BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

2007 Bad Eagle Confessions

by David Yeagley · January 4, 2007 · 40 Comments ·

A BadEagle.com journal commenter recently asked about the name “Bad Eagle.” I don’t know how or why my ancestor got the name Bad Eagle. It’s on the early Comanche rolls. He gave it as his name, and also the name of his father. One professor, Thomas Kavanagh, at the University of New Mexico’s Department of Anthropology, researched the names of Comanches named “eagle.” He wrote this in personal correspondence of 1985, when my mother was researching certain details. There was a “Big Eagle” mentioned by a Time-Life book. That would be “pia-quena,” not “quin-ne kish-su-it,” as Bad Eagle had written down on the rolls. There was a tabba quena, too, meaning “sun eagle.” In fact, that’s who the Time-Life author meant, Sun Eagle. Apparently there was no “Big Eagle” among the Comanche, only Tabbequena, sun Eagle. And certainly, there was only one “Bad Eagle.”


Bad Eagle (quin-ne kish-su-it), 1839-1906

“Kish-su-it” means wild, untamed, or wicked. There was no Comanche word for “bad,” in the English sense. (One Japanese acquaintance of mine once reacted: “‘Bad.’ Hmmm. Could mean…great!” Interesting Oriental concept there.)

I know I have a close relationship to evil. I pick up on it instantly. My mother was this way, too. Some kind of special sensitivity. Almost hyper-sensitivity. Perhaps it’s a bit neurotic, in modern terms of civilized personality concepts. I know lying absolutely vexes me. Is it my po-ha-cut (“medicine”) to embrace liars, somehow? Is this personality just some old tribal thing? Some natural “suspicion” of everyone and everything? Some disposition from a closed society? Mountain people, for example, are always like this. Comanche were once mountain people, or so we’re told. I know we were once extremely exclusive of all other people, white and Indian. They learned our language, we didn’t learn theirs. Otherwise, we spoke to them in our special “sign” language, which apparently became the lingua franca of the plains.

Am I exclusive? I said the alleged victim in the Duke Lacrosse case was a liar from day one! I was absolutely right. I said Mike Nifong was an outrage. This has proven true. I have said that Rudy “Youngblood” doesn’t have a drop of American Indian blood in him. He is a pretender. So far, no one has shown I am wrong. I say now that Representative-elect Keith Ellison, Democrat, Minnesota, is completely insincere, another pretender, and a political clown.

Why am I so vehemently offended by these things? Why do I dramatize these things?

I have been lied about from the day I published on FrontPageMagazine.com. My late rants are not reactionary. I’m not ticked off now, suddenly, because I’ve been lied about. Indians and non-Indians alike have told and retold the same lies from the beginning. Michelle R. (Hall) “Shining Elk” has now joined the liars, I’m sorry to say. Some of these same people hacked the Wikepedia entry “David A. Yeagley” so viciously and repeatedly that the editors’ article became “protected,” i.e., the attackers were banned from participating on it. That’s pretty disgraceful, and shows how obviously malicious they really are. Remember, it’s the same handful of people, desperately trying to oppose me. No objective, rational person gives them a second thought.

But, it makes me wonder, am I being lied about because I despise lying, and I cannot tolerate liars? Is there an esoteric relationship between my ethos and that which I create in others (the liars, that is)? Who is tempting me? (Nothing, of course, distinguished in being tempted, regardless of who’s doing the tempting, right? Sin is sin, no matter ‘who made you do it.’)

My positions have been simple: I believe that American Indians should have a sense of ownership of America, not just the land, but the country–which was forged in direct relation to American Indian encounters. I believe American Indians should be the exemplary patriots of this nation, America. I advocate no special resentment or animosity toward the white race (except for the liberal racists among them who think American Indians are the same as Negroes, etc.). I believe in the American Constitution. I believe in the Bible, every word, in fact. I delight in belief. It is an aggressive act of the will. (God knows I’m aggressive!) It isn’t a matter of deduction or abstraction. Belief is an act of the raw, free will. I love it! It has nothing to do with culture or race–except for the Jews. That’s why I cherish Jewish people.

