David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Whenever conservatives can bring themselves to even mention American Indians, it is always to illustrate a bad example of something. Indians represent the horrors of the “welfare state,” the conservatives say. Lately, the horrors of Indian Health Care are being cited as an example of federal, government administered health care. Indian ills are being used as an example of what will happen if the Democrat health plan is passed.
Laura Ingraham has mentioned this more than anyone else, but still infrequently. (She often uses the phrase “off the reservation” however, whenever she’s describing a politician who is breaking ranks with his party line.) Today (September 3, 2009), on her radio broadcast, she made a major point about the dramatic failures of Indian Health Care, and blamed the government’s incapacity to administer such a program. The state of Indian Health Care on the reservations was cited as a solemn warning of what will happen if ObamaCare is passed.
Laura Ingraham, with nothing good to say about American Indians.
Fine. But, is this the only national publicity Indians are going to get in this country? A bad example of the federal government in action? Is this what conservatives see in the American Indian? Surely unintentionally, such conservative use of the Indian inevitably echoes the protests of the Left! It is the liberals who love to cite the Indian as the most intense victim of American mistreatment. It’s the “hate America” campaign again. But, if the conservatives are only going to mention poor, miserable Indians in the context of bad government, conservatives are simply playing into the liberal view on Indians.
This is unfortunate, and needs to be corrected. The issue is not whether this use of Indian Health Care (IHC) is appropriate and true, but whether conservatives have any positive regard for Indian nations at all. I think rather that most conservative leaders do not have any developed thought about Indians, and have little understanding of Indian issues. They simply see Indians as “balkanized” pockets of social refuse, plagued by special privileges, which could all be cleared up if there simply were no reservations. This is the published view of David Horowitz, for example. Indians must be Americans, and not be legally separated in any way. Indians must “immigrate” into American society, integrate with other races, and have inter-racial sexual relations, and essentially, dissolve their existence as Indians.
BadEagle.com, of course, has quite a different view of Indians, and the Indian role in American culture. Indians are an example of the kinds of sacrifices people are called upon to make in order to preserve nationhood, ethnicity, religion, and language. Indians are in fact examplary. Indians provide, right here in America, the best example of nationhood. Indians demonstrate what it means to love one’s nation, one’s people, and oneself. Indians are the best example of what America needs to do to preserve itself, and what every other nation needs to do.
Of course our Indian nations are full of problems, for all kinds of reasons. Indians provide the worst statistics in social ills of any studied group. Indian leadership has certainly failed to provide remedy. BadEagle.com has always acknowledged this. But the social ills in Indian country are caused by Indian failure, not government policy. Indian psychology needs re-organizing. BadEagle.com has tried to at least begin providing new understandings of what it means to be Indian in the modern world–what the Indian should mean to the modern world. There must be new thinking available to Indians.
BadEagle.com’s approach is that of a path maker. Some may call it a visionary, or a medicine man. Be that as it may, it is simply to provide new ways of thinking about the present situation. Positive ways of thinking. Resentment of America, while it may contribute to the desired separateness, is pernicious and unhelpful. The averse sentiment is deeply unhealthy, physically and mentally. Rather, Indians may see themselves as the host of the American people. This was our original role in the lives of the rather lost Anglo-Saxon immigrants. Indians provided for them. As history developed, Indians were forced into a different position, but, America was still shaped by Indian encounters at every stage of the country’s development. America bears the Indian’s image, fundamentally. The Collective Unconscious of the American psyche is half Indian.
In other words, Indians can and should see America as our step son. We raised him. He is very great. We should be very proud. This is the positive, healthy way to think about America, for Indians.
Apparently, without this view, the initiative of Indian people for self-improvement is insufficient. The impetus for self-reliance and independence–those core conservative values–is not found in any effective measure in Indian country. BadEagle.com has emphasized the true meaning of warriorhood, and the inclusion of conservative values within that concept, but even this has not caught on as it should. The renovation of Indian thinking must be thorough, and complete. It must start at the foundation of the encounter with the dominant society, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant society. The Indian’s role at the foundation was one of host, provider, and protector. This is where new Indian thinking must begin. (The warrior image developed at a later stage.)
Instead of referring to Indians as the worst example of everything that’s wrong with federal government, I say it is time to see the Indian as the best example of what it means to love one’s own. Yes, Indians appear naive, and even foolish. Our problems are abyssmal. Yet, the basic intuition that keep Indians Indian is precisely the stuff that keeps a nation a nation. Let conservatives begin to see that in Indians, if they are disposed to see Indians at all.
Conservatives disdain to mention Indians because Indians are like a thorn in the flesh, or because Indians are an embarrassment, or because Indians are a rebuke to America’s pride? Okay. Forget all that. Look at the Indian as the torch-carrier of nationhood, in the raw, in the midst of a nation utterly ill-defined and under siege therefore. If conservatives say anything about Indians, let it be something useful, helpful, and true. If conservatives wish to distinguish themselves from liberals, let them see Indians in a new way, in a positive way. Let conservatives encourage honor in nationhood. Let them, for once, acknowledge what Indians have, and are, in the way of natural patriotism.
11 responses so far ↓
1 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Far Leftist, George Soros-funded MediaMatters.org, true to all feigned race protectivism, ‘accused’ Rush Limbaugh for referring to Indians as “injuns,” as if that is a serious point, as if liberal MediaMatters has championed any Indian cause for any reason.
But the point here is, it’s just another reference to Indians as a bad example of something, in this case, the fraudulent US government and politicians on the take in the Indian “casino” business.
2 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Michelle Malkin complained of the false, superficial, liberal PC issue over the Indian name.
The new, politically correct term for Indians/Native Americans. It’s “first Americans.”
