo much credit... he is just an azzhole."

"He is obviously deeply into a psychotic episode. If we respond to him we are validating his delusional thought process and will make the illness worse in him."
"He has completely lost it.
This is his ultimate "look at me...playing in the bathtub with my frivolous opinions".

"maybe he believes that s***, maybe not but i think his plan is to draw more attention to himself.
he craves publicity in the same way as Imus, Jackson and Sharpton.
doesn't matter to them whether it's good or bad, just as long as their name is out there"
- Tso-i-de

"Why does that not surprise me? His fodder is always those he considers "weak", dependent, and non-entitled. His words are par for his very narrow course. It's plain to anyone with an ounce of grey matter that he has no children of his own. And given the kind of "manliness" he exhibits--the kind that comes from the "take it all" white culture he's so enamoured of--he never will. Piss on him, and all his enablers. And I've got an even better idea than Mr. Nativebadass: forward his ranting on this topic to the Republican candidates for office, especially in his district, and also to the Governmor of Virginia. If's news arm hasn't gotten hold of it yet, make sure they do."
"The man lives and breathes the Republican creed. Since they were no less shocked and saddened than anyone else by the carnage, embarassing the flag-waving Indian patriot before the friendly camp is exactly what he has coming to him."

"Is anybody else reminded of Churchill's famous "eichmann" comment?
I swear ward and yeagles are related."
-Multiplied by twilight

"Maybe forward it to some white supremacists in his backyard.
I'm gonna send his blog to the Governor now that I have his email.
"How does he expect them to respond to tragedy. The best thing to do when in danger is to run or else get killed. It's fight or flight and only the strongest survive. Doesn't he know anything about life?"
"He's a another attention whore typing with his boney fingers."

And from his own webapge comments, even his followers are pretty sickened by Yeagley's attacks:

Journal Weblog
Comments: VA Tech Killer: Cho Seung-Hui
"I wonder if this is yet another yeagley LIE or if he actually believes this crap."

Posted by concha at April 19, 2007 08:59 AM
"This garbage you have written on your journal is flame to the social fabric of our world.
One-dimensional thought such as your view on the VT Tragedy and the Imus Fiasco is the reason why it continues.
There's no need to go into specifics of my reasoning, because you're not going to listen anyway. Fundamentalists like yourself are completely incapable of listening. Just be aware of that. That's the one point that IS worth making here."

Posted by ecology at April 18, 2007 03:30 PM
"There were enormous acts of bravery at VT, especially the Holocaust survivor. Anyone who has never been in a life or death situation, where your adrenaline is out of control and sucker-punched with a real situation, which is nothing like a John Wayne movie, should keep quite about being brave in this case.
....I'd wager that those mouthing off about the cowardice of these kids have not idea either and are just talking tough, and saying what tough conservatives are supposed to say.
Spend some time with a bunch of veterans and ask them what's it's like to be faced with the stark terror of a gun in your face or being pursued by someone wanting to snuff your life out. I'm sure it's not only scary, but unpredicable how things turn out or how you'll react."

Posted by Sioux at April 17, 2007 04:35 PM
"I also don't see the need to politicize this as being the fault of liberals. Why is this the first reaction of some, I wonder? Is it to appear tough and different?
....This is no one's fault except the puke, shoulda-been aborted-before -he -was -born--slime ball that committed murder. I refuse to even contemplate blaming anyone but him, least of all the murdered people. As this story progesses, the heroism of many people will become clearer."

Below is a nice bit of irony and sarcasm probably lost on Yeagley:

Posted by concha at April 17, 2007 03:35 PM
"I applaud you and your colleagues on your empathetic showing of compassion and humanity for the VT students, faculty and their families during this tragic event.
The immediate and proper response to such a catastrophe is to politicize it as quickly as possible. It is, of course, the Christian thing to do."

Posted by Tamara at April 17, 2007 12:36 PM
"Link to a documented act of heroism ...
Holocaust Survivor shielded students at VA Tech"

Posted by Matthew at April 17, 2007 12:33 PM
"I just don't know if those kids would have been able to take him out, having never killed anyone or been in a situation where their lives were at stake. That's not something you anticipate at school.
...the volatility of such a situation often leaves people paralyzed, particularly young people. sounds like some faculty and students acted as courageoasly as they could, given the circumstances."

