printDr. David Yeagley is a Comanche Indian from Oklahoma, educated at Oberlin, Yale, Emory, Hartt, and the University of Arizona. (He was a special student at Harvard in 1982). He has invited several nationally known conservative and independent writers to offer their perspective on American Indians. His interview with me, here at the Free-Market News Network, is titled “Patriotism, Nationhood, & The American Indian,” and is the first in the planned series.
Update: The interview has now been posted on Dr. Yeagley’s website, BadEagle.com, which means that responses from the American Indian community have been forthcoming. You can follow these here and here—indeed the good folks at BadEagle.com are hip to my deficiencies vis-Ã -vis the law and Indian reservations. In my defense I’ll say that I was asked by Dr. Yeagley to respond spontaneously, not research. That’s what I did.
I am told that Ann Coulter has expressed interest in the topic. That’s a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.
Ilana,
Your suggestion that the Indian nations in the US form their own banks was brillian. As long as they base the bank on precious metal standards, I would definitely transfer my savings to that type of bank.
A nice tax haven from the 35% federal tax burden not to mention 8% state income tax burden would be great.
Shalom and Blessings,
Steve Bernier
I second Mr. Bernier’s comment, Ilana. It’s an absolutely brilliant idea. It could be expanded to include liberty from odious firearm laws, too. Undermining Leviathan’s control from within – using its own multiculti weapon against it, in a manner of speaking. Sadly, I’m willing to bet that there would be a huge clampdown from the BIA if such ideas were seriously proposed, just as in Canada.
One observation: Indian place names abound here in the US, and have been used since colonial days. Many of the individual state-names are in fact derived from Indian words. Yes, the colonists sometimes indulged in terrible injustice and abuse. Even so, others among their number actually honored the Indian by retaining the original name for a given locale or naming a sports team for a tribe. Yeagley has pointed this out on several occasions himself. As for Yaegley’s interesting question about the validity of nations like the Omaha, the Comanche, etc., I would offer this thought from one of tyranny’s fiercest opponents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
“The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all men became alike with one nature and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colors and bears within itself a special facet of God’s design.”
Great interview, you really explained the classical liberal position in a most excellent way. It’s always encouraging to see a meeting of this kind between a couple of the “good guys.” [Thanks, C.–as well as for your contribution to BAB]
I would agree that they should attempt at having their own (private) banks, but I would go a little further; I’m not sure if I would like them to set up state-styled regulatory agencies to regulate their banks. They’d be doing what we do over here, just in a less pronounced way.
I would like as much privatization in these places as possible, but that might be asking a bit too much. Still, if you’re going to take a first step, it might as well be a big one…
One thing is for sure, anything would be more agreeable than what is currently the standard norm here in the States. I just wouldn’t want to go the conservative route, which is often ‘conserving’ government. :=\
Ms. Mercer,
I found this interview most interesting as I am still learning about Indian issues. You know, many of us native-born Americans are not all that informed about treaties and tribal cultures–I often wonder if it’s any of my business anyway. I know a bit about the Spanish/Mexican land grants that were awarded to Indians, but this southwestern history is unique and rarely referred to in terms of American Indian culture (for example, we’ve all heard of the Cherokee, but how many people can name one California tribe?).
Anyway, I am a big fan of both you and David Yeagley’s–I get quite an education reading your stuff. [Thank you very much]
The issue is not free markets but fair ones. Indian Nations are not corporations, nor are they subject to non-Indian “overseers” who think they can better “control” their activities. The Comanche people disagree with Dr. Yeagley, to put it mildly. Aho. Dr. Bald Beagle
Interesting. Bald Beagle is the same lampoonist that claimed he knew who the Comanche chairman was, but named the wrong person. In other words, he has no knowledge of Comanche people at all.
Well, the lampooner, Brent Michael Davids, lives in Minnesota, and likes to associate with AIM people. Not a patriot. And obviously not a careful reader.
If Ann Coulter is interested in this, then maybe there is hope for her.
Steve Bernier
Here are some suggestes I made to Governor Schwarzenegger a couple of years ago:
Schwarzenegger and the Indians
There are all sorts of arrangements that haven’t been tried. Politicians, syndicate bosses, developers, and crooked tribal leaders haven’t LET any of these arrangments be tried–yet.
Indian elites, like those of other races, have mastered the deception that they represent “the people”, yet pursue their own agenda, often harming the group as a result.
And therein lies the problem – most Indians likely don’t care what team names are, yet the “leaders” become hysterical about the name of a team; self-serving, and the media gives them a freee ride..
Leaders” want casinos for their own benefit, not of “the people” of the tribe. These are like “professional Jews” like Abe Foxman, who get all bent out of shape when Mel Gibson rants about Jews when he is drunk; most Jews, including many Hollywood executives, have too much to do to worry about Mel Gibson.
I would be all for Indians doing whatever they wanted – including things like speaking different languages – if I was not forced to work to pay for this.
In contrast, the atrocity in PA reminded me that the Amish are essentially a “nation within a nation” – I am unimpressed at those who reject the present for a romanticized past, but you have to give them credit – they lead separate lives from the rest of us, but they are not on the “dole” like the “Indian nation”.