Foolish issue, agreed. But, it’s typical of the kind of instance in which a conservative will be moved to mention American Indians–as an example of something bad.
3 Walksthrough // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:33 pm
First, conservatives do not allow that America is the adopted son of American Indians. Americans call July 4 Independence Day, not Adoption Day. Taking it a bit further, no formal adoption was ever recorded, or even stated. But Independence Day was, and it was recorded as being from England, and it was fought and won against England. Also, Indians fought on either side, depending on which tribe threw in with which side. No adoption is evident.
For better or worse concerning the litany of negative comparison of Indians in the press, this particular comparison is unhappily quite necessary to make. Whether you term it “wards of the state” or “state run healthcare” or “Obamacare,” veterans, Indians, and foreign countries provide a wondrous wealth of in-practice reasons why conservatives do well to bring this picture in focus. If applied effectively, liberalism will not want the spotlight on Indian healthcare for too long, as it will demand private sector alternatives tailored for Indian needs, which is anathema to the liberals’ idea of one program for all.
A positive that could be brought out in the press concerning American Indians is the obvious patriotism (to both land and country) Indian veterans fought and died for both historically and now in U.S. wars.
I hear veterans mentioned at the end of various politicians and journalists’ remarks almost in a superstitious manner, as if just the mention of them will atone for any perceived error in their agenda or in their reporting. It doesn’t work.
The individual, the veteran, the groups, the American Indian, all have something to tell about why rushing into statism ought to be firmly guarded against. It is up to the individual, the veteran, the groups, and the American Indian, to tell that story themselves. The media is not our adopted parent (who loves us unconditionally to boot).
4 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Even Ann Coulter has been accused of citing Indians in the wrong way. “The Racism of Ann Coulter.”
Of course, it was just that word “injun” again, like, that’s some horrendous hate speech!
Everyone knows, Ann was the first major conservative figure to take the Bad Eagle Interview. The Great White Woman Speaks.
So, it can’t be said that Ann speaks the name “Indian” only on occasion to use us as a bad example of something. (She just doesn’t mention us that often.)
5 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Walksthrough, I have to be concerned about the way Indians view America first. If our wayward, seemingly ungrateful step son won’t allow it, that’s his problem. Indians need to think positively about our situation. That’s all.
And the Declaration of Independence does indeed allow for exoneration for Indians who may have fought against Americans here and there. They were “brought on” by the manipulations of King George, I believe it says (4th paragraph from the end).
America is in some formal denial then. Because the fact that America has always put the Indian image on its money tells me America knows where it came from, at heart.
6 Walksthrough // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Conservatives regard their freedom as had from the God of the Bible, and their form of government likewise as biblically based. It’s in the record.
A female Indian scout as portrayed on a U.S. dollar coin is not regarded by historians as a U.S. adopted forefather. When America put the depiction of the Indian, and the bison, on its money, it was with the thought that the Indian, along with the plains Indian’s bison, was as good as exterminated, a soon thing of the past. The perpetrators of this thought miscalculated on their assumption that the Indian culture would be entirely absorbed into the American culture. It was not. But there was influence between the cultures.
7 David Yeagley // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Well, I don’t know your sources of information. Indian head-dressed chiefs were on pennies in the 19th century. I don’t think the “memorabalia” was the motivation. That’s too cheap. Do you think the white man is that cheap? Is that what you think of the enemy that forced Indians off our land? That small minded?
You offer no positive path here. Your picture is insoluable and depressing. Why cater to it? It is not historical, and quite less true than my view, and mine is positive.
An Indian head penny minted in 1859 does not represent memory of a lost race. The not even a passed way of life. Not then. There were Indian head dollars in the early 1850′s. And Indian princess in 1853. Perhaps an Indian head dollar in 1851. More and more came after.
And suppose it was to commemorate something they thought would be passing in the future. That’s still means there was great value–MONEY-literally,–attached to that memory. I don’t call that trinketizing, or belittlling, or disrespect.
8 Walksthrough // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Neither do I. There was recognition being paid. I don’t claim to have the links to what I said before on miscalculation of extermination. I just know I have either read or perhaps watched a presentation of sorts. It is worth noting that while U.S. founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln) have been personally depicted on coins or paper money, I am not aware of any individual Indian leaders, whether fighting with or against the U.S. having been personally depicted on U.S. money.
When Indians were eventually offered (or it was put upon them) actual U.S. citizenship, their fortunes were then not only already, but legally thrown in with that of the U.S.’. It is a fellow-citizen relationship rather than family relationship.
I won’t argue how anyone should feel about that relationship, except to note that liberals seem to want to drive a permanent, festering wedge between groups upon groups. Just group people and compare them, and the liberals are so happy. I find that depressing.
9 John Sandusky // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“BadEagle.com’s approach is that of a path maker. Some may call it a visionary, or a medicine man.”
Proverbs 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish.
This is nothing new under the sun, and certainly Indians are not the only people on the verge of perishing from “blindness.”
10 David Yeagley // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:16 am
Congress declared Indians to be US citizens in 1924. Indians were not consulted. I’m not entirely sure that this move wasn’t to further rob Indians of what little we had left.
I don’t know of any paper money that had Indian images on it. The Indian head nickle came out in 1913. It apparently involved a composit image of three Indians: Iron Tail, an Oglala Sioux chief, Two Moons, a Cheyenne chief, and Big Tree, a Kiowa chief. No doubt, that was all about commemoration.
11 keyboard jockey // Sep 4, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Our Previous Discussion Inspired Me.
Progressives to Democrats Jump.
TGIF “Circus Life” Democrats Buffalo Jump
You must log in to post a comment.