Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

Rob's reply
More condescending claptrap from the master of it.

>> John Echohawk, chairman of the Native American Rights Fund, says, "The BIA has spent more than 100 years mismanaging, diverting and losing money that belongs to Indians." <<

Yes...so? Government is full of waste and fraud...film at 11.

I believe the litigants in the Cobell trust case, including Echohawk, want to reform the BIA, not eliminate it. Their attitude is probably the same as millions of people who rely on Social Security or Medicare. Mend it, if necessary, but don't end.

We've paid our taxes to earn these government benefits. And Indians gave up their land to get their treaty rights. If they give up their treaty rights and don't get their land, they have nothing. How stupid would it be to give up something for nothing?

>> The BIA is a financial black hole, and only corrupt attorneys and government bureaucrats have the magic formula to access the gargantuan resource. <<

I agree that President Bush and Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton are either corrupt or incompetent. I voted to replace them in 2004 so, among other things, we could get a true resolution of the trust fund crisis. So did most Indians.

Yeagley apparently doesn't know Republicans have been in charge of the BIA for the last four years. If the BIA is in trouble—a case not proved by one scandal—blame its conservative leadership. Considering how Bush is borrowing and spending the country into debt, it's not surprising that his lackeys can't manage the BIA.

The past and present heads of the BIA—Neal McCaleb and Dave Anderson—are both Indians. They're both Republicans. McCaleb was a relatively unknown Oklahoma transportation secretary who quit the post after a judge ruled him unfit for duty. Anderson is a restaurant chain owner who recused himself from any gaming matters upon taking office. Neither one seems especially qualified to run a big government bureaucracy.

Given these facts, who exactly is Yeagley blaming? President Bush? Secretary Norton? Assistant Secretary McCaleb or Anderson? All the Republicans in the BIA? All the Indians in the BIA? All the Republicans or Indians, period?

Again, we could've solved a lot of these problems by booting Bush out of office and electing someone who can actually run a corporation, a federal agency, or a war. That isn't Bush and Co. Maybe the next president will be able to clean up his mess in the BIA and elsewhere.

>> The BIA can grant "federal recognition" to any group of people claiming to be American Indian. <<

Any group of people that goes through an exhaustive procedure to meet an elaborate set of criteria, Yeagley means.

>> Along with that recognition comes "sovereignty." <<

Any Indian law expert would say that tribes have always been sovereign. That federal recognition does just that: recognizes a group's inherent sovereignty. That Yeagley sneers at the concept of "sovereignty" shows his disdain for all things Indian.

>> Many of the major Indian casinos have been built on Indian property after federal recognition was granted to questionable groups of people, through a dubious and unauthenticated process. <<

Note all the weasel words Yeagley uses: questionable, dubious, unauthenticated process. He can't point to any specific problems because he doesn't know jack about Indian gaming and apparently hasn't read a newspaper clipping lately. The lack of detail suggests he has no real charges to level. He's using questionable, dubious language to worry readers about something he can't even specify, much less prove.

>> In densely populated areas like Connecticut, and California, tribes pop up over night, and then the environment is peppered with Indian casinos. <<

Again Yeagley parades his ignorance of California and Connecticut tribes and tribal gaming.

California isn't that densely populated, since it's such a big state. More important, I believe only one tribe has "popped up" in California since 2000: the Graton Rancheria.

As for Connecticut, I believe it has four federally recognized tribes, two of which were recognized in 2003 and 2004. The four originally petitioned for federal recognition from 1978 to 1982. That was before IGRA passed in 1988, when bingo was about the only "Indian gaming" available. If petitioning the government 25 years ago after centuries of history is what Yeagley means by "popping up," I guess he has a point.

>> The main criterion for federal recognition, particularly in California, is simply the predetermined site for a casino. When a promising location is found, syndicated managers, politicians, and land developers will all make sure there is a federally recognized tribe there, even if there never was before, and even if they have to run ads in the paper to solicit members for their "create-a-tribe" scheme. <<

This is patently ridiculous, which must be why Yeagley doesn't and can't name a single tribe fitting this description.

