David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Today, there are two major gatherings in Washington, DC. One, called only a week ago by Congressman Michelle Bachman, and the other officially called a week ago by Barry “Obama.” Bachmann’s call was impromptu, whereas Barry’s was in the offing for months. Bachmann calls on the patriots to come and protest an alien, abusive government. Barry calls on American Indians to come and protest the government, and he will pretend to listen.
Michelle Bachmann, American patriot
Of course, Bachmann’s event is getting intense coverage by the conservative media, and cryptic feminists like Lara Ingraham. So far, there’s been only one word in American media about the historic Indian gathering–a single AP wire. (Perhaps Barry as again embarrassed himself by his own pretenses.) Of course, Indian media will write about Barry’s bash, but, who cares about Indian media, liberal or conservative?
The AP wire runs like this: Obama: US must reverse course with Indians to end poverty, unemployment, marginalization Indians are being used as part of Obama’s anti-American plan, part of the “apology tour,” in which Obama condemns America, historically and principly. This is certainly not a good thing of Indians, but it’s the only kind of news line ever given. It alienates and stigmatizes Indians, and prevents any real change of perspective in Indians, or in white Americans. It in fact denies ‘hope and change.’ But it’s a great indulgence for Obama’s hatred of America. And the perpetual naivete of Indians in the idea of going to Washington to be “heard” is something Obama can count on. It’s a win win for him. He doesn’t care what happens to Indians, or Americans. His is a campaign to build a dictatorship. (Talk about naivete.)
Congressman Bachmann, on the other hand, is calling on the American people to condemn Congress, to condemn the traitorous government. This is a far different event, isn’t it? It is a profound political irony that these two events happen today, November 5, 2009. Are they one in the same? Is the Indian complaint against the American government akin to the patriot’s protest?
Sean Hannity interviews Michelle Bachmann, Nov. 3, 2009.
BadEagle.com has advocated American patriotism from an American Indian point of view. On this day, November 5, the very core of this position is challenged. I for one believe it is confirmed, but, the debate is far from settled.
What is the image, the function, the meaning of being American Indian in today’s American political environment? I say the Indian stands for American history, for the validity, dignity, and reality of American history. The existence of the Indian nations today represent the power and perpetuity of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. These facts are irrefutable.
Whether the current social conditions among Indian nations is indicative of American government policy is another issue altogether. That is certainly subject to interpretation and debate. The moral conditions among many Indian communities is obviously self-destructive. But, morality is always a matter of choice, at least from the conservative point of view, or so conservative’s claim. “Personal responsibility” is the word.
Yet, there are conservatives who protest the very existence of Indian nations, the Indian tribal governments, on the basis that the abuse of Indian sovereignty in the matter of casinos. In other words, the tax-free status of Indian business on Indian lands is unfair, and the conservatives want to “level the playing field,” (like Obama wants for all poor people!). Here is where the conservative and communist ideologies meet, at least linguistically, in their jargon. Conservatives resent any Indian advantage in business. Communists (liberals) are simply happy to insult, denigrate, and cripple American patriots. Communists are more than happy to use Indians for this purpose.
But, in the matter of personal responsibility, conservatives need to be more consistent in the expression of their ideology. If they object to Indian businesses, for whatever reason, they simply need to boycott those businesses. That is their personal responsibility. It is certainly not Indians that makes Indian businesses successful. It’s white people. And now some white conservatives want the government to step in and “level the playing field.” This is an impossible irony, and greatly weakens the conservative position. Conservatives need to take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to Indian casinos. Conservatives need to preach to white people, not Indians. They need to object to the failures of their own people, and stop trying to blame Indians for it. Conservatives in this regard are more “nanny” minded toward Indians than the federal government!
Michelle Bachmann’s protest is against government takeover. Barry’s Indian gathering is to promote more government control over Indians. That’s what Indians don’t see. They think it’s about getting more money, more equitable treaty provisions. But, what the government funds, the government runs. That is obviously Barry’s plan, on all fronts. Barry wants all the fast, big, casino money he can get, and he wants federal control over Indian land. That’s what his “Indian” interest is all about. There are sincere Indian leaders, trying to protect Indian interests, as well as to cooperate as much as possible with the federal government. However, Barry is wholly insincere. Indians will never gain from him anything but that which he can use to denigrate and condemn America. This is the position Indians are in, and our leaders must recognize this.
