David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
The Iroquois Nation, or, the Iroquois Confederacy, exists within the borders of the United States of America. Every American Indian tribe considers itself an independent nation, at least theoretically. That we happen to be within the physical boudaries of the United States does not affect that psychological disposition of being separate peoples.
Members of the Iroquois Nations lacrosse team, advertising their status in New York City. Are they wearing those special Niki sneakers made especially for Indians?
The Iroquois passport, and Britain’s refusal to recognize it, magnifies the issue of the American Indian status in the world, as well as in the United States. As of this date, July 16, 2010, the Iroquois Nationals, the lacrosse team of the Iroquois Nation, has not been allowed in England to participate in the world championship games being held in Manchester. The Iroquois Nationals have already been forced to default their first game. They hope to be in England for their second. It doesn’t seem likely. Again, this is all because England will not recognize the “Haudenosaunee” (Iroquois) passport.
House Representative Daniel Maffei, Demcrat, asking the House Speaker to urge Britain to recognize the Irquois passports, and to let the Indians play lacrosse in the world championships.
So, are the Iroquois required to show their passports every time they leave their “reservation”? Must they show their passport when they go to the supermarket in the next town? Are non-Iroquois people required to show their passports when they enter Iroquois territory?
The issue of reservation boundaries and laws is an issue I have dealt with in the process of discussing American Indian casinos and associated businesses, and the whole issue of sovereignty.
My suggestion (to Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California) in 2004 was a national bank for all Indian casino money. Indians need our own currency. This suggestion was based on the idea of Indian tribes being the separate “nations” we claim we are. Though we don’t have a military, and we can’t feed ourselves presently, there are ways we can operate that are more in keeping with the concept nationhood. Having our own currency is one of those ways.
Many conservatives had frowned on the idea of Indian tribes as actual, separate nations. “You can’t have a nation within a nation,” is the most common way of stating that position. “It’s balkanization,” is another way.
I say both these statements are misstatements, and misleading.
It may be a historical anomaly, Indian tribes being separate nations within a nation, but the fact is, the “United States” nation was build around (or on top of) the Indian tribes. It is the United States that is a nation in the midst of other nations. The United States is, of course, bordered by Canada in the north, Mexico on the South; the United States just happens to have a lot of Indian nation borders within its own borders. I see nothing inimical or hazardous in this, not ideologically, anyway. It’s just the way it is.
This relationship is based on treaty, on a historical handshake, on a word of honor. Do the treaties need re-thinking, or re-negotiating? Most definitely. But will they ever be annulled or abrogated? Not as long as the United States Constitution has any validity. (This is why, as an Indian, I cannot abide the alien, lying black African Communist traitor in the White House. All validity is threatened by his hostile regard for the Constitution.)
But, nationhood, in the way of currency and passports, is something that can and should be achieved by all Indian nations. It may seem intolerably inconvenient to many, both Indian and white, but, it is something to think about and work towards.
This separateness, however, is not to be conferred or attributed to any other ethnic group within the borders of the United States. Indian nations are not based so much on ethnicity and religion as they are war. I do speak as a warring plains tribe descendent, but, obviously, the Iroquois feel the same cause.
Nationhood is the right of Indians, here, surrounded by a larger, grander nation–indeed the conquering nation. It may seem a “privilege” from the point of view of the stronger nation, at this point in time, but it is in fact a historical right, by treaty between nations. Such legal separation however is not the right nor the privilege of any other people within the borders of the United States. Indian nationhood must never be thought of as just another ethnic complaint card in the game of racial politics. This is uttterly denigrating to Indians. Our history is incomparable with other ethnic groups in white America. This is our land. We are on our own land. We did not immigrate to America. America immigrated around us.
As an American Indian, I do not support any social, economic or territorical claims of any immigrant group evolving in American borders, regardless of its origins. Immigrant groups, or those historically imported (such as the Negro) will find no support from me in their completely unfounded demands on the United States government. American Indians fought that government, and made treaties. We are worthy of our legal relationship. All these other groups have no such worth or privilege. It is all gratus, from the generous American government.
About the recent “pop-up” casino tribes, I would say that most of this is fraudulent and brings shame upon American Indians. “Federal recognition” has become a by-word in American conversation. Everyone knows that these “pop-up” tribes are the creation of corrupt politicians, the syndicate, and land developers. It has all become a blight on the reputation of honor which the American Indian has long held, and for which so much of American culture has been named for. The American Indian name and image has appeared on American currency! What conquering nation has ever honor the people it conquered in such a way? And think of all the sports teams that covet the savage strength of the Indian warrior.
Of course, psychologically inverted white liberals want to denigrate the Indian to nothing, removing all visual presence of the Indian, but using the Indian only when there is an opportunity to insult the United States government, only when they can validate some anti-American position by using the Indian.
