David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
John Stossel mistakes American Indians for government welfare recipients. Epitomizing everything that’s mistaken in white American ideas about American Indians, libertarian/quasi-conservative John Stossel displayed unequivocal error on FNC’s “Fox and Friends,” March 24, 2011. “No group has had more help than American Indians.” That says it all.
TPMMuckraker posted some of the text of this video.
It was all part of his recent and negative assessements of “Corporate Freeloaders,” to which he ascribes the demise of American society. General Electric (GE) he says is the biggest welfare recipient. Fine. But, when it comes to racial recipients, Stossel is unforgivably “racist,” or else inexcusably ignorant of history. (Actually he simply takes the white man’s interpretation of the Indian, what else?)
He decries the existence of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, on the false soliloqual basis that there is not a Bureau of Puerto Rican Affair, or black affairs, etc. Why would there be? Puerto Ricans were never a national enemy of the United States. Negroes certainly never were. They were imported labor. American Indian matters used to be under the War Department (from 1789 to 1849, in fact). The unique element is that Indians were invaded. Indians weren’t the enemy. The white man was. The white man won out, and therein lies the course of historical interpretation.
But, Stossel calls what the white man did to the Indian “help?” Indians have recieved “help” from the United States? The concept is wholly aberrant. “Help”? To be invaded by a foreign race with foreign values, to fight to the death to protect your own, then to make treaties when you’re out-numbered and out-gunned, and be promised coffee grounds, old sugar, and rotten meat–this is “help”?
I sure wouldn’t call it welfare.
Stossel dismisses Indian blood altogether. Wars were fought! Treaties were signed. Stossel briefly acknowledges treaties, but, discounts them as some obstacle for individual progress.
But, Indians are nations of families. Stossel’s white, self-idolizing individuality is not the Indian way. Most quick-to-comment profession talkers have no idea of what they’re talking about when it comes to Indians. Indians are generally not interested in white values, white materialism, white individual success, white fortune, or white ways. We suffer the consequences of our refusal to generally partake in these values, yes; but, we have the right to refuse. Our fathers won for us that right. It is ours. Forever. Or, as long as the American government retains any integrity at all. (I fear that the treates will not last much longer–due to racism, ignorance, and lack of integrity on the part of an essentially oedipal white liberal government.)
Indians are doing the worst, despite receiving the most “help”? So, Indians prefer poverty to any attempt to be white. Stossel projects his own white capitalist libertarian individualty-idolizing values on Indians, and condems Indians for their own suffering, or failure to measure up to Stossel’s expectation. Indians need to break away from the group, he says, to get out from under the government, and make it on their own. Then poor little Gretchen Carlson made an even more ignorant remark about some “tribe” in North Carolina that has it’s own bank. She was bragging on their success. Stossel quickly corrected her, skirting the issue of federal recognition–the unmentioned tribe not being an Indian tribe, but another wannabe group, “freeloading” on Indian blood-bought honor and privilege. So, that group really couldn’t be used as an example of successful Indian affairs at all. Stossel re-emphasized his point about individuals doing better when they get out from under the government management.
Now, I’m no fan of government management. I’m a fan of Indian nationhood. Stossel would sacrifice Indian nationhood, Indian identity, for his ideology–an idolized individuality. This is just not the Indian way, and never will be, as long as there are real Indians around.
Indians prefer to be Indian. Stossel obviously has no concept of what that means. His point is about the inefficiency and depressing effects of government management, on which we can all agree. But, using Indians as an example is not the right example. Sorry, John. You just lost me.
I know Ann Coulter loved your “Corporate Freeloaders” episode on FNC, but, I can only say she may not share your impression of American Indians. She expressed some of her ideas in a Bad Eagle Interview, “The Great White Woman Speaks.”
Ann Coulter, the Great White Woman.
Stossel’s FNC videos are available. After a very brief denigration of Indians, he spends most of the time on street begging, and barely mentions the corporate beggars (coercionists) at the end.
America: A Nation of Freeloaders
America: A Nation of Freeloaders, Part 2
It is an interesting take, but, all in all, to include Indians in the story, as a race, as a people, as nations, shows that Stossel is typically superficial, with no understanding of what being Indian means, or more importantly, what being Indian means to Indians.