Posted by ecology at April 17, 2007 10:31 AM
"Do you really think a bunch of teenagers should have acted-out scenes from a Steven Seagel movie and disarmed the guy amidst all the chaos? Something like this would have taken kids from a hundred years ago by surprise the same way it did yesterday. I doubt any of them were combat trained, so unless one has been in a life or death situation, with the adrenline causing you to shake so bad you can hadly move or think, I'd hold off on blaming liberals for this."

Friday, April 20, 2007

Yeagley Attacks Virginia Tech Massacre Victims as "Weak"

While most rational people would blame the deaths of these students squarely on the person who did the shootings, leave it to Yeagley to use this tragedy to make the most insane comment possible, blaming the victims.
"The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond.... Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared. They can only be victims."

Not content with having smeared the victims, he then goes on to attack the most heroic among them.

"There were no heroic acts in the VA Tech incident, contrary to liberal media reports. Hiding behind a desk, or jumping out a window is not a heroic act! This is the lie of liberalism. There is no honor in escaping."

Keep in mind this comes from a man who was of draft age during the end of the Vietnam War, and also of age to serve in the Gulf War. Yet Yeagley did not serve in either war.

Keep in mind also Yeagley's (false) claim of being a friend or defender of Jews. Apparently to him, the heroic actions of Holocaust survivor Liviue Lebrescu in saving the lives of his students, and selflessly losing his own life doing so, does not count.

Yet even these smears are not enough for Yeagley. Yeagley goes on to attack the actions of police as also being cowardly.

"You don't stand around and watch, like the police, like the professional gun toters."

Saying all of this from the safety of his computer screen over a thousand miles from the massacre, Yeagley comes off as not simply ignorant, but also as doing all he can to makes the lives of the survivors and family members the victims of this massacre worse.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Mel Gibson Denounces Yeagley

Can it get any stranger? When even the world's most famous anti-Semite denounces David Yeagley as "driven by hate," then you know you're dealing with a hate filled man.

When a man like Mel Gibson, raised by a "fundamentalist Catholic" who asserts the Holocaust was a hoax and the Catholic Church is too liberal and too modern, calls Yeagley a hateful man, that should tell us all just how extreme Yeagley's political and religious fundamentalism is.

When the maker of a notoriously inaccurate and stereotyped movie (Apocalypto, in case there's any doubt) denounces Yeagley as driven by jealousy and unhappiness with his own life, then maybe Yeagley should take the advice of this more famous bigot to heart.

After two newspaper articles that Yeagley pushed for backfired on him so badly, this third one which finally gives Youngblood a chance to sound off should give Yeagley fits for years.

And this site, its readers, and the many critics of Yeagley in Indian Country will take a great of joy in watching him squirm.

If anything, the article actually went too easy on Yeagley, not discussing Yeagley's false claims of being Comanche. But on the positive side, it did rightfully demote him from "pundit" to "blogger" and gave several examples of Yeagley's extreme racism and crackpot fanaticism.


'Apocalypto' Actor Fires Back on Heritage Claims
Youngblood defends his heritage.
April 18, 2007
By Lauren Horwitch
Not long before he received an award from First Americans in the Arts on April 14, actor Rudy Youngblood responded to blogger David Yeagley's assertions that the actor lied about his Native American ancestry, as reported in Back Stage's April 12 news analysis ";Is He or Isn't He?"

Youngblood says he is unequivocally Comanche by blood and is baffled by Yeagley's claims. "I don't know him. I've never seen him. I've never talked to him. I've never crossed paths with him," said Youngblood. The accusations of fraud first appeared on Yeagley's website,, and subsequently in articles in the Los Angeles Times and Back Stage.

Youngblood, who played Jaguar Paw in Apocalypto, Mel Gibson's 2006 epic, said he will not publicly state the names of his Comanche relatives in order to protect his family. According to Youngblood, Yeagley has already harassed some of those family members.

