|
The only (really) good Indian is a Democrat Indian?
by Rod Van Mechelen
Conservative American Indian Republicans—ConservativeAIR.com™
Posted December 19, 2004 5PM PST
Of "good Indians" and liberal lackeys
For all of my life, I have been an Indian, for all of my adult life, I have been a conservative, and not once have those facts together endowed me with any unusual advantages. Perhaps because in King County, where I lived for most of my life, conservatives are a reviled minority, and to be a "conservative Indian" is an almost unspeakable offense.
So I was surprised to discover that being a "conservative Indian" makes me a prosperous sycophant:
The "good Indians" were the snitches…ready and willing to sell other people's property and rights and secrets. … In keeping with the times, "good Indians" all over the country have taken a sharp turn to the right and are characterizing themselves as "conservative Indians." — The 'good Indians' and 'hostiles', by Suzan Shown Harjo, Indian Country Today, December 17, 2004
How times have changed! When I was much younger, the term we used was "BIA Indian." A BIA Indian was often the chairman of a tribe's business committee. Financially, he and his minions were rewarded with kickbacks and contracts, they were welcomed by Democrat politicians in Washington D.C., and praised in newspapers.
In a word, they were liberal lackeys, who pandered to the stereotype of Indians as incompetent and dependent. But not anymore. No, today the "good Indian" is a conservative who has done nothing, fought for nothing, suffered for nothing, and simply goes through the motions of being Indian for personal or tribal gain:
So, they take the most superficial layers of traditional language and culture, don them like Native designs accenting Euro‑American clothing and report for duty as Indians for all seasons. … But, they never suffer any sort of discrimination or lay anything on the line because of it. Markedly, they don't do anything about slurs or assaults against others, either because they are afraid or because they don't notice. — The 'good Indians' and 'hostiles', by Suzan Shown Harjo, Indian Country Today, December 17, 2004
Now, I have to admit this perplexes me, because I have never heard an American Indian call talk radio shows, and only a handful challenge anti‑Indian sentiments in the press.
At my day‑job, I am able to listen to the radio all day long as I adjudicate health insurance claims, so I divide my time between listening to local and national talk shows. Never, during the past 2 years, have I heard an American Indian call to disagree when a host makes an inaccurate statement about Indians. Except, that is, when I am the caller.
During the past 6 months, I have called into talk radio shows nigh onto 20 times, and almost half were to challenge what a conservative host said about Indian country. But my efforts are not limited to radio, as I also respond in writing to the myths and lies about Indian country, regardless of whether they come from the right or the left.
For example, a little over a week ago two local conservative talk show hosts grumbled that the tribunal convened to exonerate Chief Leschi was holding up a case that will help to decide the next governor of Washington state. Now I like these guys, but that didn't stop me from writing an article—Is healing generations of bitter shame worth a day?—in which I explained, in conservative terms, why the tribunal was important.
And when a letter‑writer to a local newspaper called the Leschi tribunal a "travesty," only one Indian responded:
Being just, most Americans…know that Leschi's execution was a legally sanctioned lynching, which was an insult to America's ideals. The tribunal was as much to expunge that blemish from Washington state's history as it was to exonerate Leschi. … To right this wrong and celebrate the truth is to be free of the deception, free to forge alliances and set goals, and free to move forward. … Far from being a travesty, the tribunal was a victory for justice. — Leschi tribunal was a victory for justice, by Rod Van Mechelen, Tacoma News Tribune, December 21, 2004
The only rejoinders are coming from those whom Harjo condemns for being conservative Indians. Indeed, even some of my pro‑Republican articles have been critical of the GOP:
Unfortunately, the dichotomy between Republican politics and Conservative principles continues to alienate many tribes. … They tend to favor corporate welfare, unfettered international free trade, open borders and subordination of labor to corporate rights. In the same vein, they support terminating tribes in the interests of corporate profits. — Why should American Indians vote Republican?, by Rod Van Mechelen, ConservativeAIR.com, August 15, 2004
So while Harjo's accusations may be true of some "conservative Indians," they certainly don't apply to me. Nor, for that matter, do they apply to any other conservative Indians I know. Particularly not her nonsense about never suffering discrimination. As I said above, here in western Washington, the "good Indian" is a liberal lackey.
Indian‑rights issues are conservative
This is not to say that Harjo's claims are entirely untrue. More tribal leaders are working with Republicans, and more Indians are coming out as conservatives. But her condemnations are dishonest on two counts.