And Indians just have to realize that other people don’t care about their own race as Indians care about ours. There is certainly very little racial pride in western culture, and in Amercia–especially when a Negro Attorney General intimidates anyone who wants to talk about race (and then calls them cowards if they don’t). But, whereas Negroes want to dominate, Indians are the true individualists, or the true “libertarians,” to use Stossel’s term. Indians don’t try to dominate other people. We never have. Indians are profoundly independent, contrary to Stossel’s superficial observations.
Stossel cops a libertarian view, and I’m not at all sure that it is truly American, and less sure that it could be considered patriotic. Love of country, after all, means love of people, as if the country were one’s extended family. This ideology of self-idolizing individuality as not all that useful to a country. It is an extraction and an exaggarated distortion of “freedom.” It has its functional place, in social reality, but, it isn’t the kind of doctrine you can hold a nation together with.
A nation requires a sacrifice of some of that libertarian individuality. Indians know all about sacrifice. Call it not communal welfare, but corporate individuality. That’s Indian life. The tribe is what’s important.
Yes, our tribes are deeply disturbed by avaricious “individuals” in our leadership, but that is a human failure. It is not the real Indian way. It is a mix of imitative white greed and inefficient government bureaucracy, indeed. But our leaders are a reflection of our own failure as Indian people today, the same as America’s leaders reflect the failure of American people.
In the end (as well as at the beginning) Stossel’s observations about Indians are subjective, inapposite, and ineffective, regardless of how entertaining they might seem. His observations about Indians are simply foreign.
43 responses so far ↓
1 Pamela K. // Mar 30, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Apparently John Stossel is not the only ignoramus expounding this point of view concerning American Indians.
Rand Paul’s Indian War
http://www.politicususa.com/en/rand-pauls-indian-war
2 Asaph // Mar 30, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Hm. I saw the episodes on youtube yesterday. Frankly, I do not believe Stossel was making a comment on Indians as a people, or nations, but making a comment on how Indians, dependent on government, have not done well. You can say they do not want to assimilate, but the comments by Indians, clothed in white man’s garb, to be sure, stated they wanted more money, more help, which is greater dependency, is it not?
And why is showing the Lumbee tribe such a problem? Barry Farber had an interesting take on them in his column this week. Seems obvious from the interview and program they do not want the government assistance and have done well without it. Stark contrasts were shown. Were they wrong?
Me thinkest thou protesteth too much.
3 Asaph // Mar 30, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I also believe the corporate welfare in this nation should cease.
4 Asaph // Mar 30, 2011 at 6:18 pm
btw, the whole casino situation. Is that the answer?
5 Asaph // Mar 30, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Matter of fact, I think this is sizing up to be another Michelle Malkin-type take down.
I certainly understand your position, David. But I believe you are misrepresenting Stossle’s position, as you did with Malkin.
6 Pamela K. // Mar 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I’m sorry but the American Indians are different from the rest of us. The United States Government not only tried to exterminate them but has broken every single treaty they ever made with them. Now people like John Stossel and Rand Paul are calling for the elimination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Don’t get rid of the agency. Get rid of the corrupt bastards running it! Furthermore, I don’t think casinos are the answer to economic problems either. I live in New Jersey and despite all the revenue generated by the casinos in Atlantic City, legalized gambling has done absolutely nothing for the residents of our state, especially alleviate the high cost of living here for our seniors by lowering property taxes, nor has gambling benefited our failed education system.
7 BrockTownsend // Mar 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Indians have received “help” from the United States?
========
The same way Southerners received “help” during the Late Unpleasantness……..
This is first thing I have seen from Stossel that I have disagreed with. It is a crying shame, as I use some of his material for homeschool.
8 David Yeagley // Mar 30, 2011 at 8:55 pm
I think I was quite easy on Stossel. I know he is ignorant of Indians. I’m just pointing that out to everyone. Indians generally don’t care how they’re doing in the white man’s eyes. Indians don’t live by the white man’s standards. Yes, there are certain psychological categories of life that might seem similar, but, even as children in school, you generally cannot motivate an Indian child on the same basis that you motivate a white (or non-Indian) child. The psychology is different.
Never assume and Indian wants to be like you. Never think that and Indian is dying to imitate you, to do what you do, to value what you value.
I had a bit of a misplaced life myself, and thought it was my responsibility to be better than everone (white kids) around me. I generally was. But, that was an exception.
Yet, even in that, I was keeping myself separated.
9 David Yeagley // Mar 30, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Indians generally are not shamed by poverty.
