Monday, July 7, 2008

Oklahoma Indians, here's your man

Attention uninformed conservative Okies: The advertisement you see to the left is merely a temporary thing. You needn't worry with it any more.

Here's Dr. David Yeagley endorsing Republican Jason Nelson for District 87 House. Now, I don't live in Dr. Yeagley's district so I have no say in who's elected to that seat. And I haven't read anything on our candidate outside Dr. Yeagley's endorsement. What concerns me are the grounds on which Yeagley endorses our Indian-friendly candidate, Mr. Nelson:

If you're an Indian, and you live in District 87 (central Oklahoma City), you must vote for Jason Nelson for your state representative. I ran into Jason yesterday evening, while walking through my neighborhood. He was campaigning, house to house. I spoke a good while with him. I'm convinced, he's the best man for Indians.

No, he doesn't say a word about Indians in any of his campaign material or on his web site. But, I'm telling you, I spoke with him personally, at length. I know what he believes, feels, and thinks about Oklahoma Indians. He's our man! (Also told me his wife was part Chickasaw!)

Now, Dr. Yeagley, how many otherwise white-looking folks in Oklahoma have a bit of Chickasaw or Choctaw or Cherokee running through their veins? This fact Mr. Nelson reveals about his wife surprises you and delights you? I don't get it.

Well, I could go on and on and on about why Dr. Yeagley's encounter with Mr. Nelson on the streets of his neighborhood in OKC cannot possibly have been enough to convince him of all that ... unless he's an utter fool. One single (lengthy) encounter with a candidate selling his candidacy (to an Indian) in his neighborhood and Dr. Yeagley's ready to grab up his megaphone and announce to the world "I know all there is to know about him Indian-wise, he's our man!"? C'mon!

But it does get worse, believe it or not...

As I said, he's not campaigning on this. He also knows the prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives toward the subject of Indian casinos. But he knows this casino binge is a temporary thing. Wise Indian leaders, like Chickasaw Governor Bill Anoatubby for instance, know that the tribes must diversify. They cannot afford to put all their eggs in one basket. They must invest in other businesses besides the entertainment business.

The "prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives" toward the subject of Indian Casinos? Well now, that's about all this prejudiced, fearful, uninformed conservative needs to know right there.

But because this "casino binge" is a "temporary thing," Nelson understands that Indians have to diversify. In other words, this casino thing is not a temporary thing at all, it is, quite to the contrary, and if "wise" Indian leaders have anything to do with it, a long term business venture which the Indian nations have no plans to abandon, only to build upon. Mr. Nelson has secretly confided to Dr. Yeagley (but doesn't say anything about his plans on his campaign website) that he believes Oklahoma has to work with the Indian nations on diversifying in get-rich-quick money making schemes -- you know, cut backdoor deals with them (reduced taxes and whatnot). Look out Oklahoma, if this Republican is elected Pyramid schemes may, for the first time in Oklahoma's history, become legal (Indian) means for making money. And of course it's essential to our State's economic growth that Oklahoma's government work with the Indian nations to make these business schemes legal, at least for Indians.

One last word about "Indian money." I've written about this before, but when I was in Alaska in the early 1990s, there was a push for "homosexual rights" in the state, and more locally in Anchorage. One of the things that homosexuals (and their advocates) engaged in at the time was to attempt to show what a great economic contribution homosexuals were making to the local economy. One way in which they did this was to deface any money that came into their possession by whatever means with a stamp that read "gay money." Indeed, for a time it seemed that virtually all paper currency circulating in the Anchorage area was "gay money," if you were to take what was stamped on it at "face value." That in itself should be enough to illustrate the stupidity of using the term "Indian money." But perhaps Dr. Yeagley would like to start a similar campaign with his Indian brethren and their casino money?

Sorry dad. The more Indians speak, the more I dislike them, notwithstanding all that Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee blood that runs through these veins. I know, I know, my Indian ancestors bought and paid for all this ... stuff. Right.

40 comments: said...

A true conservative would admit that Indian casinos are all based on WHITE money. If you have a problem with Indian casinos, blame your white race, else continue in your racist hypocrisy.

Ever hear of the word "boycot?" I assume ou want to blame Indians for being irresponsible with alcohol? I guess this is the payback, historically. Whites are stupidly irresponsible with their money.

No one is forcing anyone to gamble. Your conservatism is nothing but prejudice. It has nothing to do with principle.

Terry Morris said...

Uh oh, here we go with that racist b.s. again. It ain't just Muslims y'all.

Let's go over a few of the facts there badeagle:

(1) You used the term "Indian money". I pointed out what a stupid term it is.