For these strange, quixotic, eccentric, or otherwise unusual views (so they say), I am lied about. Is that it? Is it my ideas? My values? Do I attract evil? That’s what I’m concerned about. Do I bring evil out of people? Am I a devil hunter of some kind? This is strange, indeed. Is the devil in me, instead? I’m open-minded about these things. I don’t intend evil. I intend truth, and correction or error. I don’t know that I have lied, but I know others have–about me. I’ve indulged in some pretty wild journalism, for which I have regrets, or at least doubts. But I haven’t knowingly misrepresented others. I have contended with them, and disagreed with them, yes. But they have repeatedly lied about me. That part I don’t understand.

I think it has to do with the fact that I’m Indian, and say the things I say. They just can’t stand the fact that an Indian would say those things. Therefore, they have simply tried in every way to declare that I am not Indian. From day one. Liberals, whites and Indians, have taken this sole defense. I oppose their ideas, therefore I can’t be Indian, in their minds. They have set out to establish a little internet fantasy world, a little anti-Yeagley virtual reality, in which they all quote each other, over and over, and thus build up a little reservoir. They even use my name, David Yeagley, and the name of my ancestor, Bad Eagle, to try and scoop up the traffic I have built on my own sites by hard labor. They cannot be more deplorable, low-life, and yes, immoral about it. It’s sickening, really. Worse than pitiful.

However, in an objective view, I seek to understand how it is that this should befall me. I was lied about, by non-Indians first, then Indians. That’s why I know this is political.

I think one thought. Russell Means never denied my Indianness. I had opposed him from my first articles. But, he didn’t respond by claiming I wasn’t Indian. He stands far above everyone, in my mind, on this point. I respect him for that. I showed respect for him when we were on Hannity & Colmes, too. I know he knew that.

But, as we move on in the campaign for American Indian Patriotism, I wonder at the future of the anti-Yeagley liars. At some point, they will be referenced, no? Maybe not. They are actually very insignificant. But, I know they’re pretty relentless. They are faithful in their attempts to build up their internet fantasy. I am about to employ means to alter all this, and to provide the kind of documentation I know none of them have. (It’s very unlikely they have it, anyway.) What’s interesting is that no one accuses them, my enemies, of not being Indian! They are not required to offer the kinds of proof they require of me. In fact, they don’t even require proof from me anymore. They are determined that I am not Indian, and therefore, it’s not an issue. Everything I say, in their minds, is from the perspective that I’m not Indian. This is their position a priori. I think it’s odd.

I think I have created them. They are evil. I have created them. This is my power, is it not? It’s part of the effect of being who and what I am, and saying what I way. I am responsible for them, for their condition.

Maybe this is a little too much, a little too esoteric, mystical, Oriental, or some other hocus-pocus. But, remember, I am in fact Indian. I am susceptable to weird things! Ha. There is all kinds of power out there in the world. Invisible influence, spiritual force. All kinds.

Bad Eagle. How he got the name. I don’t know. Maybe it fits me. Maybe it is po-ha-cut. This is an unfinished story.

Posted by David Yeagley · January 4, 2007 · 11:09 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

40 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Nadine // Jan 4, 2007 at 11:33 am   

    Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re just different, and different doesn’t necessarily mean bad (lol, I got this from the movie “Happy Feet”, but it’s also common sense). Chin up.

    Peace, Nadine (:^)

  • 2 KuhnKat // Jan 4, 2007 at 11:44 am   

    Embracing Yin and Yang Dr. Yeagley? A theory that there must be a balance and that the more good you create the more evil is created to balance it?? Of course, that type of theory removes intelligence and WILL from the equation. Part of why LEFTIES like it

    I like Einstein’s thought that evil is the ABSENCE of God. Under that theory what you are experiencing is the concentration of evil trying to prevent your filling their world with good, eradicating it.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • 3 David Yeagley // Jan 4, 2007 at 12:17 pm   

    Well, I just want everyone to know I’m not careless about this. I think heavy weight is involved behind the scenes. I don’t mean political, or financial. I mean psychological.

    I know there are patterns, archetypes, and inevitabilities. I’m aware of the prison of consciousness. The iron string to which every heart vibrates, as Emerson said.

    I’m just wondering if I have any part to play in the process? I mean, any influence. Do we just play out the script, or do we create it, at least partially, as we go? Can we do anything about anything, or is it all inevitable?

    “Is Ahab Ahab? Is it I, God, or who that lifts this arm?” from Moby Dick.

  • 4 Mario // Jan 4, 2007 at 1:30 pm   

    I think Doctor that you just smarter than the average bear when it comes to knowing or sensing phonies in character or in personality.