I’m just trying to communicate here to non-Indian people that Indian life, at heart, would prefer the old days. At least, we think we want the old days. We think we value them more.
Truth be known, I may be in the minority on that score, in that I really do value Indian life then. Those values would help us understand how to govern ourselves now. Alas, we have white government “constitutions” superimposed upon us by the BIA, in fact, and these constitutions cripple our natural ways, our intuitions, our genetic coding, even.
I’m just saying, for whatever reasons, Indians prefer to be separate. Poverty may be the price for that, but, we make the sacrifice.
I say, any people, any nation that loves itself, must make the same sacrifice. Else, you evolve into something other than what you were.
10 David Yeagley // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Personally, I much prefer Malkin to Stossel. She’s a true “conservative.” I don’t think Stossel really is. That libertarian manipulation of thought I fight tedious and annoying. Malkin is straight up.
However, she is equally mistaken on Indians. She rarely says anything, or even alludes to Indians. She’s a darkie herself, so, she’s careful, I think. She daren’t condemn Indians for being Indian.
In his ignorance, Stossel does.
11 Asaph // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Then why did the Indians interviewed say they want more money and help from the government? There’s a page missing here.
It seems that a couple centuries have brought Indians to a place where they do not know who they are. Of course, a couple centuries has done that to America, to Christian churches, etc., etc. But, as the subject matter is Indians, if they do not want what the white man is and has, why hold the hand out? And if you are going to tell me the scenes I saw in that program are representative of how Indians would choose to live even if they had wealth … that’s how they lived before they were conquered? I find that impossible to believe.
The federal government has done this to the Indian. Why ask for more, if more will just return the same ends? Talk about enabling.
12 REG // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:29 pm
I have to agree with Asaph on this one. The smear on Rand Paul was nothing more than left wing nonsense. I’m not from or in Kentucky so we aren’t speaking contingency here; nor am I speaking for him. We as a nation are having to borrow between ten and fifteen percent of our budget each month just to meet it. But, Rand Paul is speaking of cuts across the board. Of course, tribes will have to tighten their belts too. Stossel is a Libertarian, that’s true but we have our in fights too. However, I have seen the problems with the Indian Nations and the so called help the Bureau of Indian Affairs gives. For example. 70 percent of New Mexico is owned by the Federal Government. I don’t know how much of Arizona, Utah, and Colorado it owns. A few years ago, the Hopis needed more land, their reservation lay next to Federal land on one side and Navajo land on the other. You know who had to share their reservation and no federal land was touched. I know I don’t know the full story because no one covered it. The Great White Father and his minions have censure. A few weeks ago, you had an article about the Sioux in Montana losing their land because Barry wanted to put in a wind farm. Where was the Bureau of Indian Affairs? America as we know it is dying, change is going to come. Isn’t it better that people like Stossel are opening dialog? If the issue is out in public, action can be taken. Now is the time for the tribes to unite, hammer out what is important. I love those New Mexico mountains and a lot of Utah, Arizona, and Colorado is just as pretty, but just sitting there. Someone could live on them. The treaties are there but being ignored for welfare, time to paint up and mount up. Dump the Bureau and get someone that will respect the treaties. Oh and Brock. Truth is truth, if his home school stuff is good, teach it. You can tell the kids that smart people sometimes disagree on other things. I a Libertarian have friends that are conservatives, Liberals and some that just don’t give a hoot. None respect my Libertarian opinions. I can still accept them and learn something from them while they tolerate me.
13 David Yeagley // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Indians expect the government to honor the blood-bought treaties. It’s not hand-outs, Asaph. You too have the same misconception. To you, it looks like hand-outs. That’s because the government DOES do hand-outs, to many folks.
Indians aren’t just any folks. Indians know exactly who they are. That’s why we still exist.
You have misread or misconceived. Only because you are not familiar with the Indian way of looking at things.
14 David Yeagley // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Another hat tip to PK:
Is Mr. Larry Echohawk paving the way for Senator Rand Paul to abolish The Bureau of Indian Affairs?
What our fine senators should be asking is: Where is all that casino money? The Indian gaming officials brag about $30 billion in “revenue.” So, who gets it? I’m afraid it’s not Indians. Its the syndicate and politicians. Let Rand chew on that one a bit. Real pumican.
Indians will never surrender that nation to nation relationship. That is historical. That is part of what it means to be Indian–descendents of our fathers, who spilled their blood for us and for our future.
