Guest Post: Does the U.N. Love American Indians?

The United Nations has made great profession of honor toward American Indians. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (September, 2007) lauded the existence and preservation of all tribal peoples of the earth, and promised to protect them. Has the UN made any effort to protect American Indians? I discussed the matter today (November 17) on the Scott Hennen radio show. (UN advocate Ellen Ratner was also a guest.)

The continual removal of American Indian images, names, and logos from American college campuses, from secondary and elementary schools, says no. The United Nations, despite its lofty professions, has not lifted a finger to prevent this protracted genocide against American Indians.

Speaking of genocide, the United Nations Mandate of 1948 vowed to prevent genocide, and provided a definition of genocide which included “serious mental harm to members of the group,” whether the harm was done to aspects of the “national, ethnical, racial, or religious group” (Article II b).

The removal of American Indian images, names, and logos from public view comprises an act of genocide, according to the United Nations. I have appealed three times to the United Nations now:American Indian Genocide: An Appeal to the United Nations(September 26, 2011); Indian Removal II: 2nd Appeal to the United Nations (September 28, 2011), and American Indian Images: An “Indigenous Right” (September 30, 2011). I addressed Mr. Francis M. Deng, Mr. Juan Méndez, and Mr. Edward Luck, Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide, all. As yet, I have received no response. I will continue to pursue this matter, according to law. (I have presently an Oklahoma conservative attorney who is most interested in filing against the United Nations. At this point, however, I wish to enlist the support of the UN, rather than to create an adversarial relationship.)

The United Nations is clearly committed to the preservation and protection of the “mental integrity,” of all tribal peoples. In the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the commitment is stellar. Article 15 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in educationand public information.”

Indians should have control over our public image, indeed. But how can we if there is none?

From the beginning, the principle force behind the removal of American Indian images, particularly those on American universityand college campuses, has been the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Of course, when the United States Commission of Civil Rights published their statement against Indian mascots, the NCAA used that as a justification of Indian genocide. The truth is the NCAA had listened to Leftist-trained professional Indian protesters before that.

But no one ever listened to what American Indian people had to say. We have been surveyed by professional statistic-gathering companies on mascots. In 2002, in the March 4 issue of Sports Illustrated, the Peter Harris Research Group reported that 81% of Indians surveyed (off reservations) did not feel Indians mascots contributed to prejudice or discrimination against American Indians. The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Foundation conducteda survey of Indians in 2004 which revealed that 91% of Indians found the “Washington Redskins” moniker “acceptable.” As Betty Ann Gross (Sioux) reported to Sports Illustrated, “There’s a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the Native American population on this [mascot] issue.”

In my appeals to the United Nations, I have cited the NCAA and the USCCR as the principle offending agents in the genocide against American Indians. Indeed, in 2009, the Civil Rights of the Dakotas (a local group in Sioux Falls) called for the elimination of the USCCR altogether. The same might be said for the NCAA, although, as a mere athletic community tournament organizer, the NCAA need simply eliminate its genocide policy toward American Indians.

In my interview with Hennen I emphasized the potential of the American Indian as a key contributor to American patriotism. I believe the Indian is the most essential element in the mix, in fact. However, I confessed that, among professional conservative talking heads, there are simply no talking points about American Indians. Until now, conservatives have simply not seen the Indian as an important item. They view the Indians as a welfare recipient, thus ignoring all the history of war, blood, and treaties—the very force behind the Indian warrior images glorified in the mascots.

I hope the United Nations will help preserve the Indian warrior image everywhere.

David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. He writes at, and is a contributor to Front Page magazine.

Related posts

  • NA

    You people make me throw up!  Just because you lost the nickname fight you are trying to pretend that you support native american issues.  The Sioux tribe has kids killing themselves, alcohol and drug abuse and the highest unemployment rate in the nation.  How will a nickname save them?  When was the last time you heard a Sioux child say, wow, if it wasn’t for the UND nickname I would have killed myself.  When the ND legislature had the opportunity to vote on issues that would help the Sioux, they said NO!  But they said yes to a nickname?  Sickening to see people hiding behind some pretend concern for Native Americans in an effort to save a nickname.  

    • Camsaure

      Wow, You really are a racist! Why do you hate the Sioux?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        You sound like a demented hobo.

    • intheknow

      WOW, what a racist!   Why all the hate toward the Indians?  You should seek some professional help.

