David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Considering an organization like American for Indian Opportunity, founded by Democrat LaDonna Harris, one might conclude that American Indians are globalist liberals. There is a definite trend among some Indian “leaders” to seek recognition in the United Nations. These aren’t generally tribal leaders, actually, but NGO groups created by non-Indians for Indians–with specifically liberal agendas.
But there is another aspect to this image, which isn’t really liberal in the political, professional sense. Indians are often quite curious about the world. There is a genuine curiosity, even fascination, with foreigners. (A costly habit, considering our history!) Indians often fought with one another, mostly over honor and justice issues, but sometimes just for the glory of fighting–and the bounties obtainable thereby. Yet we must acknowledge the fact that, when foreigners–non-Indians–showed up, most Indian tribes met them with a macho generosity and human kindness. Indeed, the only tribes who immediately resisted foreigners were those who had heard of the treachery and cruelty of those foreigners from others tribes who had suffered.
Navajo artist, Chester Kahn (72),
member of the Baha’i faith.
Consider the elder Navajo artist, Chester Kahn (72). He is a long time member of the Baha’i faith. He’s into the global religion image, and the concept that Indian faith belongs in the world circle. The Navajo religion and the Sioux religion are perhaps the two most complex religious systems among American Indians, and such systems are easily associated with the globalist, universalist religions out in the world market. Why not make associations? In the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American world, Indian religion finds a wondrous acceptance, praise, and honor. Indeed, the historical record of American government measures to annihilate all Indian culture and religion serves as a perfect motivation for Indians to seek association with non-Biblical traditions and non-American cultures.
But I think this is weakness.
Association with others, for any reason, is not how Indians became Indians, nor it is how we shall remain Indians. As dramatically demonstrated by the Comanches of the old days, greatness is not achieved by leagues, associations, or alliances. Comanches became “lords of the southern plains” not by uniting with others, but by the opposite–by disdain for all other people! Independence is the word. Comanche groups were even independent from each other. Strength, natural grandeur, and power, all evolve from a spirit of absolute independence and self-reliance. Comanches became great through a sociological solipsism. There was no acknowledgement of or value in any other people. Comanches knew only themselves. Comanches valued only themselves and their freedom.
But this precious spirit is virtually lost today. Indians anxiously attempt to associate with other races, religions, and governments of the world. This is a kind of protest to American history, and it is probably a natural evolution. I say it is a weak one, and a wrong one, but I know it is a deep running one. Indians take a kind of naive, innocent approach, and are easy victims of liberal politics. Indians seem naturally inclined to validate everything on the liberal agenda.
My great-great grandfather,
Bad Eagle (Comanche), 1839-1909
BadEagle.com, of course, was raised up to counter this weakness. Independence and self-reliance are the political themes promoted here, and these principles are mirrored in the United States Constitution. American Indian life and values are reflected in the very foundations of the American society. Indian principles are at the foundation of the American government.
Those Indians who seek unity with the world have lost their warrior spirit. Those who seek hippie-styled peace and love are playing right into the hands of the world dictators. Peace is never established by unity, but only by freedom. Freedom comes only from independence. Independence costs a revolution.
I feel that real Indian values are radically conservative. Yet, even today’s Republican Party is far from conservative. BadEagle.com has sought association with the Republican Party, indeed. I myself am on the speakers list of Young America’s Foundation, the sponsor of College Republican student clubs across the nation. I am also on the John Birch Society speakers list.
However, I am still seeking to translate real Indian values into modern political language. I still hope that Indians may find a conservative political influence in America today. The liberal image of Indians is a superficial one, an ineffective one, and one I believe brings great confusion and false values into Indian country. If Indians have a natural resentment of America, it is due to a mistaken understanding of America, and a foolish recourse to the deceptive liberalism of the globalists–which is tyranny in the end.
David A. Yeagley, founder of BadEagle.com
and the Bad Eagle Foundation.
America belongs to Indians. It is our country. Its very government, in fundamental principles, reflects our early influence on the founders. I say America is our step son. We raised him, by default if nothing else. Every stage of his developement was nurtured by his terrific encounters with the fathers of the land–American Indians. Indians should be proud of this, and not run to the world for its faint praise and paltry compensations. This is shameful, and very un-proud.
I’m a proud Indian. I’ll take what’s mine. I take America!
5 responses so far ↓
1 beakerkin // Jul 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I hope my query on the Bhai was not the cause for this post.
The Bhai are Unitarian type that tend to incorporate everyone’s traditions. Ideally what one gets is a mishmash rather than a coherent philosophy.
People see Indians in their own images rather than allow Indians to be themselves. Thus the far left will try to co-opt the history of the Indian
and use it for their own agenda.
2 CDIB // Jul 29, 2009 at 12:24 am
A fabulous example of cultural sleight of hand from a pretender to the throne of Indian leadership. You’re legend in your mind, davey.
It’s a piece written in an authoritative style that could only fool the foolish (read: white man) and couldn’t pass the test with an Indian audience.
For example:
“The Navajo religion and the Sioux religion are perhaps the two most complex religious systems among American Indians, and such systems are easily associated with the globalist, universalist religions out in the world market.”
To state that the “Navajo” (the white man’s word for the Diné) and “Sioux” (the white man’s blanket term for the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota tribal groups) possess the “two most complex religious systems” points to your limited knowledge of Native people and your simplistic western point of view.