These are classic tenets of social reality. I’m surprised that white Americans don’t appreciate that, or value that. Indians are a living example of what America needs to do, for itself, if it intends to continue as America.
15 Homie-da-Clown // Mar 30, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Yeagley, be honest, while you so elegantly present and attempt to rationalize the sheer inability of the inferior Indian to assimilate into America, what prevents you from projecting that same pathetic sympathy to the black man who also obstinately refuses to adapt to the culture and ways of his conqueror/captor?
If the black man is a lazy apathetic inferior evidenced simply by his condition and position in American society, then so is the Indian a sub-standard specimen of humankind.
Come now Yeagley, have the decency to be consistent with your drivel.
Homie-da-Clown
16 REG // Mar 30, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Hey doc:
You been dragging the bottom of the creek lately; I see that we snagged another bottom feeder. Humorous that he or she would attribute her own feelings to you. It must be love, but I’d throw it back if I were you. Some fish don’t need three days before they begin to stink.
17 BlackBart // Mar 31, 2011 at 2:57 am
The points being made by Stossel and Rand are simple: The government needs to butt out of all our lives – including Indians.
18 whitetrash // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:25 am
“”I say, any people, any nation that loves itself, must make the same sacrifice. Else, you evolve into something other than what you were.”"
I was thinking the same thing prior to the initial bailout of those “hard working, successful” banksters in 2008, when the so-called eilites were running around screaming that the world would end if we did not save them. It seems about 70% of Americans agreed with me, but it didn’t matter.
So much for constitutions.
19 Asaph // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:47 am
I shall honestly say I know zero about Treaties with Indians, though if I recall correctly, Bear posted quite a bit about them on the other forum. Perhaps, David you have as well, but I missed it. So, if these treaties are the bottom line, what do they basically state and offer the Indian? Are you saying if they were completely honored the condition of reservations would NOT be what was portrayed on Stossel’s program?
I agree with Bart. The whole point of the program was to show that the Federal government needs to stay out of our business and lives. LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
The Indians have land. Are there no resources on that land? Are there no investors who have been willing to partner with Indians to retrieve and market these resources? If you say the FED stands in the way, then you have proved Stossel’s point! NOTHING the fed does for Indians is a blessing to them. Shut down the BIA and let Indians do what they want on the lands given to them. And if Indians want to live in squaller and poverty, well, so be it.
20 Asaph // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:54 am
David, you often state the position of Indians relative to the American white man is something to be envied. Like they have an inside track to wisdom of some kind. But if what I saw on Stossel’s program is an actual portrayal and indication what America would become under total government control, I say dismantle the federal government now! Between the apparent condition of reservations, and city ghettos, it is as obvious as a train wreck what happens to mankind when government has complete control. WHY on earth would you want government to be involved with or have anything to do with or be in any way over the affairs of American Indians?
21 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 1:03 pm
The treaties need to be revisited.
They were written at a time when what they offered Indians seemed appropriate to settle for. Land. Being left alone. And what the Indians could not procure through hunting, the government would supply.
Nothing about education, health insurance, etc. Just coffee grounds, hard sugar, and rotten meat–”as long as the grass grows and the wind blows.”
Obviously, this is entirely inadequate. I have a friend here in Oklahoma City, Richard Engle, who was the president of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, who has for years advocated a “revisiting” of the Indian treaties. He believes they need to be re-negotiated.
I’d say yes, if they were made to bring the US gov’t promises up to modern times.
“You stop killing white people, and stay here on this piece of land, and we’ll take care of you, forever.” That was the basic promise.
22 BlackBart // Mar 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Abraham Lincoln, grandfather of the president by the same name, was murdered while working his farm in Kentucky.
The killers were hunters who happened past the Lincoln homestead, saw the farmer, and decided to have target practice.
Such attrocities were not exclusively Indian-on-White, but Indian-on-Indian.
The White tribe from across the big pond not only won, but brought an end to millennia of tribal warfare. Had they not come, the inter-tribal wars would have continued to this day.
23 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Like, there were no wars among Europeans.
Give me a break, BB. That line is as hackneyed as it is false. You lose, big, on this one. I don’t think you can make it up, either.
24 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Another hat tip to PamelaK.
Is There a Backlash in the Making?