"It's the most disrespectful thing to have somebody badger or attack some of my family. You just don't do that," Youngblood said. "There are a lot of people in the Native community who know me, raised me, seen me as a kid, [and] grow up in our ways.... The guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I feel sad for him because he's making himself look ridiculous." He added that the statement on his Internet Movie Database biography that his mother is half African-American is incorrect.

The actor and former dancer with the Native American Dance Theatre said he will officially enroll in the Comanche Nation, which requires federal documents proving an individual is at least one-eighth Comanche Indian. "It's just taking the time. It's a long process. It's very drawn out. [But] it's not like I can't," he said.

When asked why Yeagley has singled him out for criticism, Youngblood noted the blogger critiques many individuals and groups on his site. Democrats, African Americans, and Muslims are currently three of his frequent subjects, in addition to the authenticity of Youngblood's ancestry. In an April 16 post on addressing the shooting spree on the Virginia Tech campus, Yeagley wrote: "I blame liberals. Liberals have already disarmed the people, psychologically. People are afraid to defend themselves. The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond.... Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared. They can only be victims."

In an April 16 post titled "Sick of Blacks?," Yeagley said Rutgers University women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer "led black people into the lowest state of mind in the history of American Negro history. The queen of weakness, Stringer dramatized, in a spectacular way, the complete dissatisfaction of black people--with themselves."

And in an April 8 post about illegal immigration, he called for readers to "unite and oust the Muslims immediately.... A true Muslims [sic] is a traitor to America . Plain and simple. The reason they are here is to colonize, to build a Muslims [sic] nation within, and to take over America ."

Unwanted Limelight

Youngblood said his fame as a Native American actor does not require him to prove his ancestry to others in the Native community. "I understand I'm in the public eye, but there is a line.... I don't need to show anybody anything," he said.

It wasn't his intention to become a professional actor when he auditioned for a part in Apocalypto, his only film credit to date: "I never wanted to be famous; I still don't. This is a job, and like every job, you want to do it to the best of your ability, and that's what I'm doing here."

As advised by Gibson, his mentor, Youngblood said he will continue to ignore Yeagley and his supporters. "[Gibson] said, 'People like that will never be happy. Jealousy eats at you, and all they have is driven by hate.' "

"I'm not going to say anything to [Yeagley]. I'm going to let him talk," Youngblood added. "Instead of doing something productive, he wastes his time behind a computer talking bad about people.... I'm not going to waste my time with that."

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Yeagley Admits Failure In His Campaign to Smear Youngblood

Yeagley talked yet another reporter, Lauren Horwitch of Backstage Pass, into doing a story about his allegations against Rudy Youngblood. Just as in the story for the LA Times, Yeagley's efforts backfired again. Yeagley has been reduced to whining on his forum about yet another Vast Leftwing Conspiracy.

This leaves the rest of Indian Country in stitches, watching Yeagley fume helplessly.

"Just thought I'd point out another liberal approach to truth--this time eliminating truth altogether:

Pundit Questions Actor's Ancestry

....It takes up Rudy's position, and merely says Michelle [Shing Elk] 'accused Yeagley of falsifying his own background.' Yes, that's a fact....they support Rudy, who is a confessed liar, and who has provided absolutely no evidence of who he is.

Apparently, these liberals are content to repeat each other's lies...

I was personally interviewed by Laura Horwitz, of BackStage....She covered for Rudy completely.

That's HOLLYWOOD. That's liberal media. LIARS every one....

I don't think I will interview with any liberal media outlet again....

I hope I've learned my lesson."

The article by Horwitch, much like the one by the LA Times, was actually pretty easy on Yeagley this time. But you couldn't tell Yeagley that, especially since it quotes prominent Native figures lecturing Yeagley for all the damage he's doing while both defending and mildly criticizing Youngblood.

April 11, 2007
Is He or Isn’t He?
‘Apocalypto’ actor under fire.
....A March 28 Los Angeles Times article took the controversy , which has been brewing in Native American online forums , into the mainstream. Jolene Schonchin , a spokesperson for the Comanche Nation , supported Youngblood and told the Times he 'is not on our tribal rolls , but he does have Comanche blood. His blood comes from his paternal side. His father was a full-blooded Comanche and a prominent member of the Comanche tribe , Preston Tahchawwickah.'