First, there are no “religions” in Indian life. There are spiritual aspects to Native life but it is impossible to tell precisely where such spirituality begins or ends with respect to everyday customs and practices. The white man has divided his life into neat little boxes (religion, art, science, beastiality) and that must work fine for him. But to try to explain the actions of Indians in the white man’s terms is to force Indians into those white boxes. Reasoning Indian practices through white eyes is to never fully understand what it is to be Indian.
Next, to say “two most complex religious systems” belong to any tribal group is to show one’s ignorance of Native societies and / or to cater to some stereotypical John Wayne view of Indians. These particular tribes have suffered from the white man’s curiosity and documentation more than other tribal groups and what do they have to show for this interest? Raging poverty and appropriated religious practices.
And as a final insult you liken centuries-old “Navajo” and “Sioux”"religious” practices to “globalist, universalist religions out in the world market” such as Scientology, Baha’i or even Christianity (a mere 2,000 years old.). Indians have been here at least 10,000 years and we’ll be here to close the doors to your church after you have moved on.
I understand why you hope to show Indians as “conservative”. It’s part of your role as the white man’s Indian minstrel. But you’re doing the exact same thing you accuse “liberals” of doing, you’re just pigeonholing Indians to fit into your right wing conservative box.
3 bear // Jul 29, 2009 at 8:02 am
“Beastiality” wow – where did that come from? CDIB you do raise some legitimate points however, to Indians how they worshipped was more directly related to how they lived their life rather than a religion. It incorporated every aspect, what they ate, hunted, medicines used, customs, rituals, even how they conducted their warfare. To restrict their spiritual beliefs to merely a religion or a white mans equivelent undermines truly what they believed and lived on a day to day basis. The white mans example of Christianity was a poor substitute as what they professed was rarely what they practiced, and I believe that the Indians became more true followers of Christ than those foreigners who brought it with them. I am a Christian and am glad that gospel was preached to my people, though I don’t really care for the method of instruction, or the messengers who brought the word.
4 David Yeagley // Jul 29, 2009 at 8:39 am
CDIB, let’s your identity straight first:
1) you are obviously a coward, fearful of identifying yourself. These infers the presumption that you simply are not Indian. Other Indians who post on the BadEagleJournal have long identified themselves on the forums, such a Bear. So, you forfeit all respect, and by rights, I delete pretenders. Beware. I consider you a pretender.
2) Your childish reference to “dine” instead of Navajo is to completely grade-schoolish and naive that it demonstrates you are not Indian, but a pretender. Everyone knows Indian tribes all have their own names for themselves, which, most of the time, is the word for “people,” and designates nothing significant or distinctive. Your ignorance is apparent, as it is in most pretenders.
3) I address a universal audience here on BadEagle.com. Your nomenclature nuances are not useful, helpful, or important. It’s just your pretense, nothing more. To distinguish between “religion” and “spiritual” is again, grade-school level thought. And you make no important point at all, because your words are irrelevant. You just trying to assert your pretentious self, without saying anything.
You have communicated an illulsion of though, which is useless. You have served no purpose, for Indians or white.
You’re just a liberal, that’s all. Why not admit it. Otherwise, we’ll have to write you off as simply a superficially informed person with a disposition against the white world, like any other racist,
My position is simple. Indians need to have a political role in America today. I think liberalism is the wrong role, and has not and will not result in good things for Indians. You, on the other hand, have nothing to say. You have no contribution to make. You are worthless in reality. By your own choice.
To refuse involvement on the basis of some kindergarten distinction of Indian people (which is wrong and false in itself) is the worst kind of example, and perpetuates denigration of Indian people. This is what liberalism does for Indian people. I don’t believe you are Indian, but I know you are liberal, or liberal-ized.
I simply discount this as fraud, denigration, and disgrace.
5 Najin // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Well, this is kind of interesting. What were the old timers of back then like if we put modern labels onto them? Well, I think it depends on which tribe or which culture. Some tribes were very socially conservative that’s for sure. Some were less so. But fiscally conservative? Can we even ask that question, does it make any sense? They couldn’t have believed in “big government” because their ways of living weren’t compacted into huge cities and required less organization in those terms. The “civilized” tribes that weren’t so nomadic still didnt have the populations that we think of today for a large city. (to my knowledge) Sure they had societies and law-givers etc but it was less formal than we experience today. I think alot of them were “socialist” in terms of their “economies” but maybe others were more individualistic, I dont know. But life was very different, too different I’d say, so what’s the point of comparisons, really? I’d say independance and self reliance are only part of the story, there was also alot of sharing and inner-dependance amongst most bands, to my knowledge. Because remember we are talking about families here. Bands of people who knew others better than most of us today know our own neighbors. I dont know so much about the Commanche, but amongst the other plains tribes “give-aways” were common as they are today, and material wealth wasn’t all that important either. So it wasn’t total self reliance. But, I’m not really sure all those old ways of doing things are what Indian people should be using as an example for where they ought to be headed. There is a trend today to want to recapture everything they possibly can that the white man stole, the language the traditions, everything and I think for some, that includes a “socialist” way of looking at the world, But that is just not practical. Remember they got run over by those old ways of life. It wasn’t globally competitive. Why go back to them, completely? It’s a totally different world today than it used to be. I think, take the best from each and apply it moving forward. It’s a global world now whether we like it or not, and it can only get worse. Or better depending on your POV. So, at the end, I like the question, what were Indians? It’s interesting, But it’s not a definate answer for what they are or should be today, or tomorrow, imho.
You must log in to post a comment.