"The dominant image of this parade is that American Indians are opposed to anything white or European. I don't consider Columbus to be a threat to American Indians. I consider (CU professor) Ward Churchill to be more threatening to American Indians," Yeagley said.
This is a standard legal concept, one that even Yeagley should be able to grasp. If you open the door to a criminal and let him commit a crime, you're guilty of aiding and abetting, even if you didn't harm anyone yourself.
But make no mistake about it: Columbus did kill and enslave Indians himself. He's personally guilty of hundreds or thousands of legal or moral crimes.
Obviously Columbus isn't a threat to anyone today, since he's dead. But historical ignorance about him is a threat. Telling Americans that Indians were uncivilized until he raised them up and enlightened them is a threat.
I hope it's clear how this is a threat. If not, here's an example:
Right-wing groups want to shut down Indian casinos. Why? Because they question the concept of tribal sovereignty. Why? Because in their minds, Indians couldn't have had their own governments. Why? Because they were just a bunch of ignornant savages.
And why do right-wingers think this? Because they learned this version of history in their grade-school classes...and during Columbus Day parades.
Result: Historical ignorance leads to the re-impoverishment of Indians. Without gaming revenues, more Indians suffer from crime, substance abuse, and suicide.
So beware of Uncle Tomahawk, Americans. Since Yeagley has argued against tribal sovereignty, he may be a bigger threat to Indians than either Columbus or Churchill.
For more on Yeagley, see The Anne Coulter of the Native World.
12 comments:
The repeated mention of "right-wingers" is almost an (often inaccurate) stereotype. Might be better to be specific and talk about anti-gambing zealots. I "admit" to being conservative myself, but am no anti-gambling zealot, and while I have found some among fellow conservatives, the difference is such that "right wing" does not necessarily mean anti-Indian, anti-gambling.
On to the topic, it's certainly not fair to Columbus to blame him for 500 years of genocide: a person is typically responsible only for acts they are responsible for. However, if you do look at his personal record, it is (as you said) extremely bad.
Not all right-wingers are opponents of Indians and gaming, but almost all opponents of Indians and gaming are right-wingers.
It certainly is fair to blame Columbus if he knew or could've foreseen the consequences of his actions. He initiated the transatlantic slave trade and the depopulation of the Caribbean. What did he reasonably expect: that the next Spaniards to come along would halt his depredations and restore the islands to their previous condition?
No, he had to expect that his depredations would continue. In fact, he wanted them to continue. His final goal in life was to have Spain restore the titles and property he thought were his due. As Wikipedia put it:
"In his later years, Columbus demanded that the Spanish Crown give him 10% of all profits made in the new lands, pursuant to earlier agreements. Because he had been relieved of his duties as governor, the crown did not feel bound by these contracts, and his demands were rejected. His family later sued for part of the profits from trade with America but ultimately lost some 50 years later."
And don't get me started with arguments such as "he was only a man of his times" or "we can't judge him by our 21st-century standards." I've already demolished these arguments in Those Evil European Invaders. Read 'em and weep.
Good points overall, especially on the "he was only a man of his times" defenses. I already said that his slaving-and-killing actions were rather bad, so I wasn't going to be one of those defending him anyway.
As your "Those Evil European Invaders" shows, there's plenty of big blame to go around for centuries of terrible leaders, colonizers, profiteers, hypocritical clerics, and just plain thugs. Blaming Columbus for all 500 years of it diminishes a little bit the bad things done by legions of others famous, less famous, and unknown.
Writerfella here --
Columbus set sail, looking for another route to India. Thus, the people he encountered on lands in his path were "Indians." His 'discovery' of 'The New World,' therefore was an accident. That European motivations became any different from those his mission proscribed have become a matter of history. Would that it could have been, peoples who met his arrival should instantly have set their own stringent immigration laws.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I wouldn't mind if we taught schoolchildren that Columbus was no worse than anyone else of his time. Instead, we're still honoring him for his "discoveries." He's still a great man to many Americans, not an average one.
Look at the guy protesting the "Homeland Security" t-shirt. The poor Indians didn't have rifles or the wheel until Europeans brought them. The Myth of Western Superiority is still firmly rooted in his mind.
Thanks for pointing those out.
Here's a pretty good discussion of the wheel in the New World:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_250.html
One point they miss in the 'Dope article is how USELESS the wheel was in much of the New World, especially in such places as the very mountainous Inca empire (held together by cliff-running messengers!). And the poor pathetic Europeans would not have had rifles without Chinese gunpowder. The "rifle" itself was only very recently invented when 1492 came along.
Writerfella here--
Having just re-read the various posts about Yeagley, it all is clearer now: the man does what he does and says what he says because there is money in it. Like Bill O'Reilly on the FAUX News Network, he is a performer, an actor, a mummer, an opportunist, um, er, uh, yeah, and like that guy Cristobal Colombo.
Yeagley can't be one of much note, however, because writerfella heretofore never had heard of any such person. And this is Kiowa and Comanche Country!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
O'Reilly makes a lot of money. How is Yeagley cashing in? People clicking on ads on his sites, or something else?
It is my understanding that Mr. Yeagley has been fired from every teaching job he had because of his outspoken extreme right wing views. I also read that he has applied for Ward Churchill's old position at the University of Colorado.
My question is; how does this guy make a living? He always seems to be unemployed or looking for steady work. Anyone know?
Writerfella here --
Say that there was an interest or a demand for someone who spoke against 'eminent domain.' The supporters would be looking for anyone who agreed with their point of view. Thus it is that any group supporting anti-Native positions would be looking for an ostensible 'Native' whose views and positions agreed with theirs. Yeagley would be their man and that would mean coin in his pocket therefore. Nice work if you can get it, and the reason you see and hear so much about him is that he takes that very kind of work.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I imagine Yeagley gets paid for some of his articles and speaking engagements. His biography says he "currently teaches for University of Oklahoma." He also may earn money as "a classically trained pianist, composer, and lyricist."
He has asked his yealeyites for financial contributions.
Its my belief that he solicites money from his women friends after making each one feel they are very special, with private phone conversations.
He also does this to the men! Note how many times he allows certain male to degrade certain people, especially the women. I believe these men are the biggest contributors, they are allowed free reign.
His followers are male chauvanists that have no regard for the female.
He knows nothing about being Native. I feel sorry for his Nation, if he ever tries to seek employment there, especailly the little children, since he says he has worked in social service. Lets just hope they have his reports such as these here!
Post a Comment