It is a response to Carl Horowitz piece in our great conservative site, TownHall, “No Reservations: The Case for Dismantling the Indian Bureaucracy.”
I admit it. I have failed. Professional conservatives are completely ignorant and prejudice against Indians. Ten years of writing, and I have accomplished nothing in the way of educating the professional conservative talkers. They speak hot air. They are just ignorant. And, apparently, prejudiced.
I have failed.
25 Thrasymachus // Mar 31, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“Americanism” has become a doctrine of EXTREME rugged individualism and cut-throat competition. Americans want a class struggle, not a racial salvation struggle or any kind of ethnic nationalism.
If it’s any comfort, these libertarian Whites, such as Stossel, care not a bit for the extended family they have been born into, any more than they care for American Indians.
“I happen to believe that competition, not money, is the root of all evil.” — Glenn Herbert Gould
Once again, this article proves to my satisfaction that the American Indian knows what nationhood is all about.
Why do you think Whites allow pornographic music to be heard everywhere and pornographic cable television channels into their homes, where this can destroy lives? Rugged Individualism! The typical “white” attitude these days — not at the founding, by any means — is “other white families and individuals are in competition with me (they are actually my enemies in the market), so I don’t mind in the least if they are tempted to evil ways that lead to failure. Indeed, this is to MY personal, selfish benefit.”
Modern Americanism has made the ambition for filthy lucre its god and has abandoned the social teachings of Christianity to this end.
Keep being American Indian! Maybe someday you — and, if you don’t mind my saying so, the Amish as well — can show the lost White America the way back to sanity.
26 REG // Mar 31, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I couldn’t find the references in comment 24. Maybe the computer internet access. Never the less, you have not failed. Just because the enemy is standing on the ridge watching you don’t mean they’ve won. So someone is advocating the end of reservations only means that it’s time to take the gloves off. I can’t tell you what to do, only Indians can make that type of decision but, like I said the Feds own a lot of land, they can’t meet their other commitments and this land was yours before. Foreclose. If nothing else take the land that they own back, have a ‘land sale’ and buy an Island in the Pacific or something. Remember that gun motto. ‘Only when they pry it out of my cold, dead hand.’ Conservatives are cowards anyway liberals beat them up every day. That’s why they send soldiers to the Middle east, cowards always pick on losers. Stand up and they’ll run. Find some natives with backbone and kick…
27 BlackBart // Mar 31, 2011 at 6:54 pm
David,
I fear you are a victim of confirmation bias. Humans are not, by nature, objective. Rather, we tend to find what we’re looking for.
When I studied history in High School it occurred to me that the story of humanity is a long string of wars. To presume American Indians were an exception is not only silly, it defies the historical facts.
Brush off your history books and recall the efforts made by Roger Williams.
Recall, also, the Pequot War. The Indians had endured years of rape, murder, slavery and theft from a renegade faction of the Mohegan tribe called the Pequot ( from Paquatauoq, meaning “the destroyers.”)
The Narragansett and Mohegan tribes only found victory when they aligned with the European tribe.
History books, written by liberals, will focus on the tragic Mystic massacre while obscuring the greater inter-tribal brutality.
Ultimately it was the Mohawk who killed the charismatic Pequot leader, Sassacus, and lopped off his head.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pequot-war.html
You’re a good man, David. But let’s not allow our personal biases to smudge history to our liking.
28 Thrasymachus // Mar 31, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Here is a quote that illustrates the problem:
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
(Source: Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
John Swinton on the independence of the press
.
29 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I don’t understand why the links are not working.
The is the link taken directly from the TownHall site. Try typing in the title on Google or Yahoo. Just cut and paste: No Reservations: The Case for Dismantling the Indian Bureaucracy.
I typed in the title, and you can get a list of places it’s published.
Here’s another, from TownHall’s collection of C. Horowitz: No Reservations: The Case for Dismantling the Indian Bureaucracy
Here’s a different posting of Is There A Backlash In The Making?
I don’t know why the otherone doesn’t work.
30 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:54 pm
BB, you can patronize all you want, but, don’t act for a minute like the Eurpeans were one inch better people than the Indians. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants had a stronger society and technology, but I attribute that to their religion. But the country quickly became an enterprize. Indians were in the way. That’s the long and short of it.
If you think it was otherwise, your merely choosing a self-justifying history. You needn’t do that. That’s precisely what corrupts both sides of the story.