    Not to sound like a touchy-feely, 2012 is the end of the world because the Mayan calender say so, lefty but when you are true to yourself and know who you are, there is no need to put up a false front. When you know who you are, it is harder to be deceived than the average person.

    As a cosequence of your ability to know when something is not right, many deceivers get very hostile because YOU ARE A REAL THREAT compared to other people.

    I heard this from somewhere but I do not know if it was a television show or was in person. I hope this helps or maybe not :-p

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jan 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm   

    Sounds good to me, Mario. I have much appreciated your comments. Alto belle!

    Simple explanations are better anyway, according to the Law of Parsimony. (They’re just not quite as interesting!)

  • 6 Patricia // Jan 4, 2007 at 3:17 pm   

    That was me that asked…have you researched the name in terms of traditional lore? By this I mean traditional stories passed down that sometimes make it into reference anthologies. There’s got to be an expert on this out there somewhere…

    As for the tagging yourself as “bad”…well, let’s just put it this way. By my observation, and I pride myself in being a fairly balanced judge of character, you seem to sometimes straddle the line, walk the knife’s edge, have a foot in both camps.

    To quote myself…”there is a difference between pulling down someone’s pants, and kicking them in the crotch.” David, only you have an internal meter for this, make sure it’s calibrated to be as balanced as you can get it. Otherwise, your detractors will always leverage themselves on that weakness.

  • 7 ecology // Jan 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm   

    Hey doc I know I mean nothing here but ever since I saw you on cspan talking about patriotism you seem darn cool to me! I dont know what these folks are screaming about. and I dont see them preserving our white man/Red man history like you do. Instead we get a globalized socialized version from them. Ugh.

  • 8 David Yeagley // Jan 4, 2007 at 8:14 pm   

    I feel that I’ve addressed the issues at hand in this matter. I will be pursuing the appropriate actions with regard to libel and fraud with respect to those who commit them against Indians.

    One presses forward. Self-reflection hopefully sharpens one’s aim.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Jan 4, 2007 at 8:23 pm   

    Pat, asked what?

    That was me that asked…have you researched the name in terms of traditional lore? By this I mean traditional stories passed down that sometimes make it into reference anthologies. There’s got to be an expert on this out there somewhere…

    There you go again, telling Indians how to be Indian. Har, har.

    Look, nobody owns us. Anthropologists don’t own us. Indian Studies professors don’t own us. It doesn’t matter how many books they write, or how much they say.

    Real Indian problems, and real solutions, are not arrived at through academic theory.

    You give the impression that you don’t think any Indians know anything about themselves. I can’t assume you are trying to insult us, of course, but, this is denigrating. We’ve been through this before, right?

    So, what am I missing here? Once more to try an enlighten you, in our tribe, you don’t inherit medicine. It’s not passed down. That’s all I’m saying on the matter.

    See, you sound like you really don’t know anything but theory. Indians don’t have the uniform identity that everyone thinks. The Comanche are as different from the Narangansetst as the Franch are from the Albanians, or the Italians from the Icelanders. Does this make any sense?

    But, there are some profoundly unique characteristics of the Comanche ethos…that lots of people don’t know, who may know a lot about Indians across the continent.

    By the way, I didn’t get any pizzelles for Christmas this year…

  • 10 Patricia // Jan 4, 2007 at 9:27 pm   

    Per piacere David, come on now…starting with me again? I’m not telling an Indian how to be an Indian. It’s a rational question based on curiosity. I actually started to tinker around and research it myself, finding out on another tangent that there is a Wyandotte nation in Oklahoma. I didn’t know that the Wendats migrated that far from Ontario…learn something new every day they say. I know my feelings are supposed to be hurt by this, but you can’t possibly begin to fit a square peg into a round hole. Mi dispiace David…but I’m not a human and political dartboard. I wish I could conform to this hard balls view you have of me, I’d wear it like girl scout badge. The internet is funny, if you knew me in person you’d know that my mother’s homemade pizzelle are a valuable commodity…only the worthy Dottore, only the worthy.

  • 11 Sheila // Jan 4, 2007 at 10:35 pm   

    “Is it my po-ha-cut (“medicine”}”

    David, maybe you were given the quest of being questioned as to your identity in order for you to understand how it is for others that are questioned. After all, all that any of us can be sure of is whom our mothers are.

