I read your 7/6/04 article regarding Yeagley as an "Indian apple." And quite frankly I think this term is inaccurately applied to Yeagley. Since we all know that Yeagley is a fake, there is no way he can be an "Indian apple." An "Indian apple" is an *actual* Indian who acts, talks, behaves like a whitey. Just as you described in your article in your own words. I also believe the other terms such as "Tonto" and "Teepee Tom" are also misused in describing someone like Yeagley. Yeagley is a disgraced white man, who so badly wants to be an "Indian." And I'm not so sure what the proper terms are in defining these sorts of folks who are not Native but act like they are or make false claims that they are.
Just my opinion.
--S. G. "Geno"
It's not my place to question the enrollment decisions of federally recognized tribes. If the Comanches don't feel he qualifies as a tribal member, it's up to them to throw him out. Until they do, I think we have to consider him a Comanche.
But this e-mail raises an interesting question: Can an actual Indian be an Indian wannabe? I wouldn't have thought so, but Yeagley seems to qualify for both labels. He may be the only person who does.
For more on the subject, see Deciding Who's an Indian.
P.S. I edited Geno's message slightly to make it more readable.