The strong rule. To the strong go the spoils. The white came, saw, and conquered.
Indians were not racists. Indians were separate nations. If we thought of ourselves as a race, there would have been no America. We’d have close up the borders after the first landing of the lost white rats on that stinking boat that had floated around for months.
But no, Indians were macho warriors. You take care of needy, weak, lost people. They were just human beings, in great need. It proved to be a major, significant attitude, that costs Indians their way of life, finally.
But, don’t apologize for it. Rather, don’t justify it. Or, just be honest about it. That’s all I ask. That’s what I do.
31 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:55 pm
BB, maybe you’re just very necient of European history. Maybe that’s the problem. Ever hear of the Inquisition? That’s but a minor chapter in the European tradition of mayhem.
But there’s no point in such arguments where you are coming from. Two peoples met, one was stronger than the other, for various reasons. Indians could have destroyed all whites, immediately, on site. But we didn’t. We wanted to be macho host, just like white America is trying to be today, to all the darkie misanthropes that come to America. Hasn’t America learned anything from the Indian at all. This is big mistake, this unlimited immigration bit. Americans have failed to learn the most important lesson from Indians to be learned.
32 Thrasymachus // Mar 31, 2011 at 8:27 pm
“Hasn’t America learned anything from the Indian at all. This is big mistake, this unlimited immigration bit. Americans have failed to learn the most important lesson from Indians to be learned.”
———————————————
It is astonishing that America — and now Europe — have learned and still are learning nothing from history. “White Compassion”! Have a look at this astonishing promotional propaganda from 1990s Netherlands in which the plea is made: are there suffering black children in Africa? The solution: Bring him (the black child) here (to live forever in the Netherlands). Surely this is going too far!
Certain Whites feel morally superior in helping non-Whites — but are almost universally opposed to helping less fortunate members of their own race.
” Breng hem hier “
This clip is fitting, because nearly all of the Liberal West has adopted this “solution” — in defiance of the clear records of history which prove that it does not work out well. I think that the Dutch people in this video clip are similar to the American Indian when the European first arrived. In history, Whites have always been at each other’s throats, but have had compassion movements for non-Whites. In past times, it was sending help abroad. Today, it is in importing the non-White populations. At least the American Indian did not beg for more European settlers to keep on coming to these shores!
33 David Yeagley // Mar 31, 2011 at 8:52 pm
THRAS: In history, Whites have always been at each other’s throats, but have had compassion movements for non-Whites.
This is perfectly stated. It is exactly what BB tried to say about Indians. At each others’ throats, but, (as I said) every ready to be compassionate to foreigners (non-Indians)!
Perfect! Something really deep here, socio-psychologically.
34 Pamela K. // Mar 31, 2011 at 9:06 pm
One of the best books concerning the US Government’s treatment of the American Indians is “A Century of Dishonor” by Helen Hunt Jackson
A Century of Dishonor
Published in 1881, this book was out of print for many years until 1964. I was able to purchase a copy through Amazon.com a few years ago. Mrs. Jackson wrote her book living on borrowed time, as she was battling an advanced case of stomach cancer. She was able to finish her book and not only see it published, but made sure a copy was mailed to each member of the United States Congress before she died.
35 BlackBart // Mar 31, 2011 at 11:59 pm
David – I don’t disagree with 30 or 31.
It remains, however,
• that Indians benefit from Western culture,
• that Indian-on-Indian attrocities ended after millennia of inter-tribal warfare,
• and that unjustified Indian-on-White attrocities were common.
Do you disagree with any of these?
36 BlackBart // Apr 1, 2011 at 12:27 am
Are there any Indians today who wish to return to their pre-Columbian lifestyle?
Are there any Indians who would prefer to endure frigid winters in which the objective was not to stay warm but to avoid freezing to death? Not to avoid hunger but to avoid starvation?
37 Siryako Akda // Apr 1, 2011 at 6:03 am
If I might add my two cents here.
I’m Filipino and so what i know about the historical treaties between whites and Indians, libertarianism and American Conservatism are based around books and what I read on the internet.
As far as I know, treaties between Indians and the US government was based around the deal that if Indians – as a people – stop their nomadic lifestyle and warfare, the US govt. – the representative of another people – will take care of them.
Although this set up may seem analogous to welfare, I don’t think that it is. Firstly, because welfare is based around taking from Peter to give to Paul, and secondly, because treaties are made between equals who agree to a mutually beneficial agreement – at least as how they perceive it.