  • 12 Nadine // Jan 5, 2007 at 12:39 am   

    God gives each & every one of us free will, that’s my only saving grace in this world, to know that I AM able to change what may *seem* inevitable. And so are you all. Good luck & choose your path carefully; it’s never too late to change course. *smile*

  • 13 Beakerkin // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:05 am   

    Doc

    Those that question your ethnicity are themselves guilty of what they accuse you of. The notion of the lives of Native Americans as protoMarxists is fiction created in academic gulags. The aims of these Marxists is to steal Native American history
    and culture to further their own ambitions.

    The question of who and what Native Americans were is not defined by ideological crooks. Native Americans should be defined on their own terms and not be made to fit politically driven prisms.
    In short Native Americans were themselves and their societies were as diverse as those of Europe and elsewhere.

    You are free to define yourself in your own terms as you see fit.

  • 14 "greetings, my son!" // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:22 am   

    I really do not think it is that hard to figure out why you are hated by the left????????????

    You are supposed to be a member of a “needy” victimized race, that has to be protected from the “greedy” exploitive race, by a few of the enlightened anointed ones of the “greedy” race.

    Get with the program, or they will try to prove you’re not an Indian. You’re an uppity Indian walking as tall as them, and eve taller from my vantage point. THEY WANT YOU NEEDY AND BEHOLDING!

    I would stop putting dill in the gravy though, they may try to get you committed, and it might work. I hope I am not the deciding vote!

    P.S. I now have music on my blog, why not put a little Yeagley flut on yours–I’d love to hear what its like. And it is not difficult to do.

  • 15 "greetings, my son!" // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:22 am   

    I really do not think it is that hard to figure out why you are hated by the left????????????

    You are supposed to be a member of a “needy” victimized race, that has to be protected from the “greedy” exploitive race, by a few of the enlightened anointed ones of the “greedy” race.

    Get with the program, or they will try to prove you’re not an Indian. You’re an uppity Indian walking as tall as them, and eve taller from my vantage point. THEY WANT YOU NEEDY AND BEHOLDING!

    I would stop putting dill in the gravy though, they may try to get you committed, and it might work. I hope I am not the deciding vote!

    P.S. I now have music on my blog, why not put a little Yeagley flut on yours–I’d love to hear what its like. And it is not difficult to do.

  • 16 Pat // Jan 5, 2007 at 11:53 am   

    “Look, nobody owns us. Anthropologists don’t own us. Indian Studies professors don’t own us. It doesn’t matter how many books they write, or how much they say.

    Real Indian problems, and real solutions, are not arrived at through academic theory.”

    David, ethnographers and anthropologists are responsible for such much of the preservation of the culture you hold dear. I don’t know what you’re talking about. You studied Persian as an outsider to the culture…so it’s okay when you do it but when others make it their career path or life path it’s somehow an outrage? Ethnographers, anthropologists and historians work tirelessly to preserve and celebrate and present historic cultures. Don’t make blanket statements that make you lose credibility. A person very close to me worked for the Culture and Heritage Branch of the Canadian Government years ago and she is responsible for the research and preservation efforts connected with some sacred first nations sites. And no, she doesn’t “own” them, she just recognized the cultural importance of them.

  • 17 Mario // Jan 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm   

    I think Dr. Yeagley’s hostility to academics studying indian life is not that they are interested in gaining knowledge about their subject.

    What gets his goat about the current indian, black, hispanic, etc studies at the univerisities is how they become another bully pulpit of the left.

    For example, when people study the conquest of mexico by the spaniards from the aztecs, diatribe of the bias of the leftist professors come out. The aztecs are magnified of the achievements in architecture, astronomy, mathematics, etc. which are nothing to sneeze at.
    By contrast, the spaniards are presented as evil, gold hungry, in search of slaves, etc. which there is no doubt that many were.

    By just showing the negatives of one culture and the positives of the other, people begin to see things through the marxist lenses of oppressors/opresssed.

    The fact that Aztecs were into human sacrifices are just either not mentioned, or passed over as nothing important. Also that is not mentioned is why Hernan Cortez was able to get indian allies to fight the aztecs. All this is hardly mentioned or not mentioned at all as to why the conquest occured.

    The leftist just like to mentioned how the spaniards brought over small pox and other diseases that the indians had no immunity from as some how the spaniards were creators of biological warefare. No mentioned that the spaniards and especially the europeans were just recovering from the infamous Black Death generations prior.

    I just think if the these “academics” would concentrate on the academics and not on political agenda then individuals like Dr. Yeagley might not be so defensive about eggheads trying to tell him what it is to be an indian.