I say, rather, for the Indian, and for America, “a nation within a nation” is a unique, proud, and beautiful thing. There is nothing like it in the world. It is a great honor to both the Indian father and the grand step son of America.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:24 am
i don’t know if you are familiar with Brenda Norrell’s website, “Censored News”. I read her articles sometimes, although I don’t always agree with her viewpoints. However, she posted a very good article this morning entitled, “Iroquois Lacrosse Team Winning Without Playing The Game”. Ms. Norrell quotes different sources in her article like John Kane, a Mohawk Indian, with his own website, who said “the Haudenosaunee passport issue exposes more than assimilation, it exposes genocide.” Norrell’s article further claims that this whole incident exposes “the very real struggle of Indigenous Sovereignty.”
I have to agree with her. What else could this be all about? As you wrote in your last blog, the Brits have no problem allowing murderous Muslims in their mist. Their treatment of the Iroquois Lacrosse team is a disgrace!
2 World Wide News Flash // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:13 am
The Iroquois Nation Within the American Nation…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
3 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:33 am
I just want to overcome the notion that Indian sovereignty is threat to the US, or that it is inimical.
So far, all the issues I’ve heard brought against Indian sovereignty have to do with money, or the abuse of that sovereignty. That abuse nearly always has to do with money–and I’m talking about “taxes.” Lots of conservatives feel the tax exemption that comes with “federal recognition” makes an unequal playing field for white businesses. Indian shops don’t pay state or federal taxes, so it is understood.
I just say, Ever hear of the word boycott?
4 Bear // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:45 am
Doc,
Sounds to me like the Brits are afraid of some old fashioned Indian whoop butt!
If going to the UK means forfitting their own identity, they win by refusing to forefit??
Anyhow I wonder if the Lacross players are gonna apologize for the use of the Iroquios mascott name? What I would like to see is a game of Lacross between the Mohawk, and the mighty Mohican.. they won’t need to travel overseas all the way to the UK to get their butts handed to them. Too bad we don’t have a Indigenous world cup Lacross championship.
5 Bear // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:50 am
What exactly would be the impact or benefit of having a native American form of currency, and how would it interact with the U.S. currency, or those spending it off reservation? Not really understanding the significance in the difference other than it would be pretty cool, (I can see it now Bear’s profile on the 100 dollar bill…….Doc we’ll let you put your’ pic on the penny! LOL!
6 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 9:51 am
“I just want to overcome the notion that Indian sovereignty is a threat to the US, or that it is inimical.”
In response to your statement, look no farther than the moron in the White House. I am glad that members of the Ohio Tea Party had the guts to put up that billboard! I am thinking of making it my screen saver!
You said yesterday that Barry Soetoro hates Indians. He not only hates them, he wants to control them. Just like he wants to control the rest of us.
I would not be surprised in the least to find out that his whole episode with denying the Iroquois Lacrosse Team members entry to England was orchestrated from the Oval Office.
Socialism not only destroys the individual liberty, it wants to rob sovereign nations like the Iroquois from their freedom to be a sovereign nation.
Obama donated part of his Nobel Peace Prize money to the Indians for one reason and that is to win them over to his socialist agenda.
He is a liar and a master manipulator and needs to go. Very Soon.
7 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:54 am
Bear, there’s the thought of Indian nations as “states” within the United States. I’ve never really explored that, though it might be a step toward more sovereignty. However, Indians would probably lose what freedom we have under such an arrangement…
Then there’s the old days of banking in the 1820′s, during the Andrew Jackson era. The “bank wars” all had to do with each state having it’s own currency. That led to a kind of value chaos, but finally to the national currency. The national currency set the stage for the international takeover, as in “Federal Reserve.”
One advantage may lead to another disadvantage. Hard to navigate.
My argument for Indian currency (as stated in one of those links I posted about casinos) is the fact that “federal recognition” was established or achieved by the warring tribes, the tribes that fought the government and required treaties to settle. Yes, the government used the process with other tribes, later, particularly those west of the Rockies (especially California), who did not go through the wars.
Ironically, California “pop-up” casino “tribes” are a major economic issue in that state. I say, Communist as it may sound, all Indian tribes must share in the casino profits of all other tribes. Less than half the tribes even have casinos, etc. (One California “Indian” casino started with one Negro woman and her child. People wonder why I’m offended by Negoes!)
Of course, this is all just theory. Casinos are laudries for international money bootleggers. This has all been studied.
So, who would manage the Indian currency and the casino “revenue”?
The whole idea begins to break down.
8 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:58 am
PK, the story is that Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) got the “okay” for the Iroquois to travel from the US to England. But England is under no legal obligation to honor the Irquois passports.