Tashun-Kakokipa, “retired” Sioux warrior. Some Indians never
wanted anything but land, wind, ponies, game, and teepees. Was this ‘anti-American’?
So today, there are two calls for protest in DC. Bachmann calls for patriots to protest Congressional treason. Barry “Obama” invites Indians to protest America government failure. Unfortunately, by coincidence I hope, Indians are juxtaposed with patriots. Indians are contrasted with patriots. Indians are made to appear as something other than American patriots. But, maybe that’s superficial. Maybe the Indian voice–calling on American to honor its word, is a patriotic voice after all, at the most profound level. Maybe these events do belong together.
However, in the media, in the mouth of “Obama,” the Indian voice is made to speak with forked tongue. Bolshevik Barry wants anti-Americanism. Indians need to quickly divorce themselves from any association with such a disease. We should never let ourselves be used by Barry “Obama.” The Indian voice, through him, is a curse–to Indians and to America.
25 responses so far ↓
1 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:45 am
Was it irony that determined the title of the piece Dr. Yeagley? The Tea Party created the whole “No taxation without representation” meme, which is the logic behind non-taxable tribal assets…after all the Tribes are sovereigns without direct representation in the United States government.
I also had a question on the formulation you provide: What the government funds, the government runs. Does this apply to the corporate welfare demonstrated under the George Walker Bush regime as well? Or is it a formulation that you selectively apply for the sake of your rhetoric…a form of hyperbole…an ad hominem as it were?
2 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The irony of this day is overwhelming!
But now do all churches need direct representatives in Congress? Churches are tax free organizations. Not nations, but organizations.
Bush was involved in the same government proliferation as have all presidents been since FDR. Reagan is the only who who articulated a protest against this, and tried to cut back. It’s just too much to do. As long as elections are won on the basis of MONEY, we’re going to have a money-hound government in DC.
I think the election process itself is the root of these conditions.
taxation without representation I don’t see as related to the American Indian nations issue at all. One nation doesn’t “tax” another nation. That has to do with the definition of nationhood and sovereignty.
I think I’m using the “Tea Party” title simply because it’s what’s being used in media right now. Aliteration. Tale-Two-Tea. There are two protests going on. Are they alike, are they opposite? That’s what I’m trying to get at.
3 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Here’s another “line” on Barry’s Indian gathering:
Obama: US Must Reverse Course With Indians
”We’re not going to go through the motions and pay tribute to each other, then furl up the flags and go our separate ways,” he said.
But that is exactly what will happen. He says he wants to “improve the relationship between the government and tribal communities.” What does that mean? What kind of relations? We’re talking about treaties here! Not “relations.” That’s a black community term. A community organizer’s term.
This was just a show piece for Barry. Just another rock star event for him. It has no meaning, nor bearing, and no results will come of it–except for him
4 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:29 pm
And here’s an older piece on Obama and the Indians. It’s actually rather tell-tale, in a negative sense.
“The nation’s smallest minority,” Laura Waterman Wittstock calls Indians. This is the perfectly white political perspective. Wittstock is apparently Seneca and Stockbridge Munsee (Mohican). She is called an “activist,” and, as a liberal, takes the position that Indians are victims of abuse.
In my opinion, this is the most crippling position to take. Indians are not a minority. We are nations. “Minority” is for immigrant, white and non-white.
5 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I actually agree with you again here Dr. Yeagley, under the terms of Nation vs. minority. Where I diverge is in the terms of patriotism. I am a tribal nationalist…that is where my loyalty lies.
6 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Is it extraneous or contradictory that an American Indian should or could also be an American patriot? Is that the rub?
7 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm
As a member of a Tribe that fought against the US there is a certain dis-consonance. As a former member of the USMC, it would make sense.