    Just want to say Dr. Yeagley that I am not trying to speak for you but just hopefully have people understand better where you coming from.
    I know the feeling of not being a ______ (insert ethnic group) because you do not agree with the marxists on campuses.

  • 18 Pat // Jan 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm   

    If you are some way answering my comment Mario, let me tell you something. Political agenda is usually nowhere in the minds and hearts of the “egghead” ethnographers/anthropologists/historians you so gallantly dismiss as being ignorant, selfish and myopic. I have to wonder if you’ve ever been part of a conservation effort yourself. Probably not, because then you’d see how much passion and interest is involved. A few kilometers from where I live there is a proposed archeological site connected with the Iroquois nation history in Ontario. I suppose according to you all of these people who are going to meticulously combing the terrain so as to accurately assign what was originally there are all “marxists”, “leftists”, what else have you…(they look to me like expert conservationists, but that’s just my egghead take).

  • 19 Ray // Jan 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm   

    “I’m not telling an Indian how to be an Indian. It’s a rational question based on curiosity. I actually started to tinker around and research it myself, finding out on another tangent that there is a Wyandotte nation in Oklahoma. I didn’t know that the Wendats migrated that far from Ontario.”

    Pat, that’s because the Wendot (known as the Huron and traditional enemies of the Iroquois despite being Iroquoian speakers themselves) never did go down into Kansas and then into Oklahoma. The Wyandott’s are not the same, at least from what I understand.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm   

    Pat, perhaps I confuse your aggressive personality with your feigned non-political stance. A very “mechanical” combination. Nothing is more political than a “non-political” stance. It is pure Left. You have never entered such a dialogue, as I has seen, as Left vs. conservative. Preservation of Indian lore, land, trinkets, feathers, graves, etc., is indeed a cause celebre of the Left. Environmentalism, preserve tribes like some rare animal species.

    But the point in the Rudy case is obvious: the Left are RACISTS deluxe!. People that think all darkies of the Western Hemisphere are all the same, and it doesn’t matter whether you distinguish or not, are RACISTS. And they people that advocate this are WHITE socialists, better known as Communists.

    It is troubling that you should be so passionate about the work of WHITE anthropologists and archeologists, etc., and seem to have no clue as to their political identity.

    They can pretend to be neutral, but their MONEY comes from the Left, always. The university itself is a Leftist institution. And Canada is quite socialist.

    So, you want me to thank the whites for preserving what’s left of the Indians they destroyed, right? WRONG. You’re attitude comes across as absolutely repulsive. Nothing could be more denigrating, belittling, and patronizing. You’re talking about careerist whites who “study” Indians. I wish you were in a cage, and had black African sociologists “studying” you.

    In fact, I once said I presumed you were black. You never answered. Actually, you seem a little too “insensitive” to ethnic issues to be black…

  • 21 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm   

    Mario, I think you said it about as right as it can be said. Thanks. I’ll have to cut and paste your remarks when I need them!

  • 22 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 2:09 pm   

    Ray, Indians were incredible travelers. Constantly in motion, migrating, roaming. Some of them got rather numerous in size, and had more of a “civilized” life than the hunters on the plains.

    Comanches appeared on the scene a little late, compared to everyone else. They say we hid out in the southern Rockies for who knows how long. Others say differently, though. Oral, written, what does it matter? I’ve heard both, from both sources. That’s why I say we came from the wind, not the earth.

  • 23 Pat // Jan 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm   

    David, all I know is my friend, who similar in disposition to me, had to face rather aggressive corporate lawyers in favor of development in a bid to avert development as opposed to conservation – over and over. It was harrowing for her and I can safely vouch that she was not, NOT by any of your aggressive packaging of people…”leftist” (whatever that is). How scary that you should presume to tag me anything. Why, because I don’t always get where you’re coming from? I’m not political, I just know bullyish rhetoric when I see it and it bores me half to death. I’m not telling you or anyone how to be Indian, I’m not Indian. I haven’t got a clue what you’re insinuating on me but it smacks of the same academic pretentiousness you would accuse others of. And to say things like I’m “patronizing”, ridiculous. What for? People are patronizing when they want something. You want to be mad at everybody? You want to make me the judas goat for your aggressive posturing? I’m not wanting you to thank anybody for anything…but acknowledge that there are points of view out there that do not fall into the evil agendas you seem bent on exposing.