>> The BIA has sunken so deeply into fraud and insufferable defamation of Indian dignity that it is a serious question of whether it should be allowed to continue as an agency. <<

"Fraud"? "Defamation of dignity"? The first charge is so weak that Yeagley hasn't tried to prove it. The second charge is so much weaker that Yeagley hasn't even tried to define it.

>> Clearly, the need for a new management system is exigent. <<

Assuming Bush doesn't get himself impeached before 2008, we can choose a new manager and management system then.

>> An American Indian National Bank has been suggested, with Indian currency and serial numbers for each medium of exchange. <<

Yeagley means that he suggested it and others rejected the it. The idea is so lame that he doesn't even want to take credit for it, apparently.

>> Indians do seem reluctant to cut the cord. Indians are the most traditional "romantic" folk in American society. We cling to the past, we find our strength in our past, and we will never part from it. Being a real Indian is not something than can be bought or sold, despite the BIA "sales" in Connecticut and California. The BIA is still an historical link for us, and that's why most Indians tend to cherish it. It is a relic, like our bones, like our arrowheads, like our deer skins. It doesn't matter that it retards our progress; it feeds our memory of our past. <<

Note Yeagley's loaded language here. Cutting the (umbilical) cord, as if Indians are being babied by a paternalistic government. Romantic, a sign of feminine weakness. Clinging to the past, like children holding a mother's apron strings.

Most revealingly, Yeagley compares the BIA to physical examples of Indian history and culture and says both are relics. Here is about as clear a statement of belief as pseudo-Indian Yeagley has provided. Traditional Indian beliefs, cultures, and institutions are relics. Indians should abandon them and assimilate into the mainstream. Yeagley is too afraid to state this radical anti-Indian position openly, but that's what it amounts to.

>> This is the main basis for Indian resistance to ending the BIA. <<

Is it? Yeagley's conclusion is rank speculation, unsupported by anything resembling a fact.

Let's restate what Yeagley considers the "main basis." The BIA has failed, according to him, but Indians are too stupid, naive, or ignorant to realize it. If they were as bright and knowledgeable as he is, they'd agree with him and leave the BIA in droves.

An alternative theory is that the millions of Indians who belong to federally recognized tribes know what they're doing. They accept the BIA's governance because it's better than the alternative. It may be inefficient or incompetent, but it provides some protection from the alternative.

And what is this alternative? Not just an Indian bank but the whole American system—namely, unfettered free-market capitalism. Also known as libertarianism or anarchy, that system allowed America's colonists and pioneers to run rampant over Indian land supposedly safeguarded by treaties. It's now running rampant over the country's remaining protected zones—its national parks, monuments, and forests.

Although Yeagley may not remember this, perhaps real Indians do. Perhaps they don't want another gold or land rush to inundate their territories like a tsunami. Perhaps the federal government has given them far more protection than greedy state and local governments have. Perhaps Indians are smart to keep the BIA as a bulwark, not stupid.

Hmm...tough call. Who are you going to believe? Millions of Indians with hundreds of years of history dealing with the BIA? Or Yeagley, who can't name a single tribe or casino?

>> But now it's time to be brave, and to strike out into a new era of American Indian history. We need to manage our own money. We can do it. We'll be the more Indian for doing so. <<

Now Indians lack courage as well as intelligence? Amazing!

The patronizing paternalism in this statement is so over the top it's repugnant. Hundreds of tribes are successfully managing tribal governments and tribal casinos with budgets of millions of dollars. The tribes didn't lose the Indian trust fund money, the BIA did. Once they settle the Cobell litigation and get the money owed them, they'll undoubtedly manage that money well too.

Yeagley offers zero evidence that tribes are doing anything wrong financially, legally, or morally. He offers zero evidence of any need for his Indian bank. This is another stereotypical essay you can safely toss in the garbage.

Related links
Yeagley the Indian apple
The facts about Indian gaming

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .