Sunday, July 13, 2008

My Indian opponent finally comes clean


Jason A., a.k.a. jdogg, finally comes clean with me about his attitude concerning his Indianness and how it trumps his Americanness, among other things.

Jason's revelations, of course, are no surprise to me. I've been stating repeatedly in our discussion in this thread that this is the case; that anyone (not just Indians, but certainly Indians too) having dual citizenship must, by virtue of that dual citizenship, divide his loyalties between the two competing entities. And anytime this happens, one of the two is going to take precedence over the other. For Jason, he's an Indian first, and an American ... somewhere down the line.

Jason writes:


You are American, I am Native first, then American. What you argue for makes you basically my enemy. It's against the best interests of my people.

If I had it my way a statement like that would automatically disqualify such person making the statement from being a U.S. citizen. But we ain't there yet.

Well, Jason thinks that what I'm advocating is against the best interests of his people. But as I've been pointing out all along, in that thread and elsewhere, it can never be in the best interest of his people nor in the best interest of my people for his people or my people, or any people for that matter, to have dual citizenship in two distinctive political entities with two distinctive sets of interests. This is clearly and simply an impossibility. And what more evidence of the fact do we need than Jason's own hostile admission?

Another of my positions that Jason complains about is my perfectly reasonable position that dead men should have no power to rule over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites, or in this particular case both. (I brought this out with Yeagley earlier in the discussion, at which point he abandoned the conversation. But can you blame him? I mean, think about it, what would it mean either way he answered the question?)

In other words, there is no law or treaty or constitution, nor any contract negotiated between men that can ever have the oppressive force of being sacredly and inviolably binding on future generations who do not willingly give their consent to it. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independence states "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no truth more evident to my mind (no truth more self-evident) than that "the governed" of which Mr. Jefferson speaks are in fact "the living."

Most of you are also aware (though I wonder about Jason) that the DoI also states "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it." Again, we're talking about the living here, which means, people alive at this particular moment in history; me and you. For how can dead men alter or abolish anything in the here and now? But let us turn our attentions to the word "alter" in the foregoing statement for just a moment.

Jason seems to believe that if we decide to alter any point in any treaty made between dead whites and dead Indians, to his peoples' perceived disadvantage, then whites have once again broken the terms of an agreement that he believes is written in stone for all eternity. Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites. I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to be a slave to anyone, living or dead. But I'm telling you folks, I know a lot of Indians of one degree or another, and this is the general attitude among those that I know. I'm not saying all Indians share this view, I'm simply saying that this is the general attitude among Indians I know personally.

But Jason's attitude makes me wonder whether the main point of contention between Indians and whites, which is now commonly understood to be the fault of whites because they/we broke the terms of the bargain, is in fact this very point of a difference in governmental philosophy? For is it not so that a Paternal attitude toward the government of men is in direct conflict with that form of government which our founding fathers established on this continent? We know that our founding fathers borrowed much from Mr. Locke who, in his treatise on Government thoroughly dispenses with the idea of Paternal authority as a ruling principle among free men.

Anyway, I don't want to delve into it in this particular post, but I think it can be shown that the fourteenth amendment, the establishment of a U.S. citizenship, and all the things we've discussed before which derive therefrom, relates very closely to this whole issue of dual citizenship. Perhaps I'll take that up in a future entry. Stay tuned.

(Incidentally, the image I've posted above is titled, of all things, Founding Fathers. Am I seeing a problem or six here?)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

No problem with the image, except that Quannah should be included with the other Warriors, Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull, Geronimo and Red Cloud(?)

The Government will do what is best for who is in office, not the General population.

JDOGG as a Native American, has a right...NO.. a responsibility to defend his Proud Heritage, just as you. Its time...for we are assimilating into the White Word rapidly. As ugly a reputations the Reservations have had and still have, I have to respect these people who are fighting(my nephew who is a Comanche Police Officer says they are asking them to come to S.Dakota because of the uprising) as I type, for their lands, mountains, minerals and rivers. I respect that very much. I only hope things will work out for these people. If it were possible, I I would be up there helping in any way possible. I'm sure you would fight for the land you live on and paid for. No one would give it a second though....but when its Indian fighting....all hell breaks loose, aye?

We live differently here in OKLAHOMA. We live the same as you do, I know you know this, since you say you know many Indians. We have our allotted lands, thats the only thing difference, and that is one of the reasons the prejudice is so high, though most of the population never took the time to find out the history of the "BOOMERS" AND "SOONERS". Indians Know.....

I think yeagley abandoned the conversation because he cannot for long endorse the Native Americans, especially locally, its not in his Heart. We know him. We are his claim to fame in the White World away from Oklahoma(those he can fool). The White people are enthralled with the Native American, this he latched onto and is using his Indianess to the fullest. After bing White for over 50 years, he turned Indian suddenly in the last six years. Yes the Indians are still being used by the White Man...it won't stop until we are all DEAD MAN WALKING.

priyanka said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Terry Morris said...

To whom it may concern,

I'm not interested in converting this blog into a money making venture, nor in providing you an advertising outlet for your scheme. In any event I wouldn't need your assistance. I have my reasons. Thanks but no thanks.

Now please go away.

jdogg said...

Several things,

First of all, to come clean is to assume that I was hiding anything in the first place. I hide my Comanche/Creek identity from no one. Just because you fail to grasp the ideas behind Native identity and pride, it does not make it a secret.

Secondly, I'd like you to take my name off of your website/blog. I don't want my name associated it in any way.

Thirdly, are you really that surprised that I would consider myself a Comanche and a Creek before an American? After all that has been done to Indian Country you would have the nerve to expect that I would just simply do away with my Native identity to make you and others like you feel better? This is simplistic thinking at its worst.

There is nothing hostile about my admission of Native identity and pride in such, in fact, I think it is you who consider it hostile because it goes against your very narrow conservative ideas of what is "American". It is possible to have be American and Native, Native American one might even call it? Native people volunteer in times of war in numbers disproportionate to our population.

Also it should be stated that I speak for MYSELF. I am not a spokesman for Indian country nor would I want to be. It may be easier for you to assume that my way of thinking of typical of all Natives, but it would be lazy and incorrect. That type of thinking lacks any sort of discipline and leads to stereotype.

Also lets look at this quote from you,
"Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites."

That's fascinating, especially since I never said this in any of the posts between you and I. You have a bad tendency to put words in my mouth.

What you see as the rules of dead men I see as some of the last agreements left that weren't broken. The U.S. government crossed its fingers on just about every agreement it made with us. And of those agreements, we could go even further into the various land thefts in Oklahoma, the Osage murders for Oil, the list goes on and on. Reading Angie Debo might do you some good and give you a little context.

If you cared anything about your government/country's word and honor, you might reconsider some of your ideas.

Jdogg said...

We are also forgetting one very important thing here.

I was a Comanche and a Creek first before an American by virtue of the very fact that these people were here BEFORE there was an America.

This is what irks me about English only proponents. Comanche, Creek, Kiowa, along with a host of other languages were spoken in Oklahoma BEFORE there was an Oklahoma. The languages are still alive, despite many attempts by the U.S. government to beat it out of us in boarding schools. The languages are also still alive and we are trying to revive them.

This use of absurd use of selective memory and history has got to stop. There WERE people here before there was a country and a state you know?

WE ARE STILL HERE.

Terry Morris said...

Jason,

I've changed the post to reflect your wishes concerning your identity.

-Terry