    • yy4u2

      Do all the so-called minorities live in tribes or on reservations?  Seems the ghettos and barrios have the same problems with crime, killing, abuse of drugs and alcohol, and higher unemployment that whites.  Oh, just thought of it, the Dems are trying to help them all out.  Now go back to throwing up.

  • SP

    How should the UN preserve Native American culture vis-a-vis mandating certain collegiate sports marketing?  Is some variety of this actually what you are supporting? 

    My high school mascot was/is/will be ‘The Red Raiders.’  Would you like the UN to intervene in order to make sure they don’t change it?  Send in the blue helmets?

    • Onslaught1066

      Listen, Sparklenutz, An Occutard friend of yours and your wonderful
      wife, was recorded as making a threat to use a Molotov Cocktail against
      Macy’s Department store.

      Now, if this occutard throws one of these Molotov Cocktails at Macy’s,
      and if they don’t bother to go inside first, will this count as
      “Throwing bottles or breaking windows or anything like throwing bottles
      or breaking windows” or will it simply be dismissed by you and your wife
      as an WMD and nothing out of the ordinary.?

      BTW, how is the little woman? in good health, I trust.

      • Demosthenes

        Are you Drunk or Stupid? I am going with stupid. I could barely read your horrific attempt at a sentence and paragraphing.

        All I got out of it was that you had been drinking a Moltov Cocktail( at a bar?) and in walked a WMD?!?!?

        Please make sense of your comment or don’t write at all.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Demented and stupid would be more accurate.  I don’t think he has enough money to buy alcohol.

          • Guest

            So says the dead beat tax cheat known as willie B.

          • Onslaught1066

            But you do, Thunderbird and kool Aid, if I don’t mistake the symptoms.

        • Onslaught1066

          In his speeches, Aeschines often uses the pederastic
          relations of Demosthenes to attack him. The essence of these attacks was not
          that Demosthenes had relations with boys, but that he had been an inadequate

          An interesting moniker you’ve concocted for yourself, Demo, old goat.

          Are you actually greek, or do you just play one in bathhouses?

          • Demosthenes

            You can make sense! In response to me at least.

            Your quote is most likely direct from Wikipedia. While this was a Greek Demosthenes and a political speaker, which I can see how you relate it to this blog and my moniker(I would argue this is a correct term for it, as it is not a nickname or in reference to my true name).

            I am using the pseudonym Demosthenes from Novella Series “Ender’s Game”. Now, I must also state that I am using the pseudonym of the name and do not agree with all of the fictional characters view points.

            I am not from Greece at all, Neither does any of my family tree trace back to there. I do not pretend or play acting to be a person from Greece in “bathhouses”. In fact I am not quite sure where to find a bathhouse in North Dakota.

          • Onslaught1066

            I am not from Greece at all

            In that case, I take back every nasty thing I was thinking about you.

  • Vlad

    I would fire your attorney in Oklahoma and hire one with an interest more in line with yours.  If he wants to file against the UN than he is using your case to further his interest of attacking the UN and not to further your interests.

  • David Yeagley

    You may be right, Vlad, but, I don’t see the interests as conflicting.  Many conservatives in America want to see us get out of the U.N., completely.  At this point, I would like to see the UN simply make an effort to enforce the protective measures it so proudly professions.   If I file anything, it would be an effort to get the UN to enforce its principles, not because the UN has committed a crime (other than neglect).  There are Indian tribes who want to be recognized as nations by the UN.  It is a status symbol, essentially.  The truth is, American Indian tribes simply could not survive as independent nations.  We are affined to America, and the American government.  I say, make the best of this situation. 

    • Demosthenes

      I find your method as an attempt to use loop holes. While I applaud your effort and agree the nickname should stay I also agree with Vlad. this will get you nowhere fast, are you paying for this? better yet am I?

  • David Yeagley

    What is the loop hole?  Did you read the UN statements about genocide in the 1948 mandate?  It includes “serious mental harm,” and concepts so broad that the US never signed on until 1968.  The Declaration (2007) is even more inclusive about what comprises “rights.”  I don’t see anything wrong with trying to use these international concepts as a means of correcting what I feel is historical abuse.

    Maybe you mean a “stretch,” rather than a “loop hole.”  A loop hole means you’re trying to get out of something, to escape something.  I’m trying to enforce something, something already stated and bragged about. 

