printI was the first to be interviewed by Dr. David Yeagley, who has “invited several nationally known conservative and independent writers to offer their perspective on American Indians.”
It was both an honor and an interesting experience. (I also gained a friend.) Now none other than Ann Coulter has given David an interview. Congratulations, David!
You can read the Coulter interview here. The Mercer interview, “Patriotism, Nationhood, and the American Indian,” is here (and here, if you prefer to read it on David’s site).
Updated: Peter Brimelow has given Yeagley “An English Assessment.” Read it here.
While Ann’s defense of the Republican’s turncoating gets a bit frustrating, I still REALLY like her!! Her barbs at the leftists are alway good for a laugh. I know some find her humor “mean-spirited”, but I think that is the enervated part of our politically correct culture speaking. A good insult is always something to be admired! [seconded] đŸ™‚ I loved Chuchhill’s comment about the author Sir Stafford Cripps: “He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.” But, I digress. Anyway, I wasn’t familiar with Dr. Yeagley prior to this post Ilana. Glad to have been “introduced” to him. I looked through his website and it looks like it contains some good reading material.
Too bad the questioning couldn’t go into more detail. I would have liked to know:
1) Why is she in favor of indian tax free havens when that is the equivalent of welfare (to “salute a brave culture” doesn’t seem like a legit reason). [Did you think my original idea of tax havens on indian reservations was welfare?]
2) Why she’s against gambling. So what if it “[panders] to the average person’s inability to calculate odds”? (qoute from one of her articles)
3) Why does she and others insist on misrepresenting Democrats and Republicans of the past. A Conservative today is more aligned with Democrats of the past and Liberals with Republicans of the past. Lincoln was a Republican President.
The “Indian Problem” will never be solved by our society. All participants in the various debates are driven by ideolgy, passion and pre-conceived notions. The native American people do not identify with the United States. Diversity again. They are very aware of their hstorically shabby treatment by the whites. Unfortunately, that’s the way history has always worked. They were in the way and there could have been no USA if the indians had been left to roam the woods and plains. This isn’t nice. It’s social evolution at it’s brutal worst. We can debate reservations, casinos, pow wows and the white mans guilt till the cows come home but nothing will be solved. The reservation system is here to stay and it looks like the native American people have learned to manipulate the system well.
As far as Ann Coulter is concerned, she is just another American with an opinion which will probably change nothing.
I agree Mr. Huggins. And down with gambling. We should outlaw all problems with people who can’t calculate monies and loss/risk well. Oh wait, that’s nintey percent of market trading. Doh.
Coulter makes me chuckle when she barbs liberals, but her inability to apply her own common sense – self responsibility – to its full extend makes her half of what she could be.
Ahh well – still a fairly decent read, although I wonder when Coulter will realize that heavily reduced taxes will mean the warfare state she so admires won’t be able to operate.
Honestly, I was disappointed with the Coulter interview. She gave the standard, elitist, yankee responses. She demonizes the Spanish, which is standard yankee behavior, and elevates the English as the civilized, more sympathetic whites. I bet she doesn’t even know that Spanish people are white–I have met college professors who don’t know this! Do these people live in a bubble or something?
Secondly, if Indian people work construction jobs at dizzying heights it’s because they must, not because Indians have some innate preference for hanging out with the birds.
Now, it takes great courage to do the Yeagley interview, in my opinion. I commend her for her chutzpah, and humor.
And Coulter does not promote herself as an expert on Indian history, so it’s okay, no problem.
But it’s as if her research was straight out of a survey class textbook, repleat with vile boners about the southwest, the Spanish, Catholics, “Indian” behavior.
She’s got b*lls though, I’ll give her that much.
Yeagley and Coulter both made fools of themselves. Coulter was amzingly consistent: She managed to get almost every fact wrong.
http://davidyeagley.blogspot.com/2006/10/lovefest-between-two-deniers-of.html
Just to add another two cents: I just read that Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell and is from Connecticut. Evidently this is the bubble from which Coulter grew up in. Time for some air, Ann!
Here’s a free, no-obligation history lesson for you Ann: If the Spanish (who were not so bad, really, and were in fact, good natured crypto-Jews) did not colonize the southwest America would have been conquered by tzarist Russia, who were coming down from the north. I guess they don’t teach these things at Cornell, even in the honors classes.
Gee, imagine life under tzarist russia–borscht tacos sound tasteless to me.
David Yeagley wrote of Coulter as the Great White woman, but I know even greater white women than she. But then again, they don’t get book deals and endlessly promote themselves. I would prefer to think of her as the Great White Yankee.
Dr. Al Carroll says he is an adjunct in the Alamo Community College District of greater San Antonio. He says he is “Mescalero Apache-unenrolled, Mexican, and Irish.”
There is only one entry about him in the Yahoo search, and the same one in Google. It is from nearly two years ago, when he says he was teaching in the Social & Behavioral Sciences Dept. of St. Phillip’s College (another of the ACCD of San Antonio). St. Phillip’s is traditionally black and hispanic.
All he has done here in the above reference is cite his own anti-Yeagley blog, without references.