It’s a change for England to act like it’s sovereign. You know, when all else fails, bump the Indian. Or just “use” the Indian somehow, to your own advantage, however it is you have to do that.
Again, never mind those murderous Muslims virtually running England. England can still pretend to be tough, and keep American Indians out of the country!
Actually, the Iroquoios lacrosse team should be greatly honored. What is it, 24, 25 of them? More of a threat than 2 million murderous Muslims!
9 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 11:24 am
You said it! I still say England is worried about getting their butts kicked!
10 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 11:36 am
I think criminals being extradited from one country to another recieve better treatment than those Iroqouis players did from England.
The story of how the English destroyed the Maori culture of New Zealand is something I guarantee is a lesson English schoolchildren have never learned.
My great uncle, who emigrated to Australia from Italy in 1928, related the story to me when i visited him there in 1987.
According to him, the English swindled the Maoris out of their land and then literally marched them into the sea. The Maoris had the choice of either being shot for resisting or trying to run away or to drown. This included men, women, children, babies, and the elders. Sound familiar?
England seems to be reverting back to this discrimination against indigenous people. Australia, on the other hand, has openly welcomed the Iroquois Lacrosse Team. Then again, Australia’s original purpose was a penal colony for criminals, many of whom rebelled against the tyranny of the English crown.
11 Thrasymachus // Jul 16, 2010 at 11:57 am
Okay, I must confess my profound ignorance on this topic!
I guess I’d just assumed that the American Indian had a kind of dual citizenship — one in the U.S. and the other in his original tribal nation.
I think that Great Britain must have shared my ignorance on these matters. It is puzzling to me that the British government would invite the Iroquois nation to participate without understanding beforehand the political status of that team as a sovereign nation — a team not representing the U.S.
I had not realized that the status of the American Indian nations was in such an ambivalent state. The American Indians I know personally do not live on reservations and do not share this citizenship dilemma. Therefore, I was not aware of the full extent of the identity problem other American Indians must face.
Humble apology for the off-topic posts. No more of them from me!
12 Thrasymachus // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:07 pm
The American Indians I know personally do have relations that live on reservations, however. I have let my Indian friends know of this site and of Dr. Yeagley, and I hope they will participate in the discussion at some point.
13 Thrasymachus // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:27 pm
The relationship between the American Indian and the new multicultural America is complex now. It is no longer just the WASP elite and the Indian nations. It is a government that encourages assimilation and the “melting pot.” This puts great stress on Indians, as Liberalism is actually opposed to ANY national sovereignty, in the last analysis.
The Federal Reserve bank is a private bank and therefore is not in agreement with the Constitution. Only the Federal government is granted the right to issue currency. The U.S. economy is off the tracks, Constitutionally speaking.
The Federal Reserve bank was deliberately so named as to foster the impression that it is of the Federal government.
Personally, I’d like to give Negroes a state or two — or a territory — in compensation for slavery, but I believe that they would not be accepting of the terms. It’s too late to do that. But it’s certainly never too late to honor the treaties made with the American Indian.
As I see it, balkanization may well be inevitable in the States; the U.S. already is a composite of nations within a nation. It might be a good thing if the indigenous nations were to lead the way.
I would not feel sorry for the United states, were it to unravel. It would be unfair if this country did not have to pay for its mistakes.
The more sovereignty and independence given to the American Indian nations, the better. They can be the teachers now. The American Indian can teach us what we have forgot — what it means to be a nation. And maybe the British can learn something as well.
14 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:42 pm
And the Brits are worried about harmless Lacrosse players?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHOvWXX1dqA
15 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Dandy, PK. Thank you for your work and contribution to this site!
Multiculturalism is a misnomer when it comes to Islam. Muslims belong nowhere but in their own countries, which they have.
None of their leaders will say why they all left home to begin with: colonization. They are deceptive and deadly.
16 David Yeagley // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Thras, the Iroquois are particularly pronounced in the matter of their “independence,” moreso than other tribes. Now, Russell Means and his white liberal friends declared the Oglala Sious Nation a totally independent nation, but, as all other Indians now, we couldn’t make it on our own.
I for one don’t go in for over-stated ideology, or unrealistic claims. It seems to come from the soul, but it ain’t good for the body!
Dual-citizenship is generally the way Indians handle the situation. When I went to Israel, then Iran (on separate passports!), I went as an American citizen. Comanches don’t have separate passports for Comanches.
In fact, the Iroquois are the only Indians I know that have their own passport.
17 Pamela K. // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The Story Behind “The Tree Of Peace”
http://www.kahonwes.com/iroquois/document1.html
18 Northern2010 // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Pamela…The British people don’t do these things, just the government doing what ever it wants, as per.
You must log in to post a comment.