The politics of the individual nation would seem to steer the members of that tribe, though not always. I think that there should also be an investigation of your definition of Patriotism…it seems to be a holistic identity that is overarching in its nature. An identity that also necessarily (in your implied definition) is exclusionary to those outside of Christianity (like myself who maintains my Tribal religion), and outside the construct of the United States as exceptional.
8 Mike from California // Nov 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ezekiel 37:11-14
11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’”
9 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yes, the Jews were the first ghost dancers!
10 Awen // Nov 5, 2009 at 3:46 pm
@ Speelyi,
Sir, I hope you will clarify for me a little better what you mean in your last post. I find your contributions interesting and I don’t want to miss anything important because my grip on English is a little shaky sometimes. (I’m used to writing in other things more)
I think the word ‘holistic,’ for once, comes from my language as the word όλος which means ‘entire, whole, all’ so how can one be ‘holistic’ and exclusionary at the same time? Are these 2 words not what we call ‘mutually exclusive’ in English? In no case, to my knowledge, does the ‘holistic mean ‘overarching’ (?) it just means complete. Has this changed in modern English use and I have missed it somewhere?
Also, this entire sentence, left me feeling rather an idiot for failure to understand: “An identity that also necessarily -is exclusionary to those outside of Christianity – and outside the construct of the United States as exceptional.
Please sir, I can find no subject or object in this to know what you mean. What is a construct as exceptional – to what?
I hope you don’t mind too much if I ask you to make it simpler for me so I can continue to enjoy your interesting posts here better.
11 Mike from California // Nov 5, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Doc, that just sums up my current mood. I feel despair for the country yet also a sense of hope, a hope firmly rooted in God and the fact that our founding fathers created a nation that until now has been resistant to tyranny. Permit me to post this link to the following story. It seems our anointed one Barry, (Piss be upon him, Inshallah) is trying to get Congress to ratify the Copenhagen Treaty, effectively this would make the US pay restitution to the rest of the world with regards to the damage done by global warming. The old “Spread the wealth around” message. Under the terms of the treaty article 38, the US would be subjected to a world government. Wake up Americans!
Of climate control and one-world gov’t
12 John Sandusky // Nov 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“Some Indians never wanted anything but land, wind, ponies, game, and teepees.”
Good grief! So does every other human that ever walked on the planet in one form or the other. And the Indian nations tried to get “all that they wanted” and keep it, just like the rest of mankind . . . by force, or the threat there of.
The big difference between “Indian wants” and the rest of mankind is that Indians lost the “battle of wants” and yet are still being compensated and getting no where even close to being self sufficient.
Could I please see a copy of the contract between Indians and the USA in perpetuity.
13 firestarter // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm
For more information Wildfireprotest.org
NOT INVITED TO OBAMA’S TRIBAL CONFERENCE?
Stop Amendments to 1934 IRA!
Stop the broken Carcieri fixes!
Immediately tell your Congressman and the President “NO” on HR 3742, HR 3697 and S 1703. Don’t give Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to the Secretary of Interior who’s already proven to install “imposter” tribes to build casinos at the expense of historic tribes.
Demand a congressional investigation of the BIA cover-up.
Echo-hawk promised public hearings for both Native American and the US public to solve the Carcieri decision. The leaders at Obama’s Tribal Conference don’t represent us.
These bills don’t protect Native Americans or the Tax Payers of US, they absolve the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian affairs from 200 years of corruption and failure to protect and administer the congress’s treaties made with the Native American’s.
· Were you dis-enrolled?
· Was your tribal identity stolen by an imposter tribe?
· Have you been excluded from the entitlements you’ve been seeing your leaders get?
· Was your Historic tribe rejected for recognition without explanation…even with thousands of pages documenting your ancestry?
14 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Sandusky: Let’s examine what you mean by “lost” the battle. How do you see the treaties then, as acts of sheer compassion of the American government toward Indians? Rather than commit total genocide, the US decided to hold off?
You are interpreting the event of the treaty (not the content).
Perhaps the government ran out of money. Indian wars were frightfully expensive, in American lives as well as dollars. Maybe the government decided it was time to settle.
Indians see the treaties as something our fathers earned with blood. The right to stay on our land, the right to be who we are, etc.