However , Youngblood told the Times and wrote on his website that Tahchawwickah is his adoptive father. According to www.rudyyoung , 'As a young boy , Preston and Fern Tahchawwickah brought Rudy into their family as their son. He was also adopted Cree and is a member of the SlimJohn family. Like many Native people , Rudy is an integral part of several Indian families throughout the United States.'

....So far , Youngblood is keeping the specifics of his genetics under wraps. He told the Times , 'I am Comanche. I’m not going to go into names. My tribe knows it. That is all that needs to be said.'

....Actor Mark Reed , who serves as chairman and national representative for American Indians in Film and Television , an advocacy group for Native Americans in entertainment , said the issue goes beyond Yeagley’s beef with Youngblood. 'Both Rudy and David Yeagley need to consider the impact they’re having on the entire American Indian community of artists , ' he said. 'Although David Yeagley is making very poignant points about it , he needs to take that into consideration. But at the same time , Rudy Youngblood has an obligation to Indian country to dispel these charges rather than avoiding it.'

The controversy comes at a particularly bad time for Native American actors , who are starving for TV and film work. In a recent study of scripted television series from fall 2005 to fall 2006 , Reed’s organization found there was not one Native American actor among 400 regular roles , 1,000 recurring roles , and 8,000 guest roles. In January a UCLA study of TV and film casting breakdowns from June 1 to Aug. 31 , 2006 , found only 0.5 percent of roles called for Native American actors.

And even when the odd roles are offered , they’re usually less than desirable. 'They’re very limited roles , and they’re always stereotypical roles…. Unless the individual really is of the American Indian community , they can represent Indians in a very demeaning way without even knowing it , ' Reed said , adding that the eruption between Yeagley and Youngblood could narrow that playing field even further. 'If there’s a controversy that goes on every time they hire an American Indian when the community comes out and says he’s not an Indian…[casting directors] say , ‘Look , we don’t want to take the time or energy to deal with that.’ They’d rather cast somebody else.'

....Reed said enrolling in one of the 562 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes can be an exhausting process , particularly because each tribe has its own enrollment criteria."

I think I'll join in agreeing with Michelle Shining Elk's amusing comments on the whole matter:

"Here is a little fun to watch.

The dumb doc is crying around because he feels he has, yet again, been the victim of injustice. Oh such a victim he is....

Being the slow and dense doctor that he is, that buffoon just noticed her article written on the 29th, today, and is taking that as the article she interviewed him for...Of course he had to talk about this in his forum, and he goes on further to attacks Lauren and calls her a liar, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well she emailed me the story and told me that Yeagley had emailed her and called her all sorts of things....

The fun part, watching, to see how long it takes that ninny to see was a dumb ass he is, that he is referring to the wrong article."

Once again, all that Yeagley's efforts have done is show more people just how much of an obsessed, small minded, mean spirited, and destructive person he is.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Yet Another of Yeagley's Failures as a "Scholar"

Yeagley Wrong Again, Surprise Surprise!
from the Bad Eagle Journal

Remember this Yeagley “pontification” about the urgent and dire need for an English Only policy?

David Yeagley — “Official English: For Indians, Too” (Feb. 2007)
Well, surprise, surprise, it turns out that Yeagley was — you guessed it — wrong again, according to the actual facts. Yeagley tried to argufy that English Only policies don’t actually harm the revitalization efforts of American Indian languages, but the research has determined otherwise — they do! So while Yeagley rants on about the so-called dangers of so-called illegal people, and calling forth all manner of paranoid bigotry to discourage the natural order of diversity itself, it seems Yeagley has been duped by his right-wing employers ... again.