The point is that treaties are different from social engineering schemes, which is what welfare is typically about.
Treaties should be honored as they are based on honor of both groups of people. In this case, I think that Indians and Whites both got something out of these treaties. Just because the Wild West no longer exists doesn’t mean that those treaties should be abolished on the basis that some libertarian says so.
The point is that:
“You stop killing white people, and stay here on this piece of land, and we’ll take care of you, forever.” That was the basic promise.
And everyone should keep that promise.
Next, I’d like to talk about how much I admire Indians for retaining much of their culture and not have to imitate white people. I’ve read about the Hopi and the story of Squanto, and most Native North American myths.
I don’t know much about the economic side of things with regards to Native Americans, but I really admire the way they preserve their culture and history amidst a globalist world. That takes emotional and mental strength.
I suppose that’s why I admire Native Americans. So few people – including my own – no longer have that kind of strength.
38 David Yeagley // Apr 1, 2011 at 8:03 am
Siryako, thank you for our contribution! The world’s opinion is very important here, for elements of objectivity.
BB, #35:
These are subjective abstractions, based on cultural bias. They have no bearing on any discussion of will and independence.
When you don’t ask for a foreign “benefit,” and it is imposed upon you, such a circumstance is not a polemic whatever.
I’m not really sure what you’re arguing here. I say, again, don’t attempt to justify white European invasion of Indian country. This is not necessary. Any such attempt at justification is grossly aberrant, hypocritical, inconsistent, and illogical.
History is replete with tragedy. I’m trying to move on to positive ways for Indians to see our history, and our relationship to white America. your self-justifications are about as offensive as possible. I say, just leave it. It doesn’t help.
You’re still not hearing me. I am a conservative, Republican, American Indian patriot. I have not accused America. You talk as though you think I have. You are not reading me. You are merely stating your justifications. But you haven’t been accused.
39 Asaph // Apr 1, 2011 at 9:18 am
We will take care of you.”
What, exactly, does that mean? You say rotten meat then. What now? It seems to me what Indians were given was inappropriate then, and looking at conditions they live in now, they are no better off.
It does look like Bad Eagle has failed, David; tough blow as that is. You have been a renaissance man. Perhaps being a Conservative American Indian Patriot is not God’s highest calling for you.
What, then, is next for the renaissance man?
I believe I know. Time will tell.
40 Thrasymachus // Apr 1, 2011 at 1:08 pm
As I see it, traditional Conservatives have consistently yielded more and more ground to the Left over the decades since WWII. It’s been about compromise. It’s been about not disagreeing with the rich men who own the press, mentioned by John Swinton. Today’s Neocons are not yesterday’s Conservatives.
Dr. Yeagley has not failed personally in his mission; he is, rather, like an Old Testament prophet, telling the true nature of the American situation. Self-styled “conservatives” have failed all Americans of traditional thinking — and now are turning on the American Indian. They have already turned on the Mormons. The question remains if they will have the open hatefulness to attack the way of life of the peaceful Amish.
41 Asaph // Apr 1, 2011 at 5:22 pm
In some respects they already have with the building permit controversy.
42 darkwater // Apr 2, 2011 at 11:37 am
As a PROUD member of the “wannabe” tribe that “freeloads on Indian blood-bought honor & privilege”, I will say this. Neither John Stossel or David Yeagley know anything about us or our situation. I don’t recall EVER seeing either one down here in Lumbee land. Opinions are just that…opinions. But this is a fact. It is sad that one Native would down another Native just to prove a point or to somehow make themselves seem somehow “better than” other Native brethren who experience their own struggles everyday. Believe me, things around here are NOT as rosy as John Stossel would have you believe. The fact that he trots out ONE Lumbee that hasn’t lived here for decades and I doubt ever comes back around to suggest that Lumbees don’t want or need help means nothing. He doesn’t speak for the OVERWHELMING majority of Lumbees.
43 Drunk Engines // Apr 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Why do you keep refering to us as white americans? we’re all americans you idiot because we all live in america. you people just choose to take any and every hand out you can get and drive yourselves into the ground. quit being so dependant on the government and blaming the”white Man” for being so drunk angry and broke. its your fault, and your fault only, you think you indians have it bad go lve in fucking africa or eastern europe, you dont even know what bad is. quit begging, nuff said
You must log in to post a comment.