First, she simply ignores that the majority of Indian leaders work with Democrats. Consequently, her article is simply a political hatchet job. Second, she, herself, admits that our issues are conservative:
In actuality, most Indian‑rights issues are conservative in nature, particularly treaty, property and constitutional rights. One would think that conservatives would be for fulfillment of treaty promises, protection of Indian trust resources and disestablishment of federal barriers to Indian religious freedom. Yes, one would think that. — The 'good Indians' and 'hostiles', by Suzan Shown Harjo, Indian Country Today, December 17, 2004
Yes, one would think that. What conservative Indian opposes these things? Certainly not me, though I adamantly do oppose allowing those Indian religious practices which involved blood sacrifices. Beyond that, David Yeagley, probably the best known conservative Indian, seems to agree that religious freedom is important:
So, religious freedom is precious to me, even if it makes my religion just one among many. … I believe in the American Constitution, which allows me to worship 'according to the dictates of my own conscience.' — Catholic Priests & Religious Freedom, by David Yeagley, BadEagle.com, April 16, 2002
Straw man targets
Harjo's accusations, then, are straw man targets. False fronts to divert attention from what conservative Indians truly advocate:
So, in this frosty climate, what's a "good Indian" to do? … Don't talk about treaties or racism or history or any other "controversial, political issue." … Don't talk about pressing Indian health care needs, or violence against Indian women or anything else that might make any non-Indians uncomfortable. — The 'good Indians' and 'hostiles', by Suzan Shown Harjo, Indian Country Today, December 17, 2004
Conservative Indians do talk about those issues, but in terms of empowerment rather than entitlement, and in terms of being victors rather than victims. As Michael Medved so often reminds his listeners, we are not victims.
Entitlement is about wallowing in the past, and being victims by never letting go. Empowerment is about remembering the past without being victims of it. Entitlement means we are dependent on the government to provide for our healthcare and to stop domestic violence. Empowerment means helping us to become self‑sufficient so we can take care of our own healthcare needs and domestic violence problems.
Rather than joining the conversation in a constructive way, to help guide conservative Indian discourse on issues which she admits are "are conservative in nature," she characterizes us as traitors, who profit by selling out on sovereignty, racism, land development, education, the Cobell case, and use of Indian names.
Inviting a backlash
Using Indian names for sports teams and mascots is a non‑issue, and everybody knows it. As David Yeagley points out, it's an honor, not an insult:
Removing Indian names from public use does not show respect or honor to Indians. We honor people by remembering them, not by forgetting them. — The Nyack Indians Forever!, An Appropriate Memorial, by David Yeagley, Bad Eagle Forums, December 31, 2002
Indians who complain about mascot names make us look like hypersensitive whiners, nitpicking over imaginary slights and turning respect into reproach.
Tribal sovereignty, on the other hand, is a serious matter. The problem, as President Bush demonstrated, is that there's a lot of confusion over exactly what it is. In simplest terms, sovereignty is self‑rule. But it's complicated, as Charles F. Wilkinson notes, by the fact that "the demography of Indian country is so changed from what it was" in the past:
Non‑Indians outnumber Indians on some reservations. Towns, chartered under state authority, commonly are located within Indian country. Retail businesses often operate within reservations, not to trade just with tribal members, but to deal with a mixed clientele or one made up predominantly of non‑Indians. Mineral development firms have established substantial operations. Further, state and federal highways cross most reservations, so that numerous non-Indians pass through Indian country destined for other locations. — American Indians, time, and the law, by Charles F Wilkinson, Yale University Press, 1987
Wilkinson goes on to identify ten legal principles that, together, define tribal sovereignty. Consequently, it is a very complex issue, and probably the best we can do as layman is to acknowledge the everyday reality. In practical terms, Indian reservations are self‑governing federal territories, and all tribes are kind of like states, which is how President Reagan thought of them. As such, the suggestion that tribes should issue passports and act like foreign nations, is, as Mike Siegel might say, "balderdash and poppycock." To do so would invite a huge backlash.
The resurgence of self‑determination
Both in legal and practical terms, tribal governments are separate from but not subordinate to states, and the friendlier that relations between states and tribes are, the better for all concerned. These are just my opinions, but what is not an opinion, is that one of the core elements of sovereignty—self‑determination—ejoyed a resurgence beginning in the 1970s thanks in large measure to President Richard M. Nixon:
Like it or not, Nixon was indispensable to contemporary tribal self‑determination. And that isn't stating it half strongly enough. … Not only did Nixon's "Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs" of July 8, 1970, launch the federal policy of tribal self‑determination with a momentum lasting at least 30 years. It also recognized an end to termination as overt federal policy. — Assessing the Presidents — Richard M. Nixon, by Jerry Reynolds, Indian Country Today, February 02, 2004
Under previous Republican and Democrat administrations, tribal sovereignty withered. But sovereignty is fundamental to self‑determination, and Nixon's policies brought it back to life. Far from giving it away, conservatives are champions of tribal sovereignty. But where some, such as Harjo, might take a hard line that ignores our historical place in American society, conservatives understand there are limits which, if we ignore them, will invite a backlash.
Racism is a similar issue, in that intolerance evokes a backlash. Americans are among the least racist people in the world. White Christian Americans are among the most accepting and tolerant people ever to walk the face of the Earth. To say otherwise is a slap in the face.
I say that having experienced real racism in my youth.