    “Genocide” may be a stretch of the common understanding of the word.  But that’s my point.  The UN has already stretched it.  I just want them to enforce it. 

    • Demosthenes

      The loop hole I am talking about and thought it was clear is that the COLLEGE nickname is somehow causing ‘serious mental harm’ by removing it? You could argue you are TRYING to get out of of having to change the name.

      You are correct I could have been clearer, it was only a thought on your approach. I will still will be surprised if anything actually comes from your efforts and I still like you are trying something different to keep the name.

  • chris

    In truth, it is hard for our culture to not be racist against American Indians.  Let’s start out with the name “Indian” which was a title they were given when Christopher Columbus had accidentally thought he landed in India, and the mistaken identity had stuck with these poor souls this whole time.  Should we stop calling them Indians?  Probably not, after all they have no problem calling themselves Indians, but we should at least be aware it isn’t the most appropriate name to refer to them.  Indians are from India.

    Then let´s go on to Thanksgiving, which is obviously a way to cover up the disgrace of what we did to them by attempting to eat an “Indian” supper, pretending they’re sitting at the table beside us in brotherhood.  Basically we´re “thanking” them for their hospitality and for giving us their land and everything else they owned.  Should we stop celebrating Thanksgiving?  Probably not, but we should be aware of the hidden horrors that this celebration reminds us of every year.

    Now let´s go on to the Indian names and mascots in sports teams.  By using their names and making silly cartoon caricatures of Indian faces, you´re seriously demeaning them and stereotyping their culture.  Does it mean we should take down all Indian references from the sports world?  Probably not since most of them don´t care anymore nowadays, but we should understand that all of these things we do to trivialize their identity brings into light the barbarism of our own culture more than anything else.
    Nowadays it would be hard to figure out how to really bring back dignity to their culture and identity but I assure you that Thanksgiving and mascots are not the way.

  • robert108

    In the first place, it’s the real Indians who should be insulted to be compared with a primitive, Stone Age civilization.  The American migrants from Asia should be complimented to be compared with a much more advanced civilization.
    Thanksgiving was a celebration of the free enterprise system, which had replaced the original communal system originally used by the Pilgrims.  They not only had enough for themselves, they had enough to share with the locals.

    • chris

      “primitive” and “stone age” does not justify genocide.  We should work on preserving what dignity they have left of their culture, not further take it away.

      • robert108

        I didn’t “justify genocide”, so stop lying.

  • David Yeagley

    I don’t know how to make links on this blog, but, I hope you have time to look at these.  They will be very educational, both historically, linguistically, and ethnically.  Most arguments on this Indian mascot subject are based on much ignorance (lack of information) and bias. 

    Why I’m An Indian—not “Native American”

    Thought For Columbus Day: Was Columbus An Indian? Are Asians Indians?

    In Sanskrit, the word for “river” is SINDHU.  Sindhu was what the people of the great river valley were called.  Then the Aryans (Persians) came, they mispronounced it “hindu,” with a healthy “h.”  The people of the great river was simply Hindu. 

    In 13th century Medieval Latin, the term for the river became Indus, the territory, India.  However, in the English language, the term for the people was Hindu, the land, Hindustan.  Hindu did not refer to a religion, or a culture, originally, but to a people living in a certain geographic area.  Yes, their language and culture, and religion, was included in the meaning of “Hindu.”  But it was basically a people.

    I refer to people from India as Hindu, not Indian.  This is historically incorrect, in the English language (and in many other European languages.

    I don’t mind informing people of these things.  It is my duty.  

    Chris, you write, “the mistaken identity had stuck with these poor souls.”  You regard Indians as “poor souls”?  As victims of a misnomer?  Why?  Are you condescendingly liberal, or do you really mean what you’re saying?  Was it just an expression?  I don’t know. 

    I know that Indians, except for a few liberally-trained professional protesters and media Indians, prefer to be called Indian.  I for one greatly resent the influx of Hindu foreigners usurping our historical name here on this continent.  They are Hindu, and should be called Hindu–from their own language.  If we’re going to be politically correct, let’s be consistent.  Or, is “politically correct” an oxymoron itself?

  • David Yeagley

    To call people from India “Indian” (instead of Hindu) is historically incorrect.  My fourth from the last paragraph was a bit unclear.