    Ray…check the history…go to the Wyandotte of Oklahoma web site. It’s all there.

  • 24 Pat // Jan 5, 2007 at 3:33 pm   

    And one more thing: Black sociologists have better things to do I’m sure than study the likes of me. They would be much better off taking a good look at you instead. Why? Because your “mechanical” combination is much more Charlton Heston than mine. I’ll bet you sleep with a shotgun across your lap…oops, did I just say a “leftist” type thing?

  • 25 ray // Jan 5, 2007 at 3:57 pm   

    Yep, I’ll be darned, I never assumed that a small regiment of the Huron made it into Kansas/Oklahoma.

    Pat, for what it’s worth, David’s frame of reference is completely a dualistic one, whereby all of reality must be seen as either conservative (“truth”) or as a liberal (satanic) conspiracy.

    It’s understandable given that his livlihood is predicated on this either/or distinction. One must also couch their views in much hyperbole and sensationalism to make it in the political/journalistic world, I’m afraid. It can leave on paranoid as to who is a real enemy and who is just a benign poster.

    When something comes along that is incongrous with his belief system, he simply does what scientists do and ignores the anomalies. I can tell he desparately wants you to be black, or “negro”, as he prefers.

  • 26 KuhnKat // Jan 5, 2007 at 3:57 pm   

    Pat,

    please explain to us what the benefits of preserving this particular site from the “depredations” of the developers will be??

    How will it contribute to the Health or Welfare or Education of the Native peoples of Canada or even the foreign “squatters” that will help them be successful in the CURRENT world??

    Also, tell us how your friend tried to work with the developers so that there was a win-win situation as opposed to the developers had to eat any investments they had in the area and go elsewhere along with the possible economic benefits to the area from their development??

  • 27 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 4:31 pm   

    And please tell us whether your black or not, like, internet revelations are valid…

    Ha, ha! (Just kidding. Sort of.)

  • 28 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 4:36 pm   

    Ray, somehow, I don’t think it’s that simple. Ironic as that sounds.

    I do have doubts about the whole dichotomy, or dialogue, however. Conservatives belittle, Liberals denigrate. Conservatives laugh. Liberals scream. There are emotional, psychological conditions shared by both, behavioral difficulties shared by both.

    I do easily recognize there are two camps, with pronounced charactertistics, and I don’t think this is just an illusion.

    My explanation is this: the Left is necessary. A safety value, to let off steam built up under the intense creativity of the Right. The Right are the creators, the producers. If left to themselves, they smash all in their path. The Left is the ‘checks and balances’ mechanism. They have to undo things when the pressure gets too tight.

    Almost like a father (conservative) and mother (liberal) combination. The father demands, and expects. The mother indulges, comforts.

    My, what an esoteric blog this has been…

  • 29 Pat // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm   

    And here I return for my requisite paddling. Sei cattivo, lo sai? You want me to be black David? So you can keep saying that Yo Blood thing that grates on my nerves like all get out.

    The Iroquoin site near me is a sister site to a much earlier discovery just a few roads away from it. It was discovered on private property and surveyed for possible conservation value. Actually both sites were on private property until sold to the government for conservation/preservation initiatives.

    My friend was a champion of conservation values. Numerous times I accompanied her to investigate sites up for designation by the very nations they rested on. Other times it was an issue of demolishing a historic building to put up a bowling alley or some other nonsense thing. She was tireless in her vision of preservation.

  • 30 David Yeagley // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:21 pm   

    Oh, so you’re just the run of the mill activist type? Guess that means you’re white? (Well, I think we all get a kick out of you. Hope you stay.)

    You’re obviously serious about what you’re doing. That’s always attractive and inspiring.

    You should join the BadEagle Forums. Introduce yourself. We have a Profile Forum.

    We’ve had some naturalists, but I don’t think they would be called activists. Maybe I’m wrong.

    Pat, in all sincerety, the great, I mean great, thing about you is that you are not fanatical. You reason. If you disagree, you are not maniacal about it. Just strong. I think you’re very strong willed, but not fanatical. We have had fanatics, devoted to contradiction.

    It is a special pleasure to have you with us.

  • 31 comanchemoon // Jan 5, 2007 at 5:30 pm   

    Maybe her friend works for Nagpra! That would be a plus, I think.

    I’m glad you put the leftist and right in the mom and pop definition. But esoteric makes it sound like they are chasing their tails. In the end they are just human.

