Indians, not "Native Americans"

I wasn't sure yesterday whether to use the term Indian or Native American. Michelle Malkin didn't get around to blogging until late last night, but her summary of "blogservations" on Thanksgiving included link to Dr. David Yeagley, writing from the Indian point of view.

(...There is no collective name for "Indians" in any tribal language. The modern term Native American, created in the 1970s by leftists, is ambiguous. Most Indian people don't use it - only what I call the 'university tribe,' college-educated Indians led by white radical professors; and the would-be politically correct media. The name we first held, in the white man's eyes, was 'Indian.' That's what we have been since Columbus. That's what our most famous warriors were called. Believe me, Indians prefer the name "Indian." It is historically specific, whatever its origin. The name holds the emotional, psychological associations of the warrior. The Left, of course, wants to remove that. Hey, call me savage!) Link

Yeagley's view seems to me both charitable and patriotic. Here is part of what he wrote.

White people have to feel like the land is theirs. They grew up here. They've fought and died here.

America! America! God shed His grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood, From sea to shining sea.

A wondrous prayer, a triumphant vision for all - including the Indian? But the Indian was trampled under foot. How then shall this historical tragedy be healed?

Only Indians can heal the breach. That is the first thing Indians must understand. Secondly, strength demands we heal it. Fatherhood demands we bless our son, who comes to us for acceptance - even forgiveness.

He just got too big, that's all. This stray child was the seed of giants. We didn't know. He didn't know how to tell us, either. He was just a kid, remember?

We can choose to disown him, but is that truly noble and brave? We don't have to be like him, but we can still bless him. He feels terrible about what happened. Let's not make it impossible for him to repent.

When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and...blessed him. Luke 15:20.

And why is it hard for the white man to relate to the Indian?

White people are used to being idolized. The fabulous accomplishments of America mesmerize the world. Every race seems ambitious to imitate the cultural ethos of America.

Yet the Indian desires to remain separate in the very midst of the nation.

I believe this troubles the white man deeply. When Indians remain aloof, the white man feels it because the Indian in his heart still condemns the white man. This is unbearably painful.

But the white man need not feel this. He simply needs to understand that the Indian is content with being Indian. The Indian loves being Indian. The white man must simply allow the Indian this freedom.

It is not [meant] as an insult. This is a man to man thing. Let whites be white and Indians be Indian.

The white man would best honor himself in conceding Indianness to the Indian, without protest, or self-condemnation.

The white man hasn't quite grown up on this point. The Indian must patiently lift him up to full psycho-sociological independence.


Dr. Yeagley has a blog aimed for "American Indian Patriots" called Bad Eagle.com. The day before Thanksgiving he posted his views and got beat up in some of the comments. He is not someome to be intimidated, it seems. He said what he had to say anyway. If that's not being charitable, I don't know what is.