David Yeagley —

“If there is any fading of Indian language, it isn’t because of this law. No such "English Only" law existed before. How could it be blamed now? It’s just Democrat, Leftist paranoia at work again... Why on earth would any American Indian leaders object to legislation affirming that English is the language of the United States? Indians have been speaking English for some 300 years now. Are these Indian leaders seriously worried that such legislation will have any affect whatsoever on Indian language and culture of the two hundred Indian languages still spoken today? This Oklahoma legislation is simply about preventing illegal aliens—Mexicans—from defacing American culture. It has nothing to do with American Indians. English-only legislation has been provoked by the 7 to 20 million mostly Spanish-speaking people illegally immigrated to the United States... Certain far-sighted leaders in America ... want to correct it. They are right... I definitely think "English Only" is a good thing... I’m Indian, not Mexican. I’m Comanche, not Maori! I'm a man, not a herded animal” (Feb. 2007)

Okay, so Yeagley likens Mexicans and Maoris to herded animals, right. However, Yeagley is again completely wrong about Native languages, as proven by detailed research. The research was first published in The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, Volume 12, Special Issue III, Summer 1993, pp. 35-59. A portion is reposted below, along with all the references. And yet again, if you STILL think Yeagley is on to something good, or STILL think he is a scholar, or STILL think he even knows the real facts, THINK AGAIN. Yeagley reasons about as well as he spells, that is, not so well.


On October 30, 1990, President Bush signed the Native American Languages Act, Title I of Public Law 101-477.1 Congress found in this Act that "the status of the cultures and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages" (102, 1). Congress made it the policy of the United States to "preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages" (104, 01). "The right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior" is recognized (104, 5). Furthermore, the act declared that "the right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding, including publicly supported education programs" (105).

The Native American Languages Act has three important implications. First, it is a continuation of the policy of Indian self-determination that has been effect over the last twenty years. Second, it is a reversal of the historical policy of the United States Government to suppress Indian languages in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and other schools. And third, it is a reaction to the attempt to make English the official language of the United States. The Act represents the grass roots support of Indian people for their native heritage. This article looks from a historical perspective at what impact the implementation of the American Indian Languages Act might have on Indian education... The history of the suppression of American Indian languages is especially relevant today as organizations such as U.S. English and English First lobby for a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States... (Jon Reyhner, 1993)
Despite Yeagley’s opinions to the contrary, it appears that both the educational scholars and the government agree that the “scare” factor is not a liberal phenomena but a right-wing anti-American sentiment. It appears that bilingual efforts in traditional American Indian languages are more patriotic, and hold a greater connection to the founding documents of this country than does the ranting of Yeagley and those who agree with him.

Further, it appears that the pontifications of Yeagley are nearly identical to the 19th-Century racist declarations that formerly promoted those failed English Only policies. Those policies were simply "reactionary" impulses based on a perceived, but delusional, fear of illegal immigration, and not tied to any sound analysis nor rational education policy.

Quite simply, the facts show that English Only policies have overwhelmingly failed in every single instance where employed, and more hurt Indians than help them. The piano doctor, once again, has proven he is not only anti-Indian by adopting the racist behavior of past eras, but that he is a phony patriot as well.


The rise of support for English-only instruction in this country is correlated with the rise and fall of the perceived threat to the "American way of life" by immigrants to this country and thus is a form of xenophobia. In the Nineteenth Century the imagined threat was from immigration... The result for Indian education was the removal of government support for mission schools and an instructional emphasis on "Americanization."...

Vine Deloria, Jr.'s recently described these past European educational efforts as resembling,

"indoctrination more than it does other forms of teaching because it insists on implanting a particular body of knowledge and a specific view of the world which often does not correspond to the life experiences that people have or might be expected to encounter." (1990, p. 16)

Today, the perceived threat is from increased immigration from Asia and Central and South America. Before non-Indian Americans insist on "Americanizing" Native Americans with "English-Only" instruction today, we need to examine thoroughly why the Nineteenth Century effort of Atkins, Morgan, and others failed. Moreover, we need to reexamine traditional attitudes toward freedom and self-determination that Americans so strongly advocated recently for minorities in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union while often ignoring these same basic human rights for America's indigenous minorities.

Non-Indian Americans need to respect Indian peoples rejection of the old assimilationist approach to Indian education that can be found in the recently passed educational policies of several tribes, including the Navajo (1985), the Northern Ute (1985), and the Pasqua Yaqui (1984). For example, Navajo Tribal leader Peterson Zah declared in the preface to the tribal education policies that,

"We believe that an excellent education can produce achievement in the basic academic skills and skills required by modern technology and still educate young Navajo citizens in their language, history, government and culture." (Navajo Division of Education, 1985, p. vii)

In seeking to preserve their cultural heritage, tribes are not rejecting the importance of English language instruction for their children. William Leap (1982) could find no tribe that had let native language restoration outrank the importance of teaching English. American Indians are seeking to follow a bilingual "English Plus" philosophy that will preserve their heritages and will allow their children access to jobs in the White Man's world. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 is the American Indian's answer to the English-only movement, and the Act's bilingual/multicultural educational approach is supported by the dismal historical record of assimilationist approaches to Indian education in the US...

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Yeagley's Supporters: White Racists, Self Hating Natives, Plus One Surprise

Yeagley is no longer making any pretense that he is merely conservative and has come "out of the closet" about being white supremacist.

Yeagley responded to the letter I sent to campus groups at Florida State University, where I detailed his more infamous quotes and hatred of literally every nonwhites group on the planet. Undeterred by being exposed yet again, Yeagley had this to say:

"I believe in the things I say. If I am wrong, I will deal with the consequences... I believe I am right."

FSU's College Republicans say for their part that they still support him, even knowing his suppport for white supremacy, hatred for nonwhites, and admiration for Hitler.

"Mr. Coyle, [Young America's Foundation]

Just wanted to share this letter with you and Dr. Yeagley that's circulating around school. I'm sure you've seen it before but I wanted to make sure it was brought to your attention. Regardless we support Dr. Yeagley and can't wait to have him here next week.

Brandon N. Neeld
FSU College Republicans
Vice Chairman '06/'07"

I consider the letter I mailed to campus groups at FSU a big success. The issue at FSU quickly became far less about mascots and far more about Yeagley's lack of credibility and his bigoted nature and beliefs.

On Yeagley's own forum, his followers became pretty unbalanced with hysteria. For Nadine/Buzzy, apparently daring to point out white supremacy actually is white supremacy makes me "simply evil." John Martin/Large-Imposter-Posing-as-Gulf-War-Veteran continued to make himself look far worse than he could ever make me look, with yet another string of racist slurs, cheered on by fellow racists at Badeagle.

The big and pleasant surprise came from Naiche, also known as Alchesay on He deserves praise for his courage. On Badeagle, he defended me as doing good work over at NAFPS and argued that idiots such as Martin who claim I'm not Apache don't know what they're talking about.

He had his criticisms of me too, some of them not too clear. In any case, as he is a wartime veteran I will cut him slack for that, as I always do with wartime vets. (Note that Yeagley not a veteran, and that Martin falsely claims to be a Gulf War combat veteran, when he was actually a clerk stationed stateside.) But as one of the few people on Badeagle who actually is Native (Yeagley certainly isn't, and for Martin it's not clear either), and the only Apache there, to have him defend me at the Badeagle forum is a nice surprise.

In an earlier conversation on, he was insistent about something else: He is absolutely NOT a Yeagley supporter or follower in any way. He also offered to meet with me, and I gladly accepted, but have not heard back from him.

He is welcome to contact me through this website or NAFPS.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Yeagley's Failures as a Scholar

From, an excellent essay pointing out Yeagley's poor scholarship in both history and music.

More Fabrication from David Yeagley
from the Bad Eagle Journal

Thank you Robert W. Welkos, Times Staff Writer! We welcome all the new readers to this site, and thank you for taking a moment to learn the facts about the piano doctor.

So this is Yeagley’s latest claim, that Comanche people had NO political structure? He doesn’t insist on “loose” political structure, or “decentralized” structure, he literally declares there was NO political structure, and has claimed as much on several occasions.

David Yeagley — “The Comanche people had no political structure” (Mar. 2007)

David Yeagley — “We were just small bands of roaming hunters, with no religion or political structure” (Feb. 2002)

However, a quick and easy search turns up many counter explanations. Once again, Yeagley is simply stretching the truth to bolster up his own fabricated image as an Indian scholar, while the facts paint an altogether different picture. So Comanches were highly mobile, great. But to use that mobility to declare them without political structure or religiousness is a real stretch of the facts.