    What if she is Black, she is interested in the Indians and interested enough to be involved in learning about us Native American, which is what this site is about isn’t it.

    I like Pat, oops…..I shouldn’t have said that though.

    CM

  • 32 comanchemoon // Jan 5, 2007 at 6:25 pm   

    Mr. Yeagly,

    There you go again with name calling, no one hardly ever opposes you except me, I must be the only “FANATIC” at least I’m and Indian one.

    CM

  • 33 gf // Jan 5, 2007 at 6:59 pm   

    This site is chock full of fanatical, far from center writing, including it’s host.

  • 34 gf // Jan 5, 2007 at 7:05 pm   

    I would say the right, if we are talking in terms of simiplisitc sterotypes like one usually does on this, would be akin to narrow mindedness, ethnocentricity and limited thinking. The left would be intelligent, based in plurality of ideas, perhaps more familiar and in tune with a higher form of intelligence and being able to assess that to incorporate into smart policies for the betterment of the people, not just the wealthy.

    And no I didn’t say a communist regime where we give all of our freedoms away and pin up pictures of leaders. One can be centrist without resorting to the selling out to corporate america nor the selling out of our rights.

  • 35 "Greetings, my son." // Jan 5, 2007 at 9:14 pm   

    Pat the Canuc (that’s short for Canadian, don’t read into it) wrote,

    “My friend was a champion of conservation values. Numerous times I accompanied her to investigate sites up for designation by the very nations they rested on. Other times it was an issue of demolishing a historic building to put up a bowling alley or some “OTHER NONSENSE THING.” She was tireless in her vision of preservation.”

    “Here I come to save the day, I must pick up, Ray, and Athlete’s Foot, (I mean Grayfoot) along the way!–Fear not you blind rabble,I the anointed one Pat, and her cohorts will decide for you what is nonsense and what is not, with respect to your free will and own property.”

    Don’t forget gang, to pick up Comanche-moon whitey, along the way.

    Pat also wrote that the, “Yo Blood thing that grates on my nerves like all get out.”

    Can you imagine an ideology that is more outraged by two words “Yo Blood,” then the confiscation of another’s private property and the deciding of what is nonsense and what is not.–quintessential Marxism such as Pat’s grates on my nerves.

  • 36 "Greetings, my son." // Jan 5, 2007 at 9:14 pm   

    Pat the Canuc (that’s short for Canadian, don’t read into it) wrote,

    “My friend was a champion of conservation values. Numerous times I accompanied her to investigate sites up for designation by the very nations they rested on. Other times it was an issue of demolishing a historic building to put up a bowling alley or some “OTHER NONSENSE THING.” She was tireless in her vision of preservation.”

    “Here I come to save the day, I must pick up, Ray, and Athlete’s Foot, (I mean Grayfoot) along the way!–Fear not you blind rabble,I the anointed one Pat, and her cohorts will decide for you what is nonsense and what is not, with respect to your free will and own property.”

    Don’t forget gang, to pick up Comanche-moon whitey, along the way.

    Pat also wrote that the, “Yo Blood thing that grates on my nerves like all get out.”

    Can you imagine an ideology that is more outraged by two words “Yo Blood,” then the confiscation of another’s private property and the deciding of what is nonsense and what is not.–quintessential Marxism such as Pat’s grates on my nerves.

  • 37 Patricia // Jan 6, 2007 at 7:51 am   

    No, I won’t let you get away with that Greetings, because my friend was not the one to know everything about everything. Sites that were offered for “designation” were not a deciding factor for her…she was responsible for the research and presentation as to why any particular site, Indian or not, could be considered historically important. The decision makers were on another tier altogether. Do not hurt people who have good intentions in their hearts. It’s ignorant and disgraceful.

  • 38 "Greetings, my son!" // Jan 7, 2007 at 3:33 am   

    My Dear Patricia,

    “A good bit of all the evil doings in the history of mankind, has been done by people with good intentions!”–???-don’t remember–embellished by “Greetings, my son!”

  • 39 "Greetings, my son!" // Jan 7, 2007 at 3:33 am   

    My Dear Patricia,

    “A good bit of all the evil doings in the history of mankind, has been done by people with good intentions!”–???-don’t remember–embellished by “Greetings, my son!”

  • 40 gf // Jan 7, 2007 at 6:24 pm   

    you’re an idiot, with a really dumb name.

You must log in to post a comment.