The deal was simple enough: US to Indians: “You stop killing white people! You stay here, on this special area. Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you, forever.”
That’s the gist. Now, even if the devil is in the details, you can’t say now, Hey, we want to forget all that. Forget the honor of our white fathers who fought Indians. Forget the validity of history, the integrity of a government’s word, etc. We just don’t want Indians to be different or separate.
Sorry, John, that’s not possible. Nor is it necessary, or even desirable. The patriotic thing to do is to honor history. The pith of Patriotism is in honoring the founders, right? So why is honoring Indian treaties–the first American ever made with foreign nations–something other than perfectly patriotic?
Your assessment of Indian moral conditions (like self-sufficiency) does not concern you. That’s the Indian’s problem.
I’ll say this: I’m perfectly willing to re-analyze, re-assess, and perhaps even re-negotiate the terms of some of these treaties. They’re all different in the details. Indian tribes are quite different nations. Different language, religion, custom, and territory.
15 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Firestarter: Mean points ya got there! I love it. Casinos have been a terrible blight on Indian identity. Indians have proven our own worst enemy, in many cases. Some times, Indian leaders betray their own people for the sake of their personal benefit.
A Sioux woman here said long ago that Indian leaders have been doing this from the days of the first treaties!
16 John Sandusky // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“Your assessment of Indian moral conditions (like self-sufficiency) does not concern you. That’s the Indian’s problem.”
Being an actual taxpayer, the fact of the matter is that, every “red cent” coming out of Washington and going anywhere on the planet is my concern.
I challenge you to show me an actual Indian Treaty that specifies that Uncle Sammy will take care of any Indian forever.
Also, most of the treaties I read on the web,
specifically state that the Indians must comply with the laws of the USA — It’s Indians breaking the treaties on this note.
There is enough lawlessness within the Indian Nations to justify invasions similar to the one conducted in 1989 to snatch Manuel Noriega in Panama. Plenty of Indian Chiefs are up to their eagle feathers in criminality.
17 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Well, let’s start with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, under Andrew Jackson. Here’s passage from a useful summary:
The primary thrust of Jackson’s removal policy was to encourage Native Americans to sell their homelands in exchange for new lands in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Such a policy, the president maintained, would open new farmland to whites while offering Indians a haven where they would be free to develop at their own pace. “There,” he wrote, “your white brothers will not trouble you, they will have no claims to the land, and you can live upon it, you and all your children, as long as the grass grows or the water runs, in peace and plenty.”
Pushmataha, a Choctaw chieftain, called on his people to reject Jackson’s offer. Far from being a “country of tall trees, many water courses, rich lands and high grass abounding in games of all kinds,” the promised preserve in the West was simply a barren desert. Jackson responded by warning that if the Choctaw refused to move west, he would destroy their nation.
But, I’m not sure this exact statement is in the Removal Act. This statement from Jackson, the president of the United States. In fact, you can find different sources who say he said this first to the Choctaw, or first to the Cherokee, and yet first to the Creek as well.
Here are statements taken from original letters of Jackson. The “grass grows” statement is in the seceond italicized paragraph. See for yourself.
These are communications from the President of the United States to the “presidents” of Indian nations–which were very large in comparison, in those days.
18 John Sandusky // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“The payment of money annuities to the Indians should be abandoned, for the reason that such payments encourage idleness and vice, to the injury of those whom it is intended to benefit. Schools should be established, and teachers employed by the government to introduce the English language in every tribe. It is believed that many of the difficulties with Indians occur from misunderstanding as to the meaning and intention of either party. The teachers employed should be nominated by some religious body having a mission nearest to the location of the school. The establishment of Christian missions should be encouraged, and their schools fostered. The pupils should at least receive the rations and clothing they would get if remaining with their families. The religion of our blessed Saviour is believed to be the most effective agent for the civilization of any people.”
Source: Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners (Washington, 1869), 5-11.
.
19 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The US government departments have issues various sorts of opinions from time to time. The principle question is: does the United States have the “right” to coerce Indians to be non-Indians?
According to its own stated values, and treaties with Indians, it is morally right for America to try to coerce Indians? It isn’t a question of having the power, or the strength to do it.