I’d say, from a westernized POV, probably 99% of all Indian tribes had no religion, not in the way Christians think of it. But to claim the Comanches existed without political structure is absolutely bonkers. Like most tribes, Comanches had a highly developed network of extended kinship ties, which is at the heart of their political, religious and social life. Yeagley simply does not know what he is talking about, largely because he has few (if any) kinship ties into the Comanche community himself. He is an outsider Comanche wannabe.

As noted above, the political structure was loosely organized, but each band had an elected nonhereditary chief. The most famous of these was Quanah Parker) who led the Comanche on the reservation from the 1870s until his death. Comanche religious practice was very individualistic, with emphasis being laid on the male vision quest. The quest gave power to individuals but entailed restrictive practices and taboos. There were no priests and few group ceremonies. The Comanche believed in a creator spirit and its counterpart, an evil spirit, and accepted the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon as deities. The religion was animistic with natural objects and animal spirits (except for dogs and horses) having various powers. Medicine men served as intermediaries and helpers with the spirits and also served practically as curers. The Comanche had few ceremonies, but had developed or practiced the Beaver Ceremony and the Eagle Dance.

Kristine L. Jones (1998) argues that trade among indigenous peoples and between indigenous peoples and Spanish settlers in the Pampas helped in the process of state-building by fostering increased trade. Pekka Hämäläinen (1998) makes a similar argument for the role of Comanches in the southwestern Great Plains. He argues that trade with indigenous peoples helped strengthen New Mexico while also building a tribal political structure among Comanche bands.

Perhaps the best way to understand the Comanche social and political structure is to start at the bottom. While nuclear families might, for whatever reason, choose to live separately for a while, the normal Comanche residential pattern consisted of groups of related extended families. Those families formed the local, or residential, band. The bands were focused around a core extended family, whose leader was the group's chief. Whereas the local residential band was structured on kin-ship, the widest Comanche social structure—the division—was of local group, or bands, linked into political networks; in historic times in New Mexico, and apparently briefly in Texas, the divisional principal chief was "elected" from amongst the constituent local band chiefs.

Yeagley is pretending to be Comanche and pretending to be an American Indian scholar; he's got a DMA (Doctorate of Musical Arts) for playing the piano. To get his degree, he wrote a "selective" OP-ED essay on a piano piece he liked, and said nothing of definitive importance one direction or another. Yeagley's thesis was another in a long succession of rather meaningless (and somewhat fluffy) piano commentaries:

David Yeagley — "Franz Liszt's 'Dante Sonata': The Origins, the Criticism, a Selective Musical Analysis, and Commentary" (1994)

His equally fluffy knowledge of American Indian people is also limited to what he imagines as he reads stereotyped magazines, inaccurate history publications, and Wikipedia entries. He contends that Indians were not civilized, and whites gave to Indians the 'ability to negotiate.' However, Indians have always been the greatest of negotiators, treating others, including non-humans and the earth, as "people." Bird people, Water people, many kinds of non-human people are what makes up the collective world of the superior negotiating skills of Indian people. Knowing how to relate, and how to 'be related' is one of the better-known strengths of Indian people — mitakuye oyasin!

So what do we make of Yeagley's nonsense?

David Yeagley — "Social skills are a thing of civilization. Trying to get along with others is a western European custom. Plains Indians never had need for such talk. Negotiation generally meant weakness" (Mar. 2007)

Well, for those who still refuse to recognize Yeagley's idiocy, and still get whipped up into some Patriotamentia Attack over Yeagley's phony warrior facade, check those aggressive hormones at the door, engage your brain instead, and understand that American Indians were the greatest of negotiators — including the Comanches — despite Yeagley's personal degradation of the great Comanche people. Yeagley wouldn't know a Comanche if he looked in the mirror.

The 'warlike' nature of Native American peoples was often fabricated to add legitimacy to European aims of conquest (Kroeber 1961); the foraging Comanche maintained their non-violent ways for centuries before the European invasion, becoming violent only upon contact with marauding civilisation.

Yeagley is a paid fabricator, including his own rather "creative" lineage, and continually embarrasses actual Comanches with his stupidity: Trust anything he pontificates about at your own risk. You've been warned.