Through a series of fortunate events, my parents were able to buy land and build a home in Normandy Park. In those days, Normandy Park was an upper‑middle class community comprised primarily of liberal professionals and Boeing executives. For a factory worker to land there was quite an accomplishment, and my parents were justifiably proud.
But I very distinctly remember one morning shortly after we moved into our half‑finished house, when two of our neighbors accosted my father in the front yard. They told him we were welcome, but that they knew we were Indians and they would be keeping a close eye on us. It was upsetting, but no big deal. What went on at our schools, however, went beyond the pale.
For my brother and me, it meant being required to sit in the back of the classrooms and not ask questions. During recess, our teachers looked the other way when we were bullied, beaten and stoned—with rocks, not drugs. And if we asked for help from our teachers, they told us "you're not my problem." From our peers to our teachers, all assured us we were dumb, worthless and would amount to nothing.
Far from turning us into Columbine‑kids, it made us try harder. Ironically, because the pallor of our skin isn't dark enough to hide our European features, when I went to college, where nobody knew me, suddenly I became an "evil white man." The Creator, it seems, is not without a sense of humor.
Providential prank‑playing aside, these experiences taught me valuable lessons.
It's not racist, for example, to accurately portray tribal life prior to the centuries‑long invasion, but it is racist to exaggerate the crimes committed against Indian country during that time. It's not racist to acknowledge that Indians are as capable as anybody else, but it is racist to strip us of our inherited rights because we "don't need them anymore." And to accept that Indians, today, come in all colors due to intermarriage is not racist, but to frame the issues in whites vs. Indians, as Harjo does with loaded terms like "fancy white men," "white privilege," and "the (whiteman) Disease ," most certainly is racist.
Conservative Principles vs. Pandering to Democrats
In 2000, I opposed George W. Bush because I disagreed with how he conducted his campaign. Were I guilty of anything Harjo attributes to conservative Indians, I'd have supported him, then. But it wasn't until 2003 that I did support Bush, because he demonstrated by his policies and actions to be a president worthy of my loyalty. And in 2004, I was not disappointed: In the face of a torrent of lies from the left, while his double‑talking opponent did his best to cover all bases, President Bush remained true to his conservative principles.
And I am a conservative because of my principles. From belief in an enduring moral order, to maintaining a balance between permanence and progress, from the never‑ending quest for justice, to the exercise of prudence, every single conservative principle applies as much to modern Indian tribes as to 19th Century England. In retrospect, we can see them working in the everyday lives of our ancestors, and in the way most of us—even those who vote for progressive politicians—live our lives today.
For a brief but excellent primer on these principles, see Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles (1993).
Harjo wrote that what we mean when we call ourselves conservative Indians, is "Please don't hurt me. I'm a good Indian." In many of my articles, during the past 25 years, I identified myself as an Indian. The viewpoints I expressed ranged from Christian conservative to libertarian conservative to cultural conservative. But it was not until 2003 that I put the two together, and identified myself as a conservative Indian.
Taking a stand
The reason I began to identify myself as a conservative Indian was not to ingratiate myself to Republican politicians, many of whom are liberals. It was to take a clear stand against a radical progressive agenda that has hijacked Indian country. It was to state loudly that Indians do not belong to liberal extremists and their no-growth agenda. That Indian tribes are traditionally conservative institutions. And that the time has come to stop pandering, as Harjo does, to the Democrats.
There was a time when the Democrat party hosted its own contingent of conservatives. In those days, Democrats stood for the little guy and small town values, and Republicans stood for big cities and big businesses. It was less about competing principles than competing interests, and that was good because it maintained a balance between the two, both of which are essential to a healthy society.
Sadly, those days are gone. The Democrat party is increasingly dominated by communists and socialists, who are forcing out the conservatives, most of whom have fled to the Republican party.
Therefore, to declare that we are conservative Indians, especially in a bastion of progressive liberalism like western Washington, is to set ourselves up as a target for the very mindset which Harjo calls "the (whiteman) Disease":
The Disease will want not only the new place, but will desire what we do there—pray or paint or dance or sing—and will try to control our behavior. Once it controls our behavior, it will assume the reigns of our lives and assume our very identity. … the new whiteman still takes it as fact that he must control us or become us, or both. — The Whiteman and the Disease, by Suzan Shown Harjo, Indian Country Today, September 10, 2004
Now, while liberal pundits on Airhead America discuss how Democrat politicians can couch their issues in terms that will appeal to conservative voters—e.g., "environmental preservation" becomes "conservation of wilderness for hunters"—the party pretty much belongs to people who believe that American Indians were great environmentalists, living an idyllic life in a sylvan paradise of pristine purity.
They want to be what they think we are, what they believe we were, and they react with angry intolerance when we refuse to play their game of "let's pretend." To a great degree, they epitomize the very attitude Harjo condemns. To be true to herself, therefore, she must join with us to reclaim our traditional conservatism, and call herself a "conservative Indian," too.
|