Remember, Indians are not foreigners here. Indians are not an immigrant group.
20 David Yeagley // Nov 5, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Here is the basic Indian Removal Act of 1830 A couple of points:
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.
SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to have the same superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to which they may remove, as contemplated by this act, that he is now authorized to have over them at their present places of residence.
21 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Awen,
The very idea is that Patriotism as implicitly defined here (note the antecedent clause) is a holistic concept (as you define) but one that is also overarching. That is to say that the very construct of Patriotism is being expanded to the point where those other markers of identity are subsumed due to an identity framework that is being stretched to accommodate the generalizations posited herein.
The second question that you have also is predicated upon the sentence antecedent. The point there is that the definition of Patriotism is exclusionary, and operates from a position of exceptionalism.
~S~
22 Speelyi // Nov 5, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Sandusky,
The bit of citation that you provide is prior to the Dawes Act, the Termination and Relocation policies. All of which were intentionally drafted as a means of not only reneging on the obligations that the United States voluntarily established in the treaties that they signed…check your constitution sir. Article six most specifically, in what is commonly referenced as the Supremacy Clause. Constitution, then Treaties.
What do you hope to get out of breaking the word of your nation? How much do you really think YOU are providing to the Tribes? As a matter of fact I would hazard that the money that the Tribes have pumped into infrastructure as of late have benefited you either directly or indirectly. Now consider that tribal members also pay taxes (in general).
I am not in agreement with the good Dr. on casinos. The average dollar turns over in a local economy 7 times…not so on reservations. Now through gaming revenues the Tribes not only pump money into struggling economies but also provide employment for non-tribal members that provides tax revenue. The compacts also tend to stipulate additional infrastructure payments.
So…Sandusky…what are you providing to the greater whole outside of vitriol and hyperbole?
23 John Sandusky // Nov 6, 2009 at 1:18 am
Speelyi, to be honest with you, half the time I have a difficult time understanding what in the heck you’re talking about.
The following statement I did understand and it is completely off the mark.
“Now through gaming revenues the Tribes not only pump money into struggling economies but also provide employment for non-tribal members that provides tax revenue. The compacts also tend to stipulate additional infrastructure payments.”
The cost to society that the evils of gambling accrue in total, far out weigh any perceived net revenues.
Awen, touched up this succinctly in a previous thread.
Also, a treaty article stating that Indians are to be kept by the American taxpayer forever has still not been produced.
On the contrary.
Doctor Yeagley, has provided a proof source that states, if the POUSA thought that cutting the umbilical cord from Indians to Uncle Sammy was in their best interests with regard to their protection, then he could do so.
The same could be applied to the land that is being held in trust by Uncle Sammy so Indians would be forced to properly assimilate into American society instead of being perpetual wards that manifests “idleness and vice (as does gambling), to the injury of those whom it is intended to benefit.”
24 Awen // Nov 6, 2009 at 1:26 am
@ Speelyi,
Construct of patriotism? ll, it appears you have an interest in words so let us add some more to this mix:
πατριώτης, a ‘patriot,’ a fellow countryman and πατριωτισμός would be devotion to one’s homeland. You cannot ‘construct’ this; it simply is. And you do not say ‘a construct’ when you mean a construction, do you?.Don’t you have to construct something and not nothing? Of course, I know modern psychology classes have words like that, a kind of ‘code’ for the trade..
But who ever heard of constructing a devotion or loyalty? Do you construct love, then? No. You either love or you do not love.
Who or what is doing the ‘expanding’ of this patriotism to include things it should not? Identity markers? Are we talking about plants or people? Forgive me, but surely you can be more clear? You were in the military, yes? And when an officer gave you an order, did he tell you prettily and take a long time so you were not sure what he wanted you to do? Surely not! He just said ‘go and do this or that,’ right?
Which generalizations do you mean? Yours? Mine? The others here? Everybody has at least a couple in residence, I think.
25 keyboard jockey // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:13 pm
From the comments I read here I would say the Obama’s administration’s strategy is working.
http://buffalopost.net/?p=4240#comments
You must log in to post a comment.