(2) I boycotted Indian businesses and everything else to do with the Indian nations ... many moons ago.

(3) I cut up my CDIC card also many moons ago.

(4) I've heard that "payback" crap so many times during the course of my lifetime that literally I want to puke. But thanks for making my point and showing what you're about -- payback.

(5) I don't divide my loyalties between the Indian nations and the United States of which Oklahoma is a one. In other words, I don't vote in the Indian elections and then turn around and vote in local, state, and national elections too. That's a violation of principle; of traditional conservatism. But let's not talk principle, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the term means.

Where did I ever say or imply that anyone was forcing anyone else to gamble, by the way? said...

You act like whatever is wrong with Indian casinos is Indians' fault. It's not Indian money that goes into casinos.

And I don't care if you're racist. If you loved your own race, I'd be happy to 'bless' you for it. Somehow, I think you think you're above race. Many whites do. That's the problem. You think your not a "race."

Thus, you manifest a inherent racism toward all other non-white races.

You can get as smart aleck and cocky as you want, but that will convince no one but those like you.

I don't see much hope of beneficial exchange here. I just thought you needed to have your errors of thinking pointed out.

Loving one's race, and refusing to see its errors, are two different things. I don't think you love the white race, at all. Maybe that's a new thought to you. Let it sink in a bit. When you think "Indian casino" think "white money." White politicians. White financers. White syndicate members. White contractors.

Blame yourself, as a race, now and then. It will do you good.

Terry Morris said...

My friend, must I point out again that YOU used the term "Indian money" in your article, I merely pointed out what a stupid term it is to use. In other words, I realize it's white money that fuels the Indian Casinos; Indians do not produce their own money to build and operate casinos with, nor to build homes for their people or provide them with dental and medical care, or with food, and etc., anymore than homosexuals make a dent in the overall economy of any given place. I've been pointing all of this out for years.

But I think you need to apply your own standard to yourself. I've never said or implied that whites aren't to blame for their own stupidity. But it seems you would blame whites for Indian involvement in the corrupt business of gaming. So what gives? said...

What's the problem with the term "Indian money?" I never used the term. I used "the Indian dollar," in reference to money Indian tribes have spent in Oklahoma. When white people foolishly gamble it into Indian hands, it becomes an Indian-controlled dollar. Like it or not.

Energy sources on Indian lands in OK may not be enough to provide a two-car garaged, a sports car, and college education for the kids, but, who's standards are those. You want to fault Indians either way.

As you said, "The more Indians speak, the more I dislike them." As I said, your prejudice is quite apparent.

I suspect you are against the idea of Indian "sovereignty," or "reservations" or any legal differentiation for American Indians? I know white conservative Christians that are, regardless of history, the word of the US government, treaties (which are essentially "internationa), etc. Is this the Christian spirit?

I'm against gambling, morally. How this applies to the economic situation is problematic, however. Nevertheless The tribes of Oklahoma spend their money mostly in Oklahoma. Therefore, I have a hard time perceiving what your objection is, other than sheer prejudice.

Now, if you loved the white race, openly, admittedly, I'd be the first to forgive you. Hypocrisy and dissembling, however, I cannot tolerate. It is most unbecoming to a warrior race. Conscience has not made it cowardly, only hypocritical.

Terry Morris said...

"I suspect you are against the idea of Indian "sovereignty," or "reservations" or any legal differentiation for American Indians?"

Not at all. As I've said many times before, I'm against all forms of dual citizenship because inherent to all forms of dual citizenship is what one might call in legal terms a "conflict of interests." Am I right to suspect that you divide your loyalties between the Indian Nations and the United States? I know a lot of Indians that do.

Exactly why do you say that I don't love the white race openly, admittedly?

Flanders Fields said...

If anything seems to be prejudiced against Indians in the article, or in the linked comment, it seems to be that statement made by Dr. Yeagley in the comment referenced. Also, Bad Eagle seems to be searching diligently to find, and to introduce, racial characterizations in the stead of the reasonable arguments presented in the WB post.

Surely there is no sane person who would buy an endorsement such as that of Dr. Yeagley, and to try to sell it ("to the Indians") on that basis is true hypocrisy, (or is vapid fluff and identity demogagory not hypocrisy?). said...

Terry, you'r not against Indian sovereignty, but you're against dual citizenship.


Treates were made between the US Government and Indian Nations since the days of the Declaration and the Constitution (and before, it was between colonial or state governments).

If you want to change the law you'll have to change history, the Declaration, and the Constitution.

Have at it. (But what's your explanation for the highest per centage of veterans in any group in America being American Indians?)

I think you're grievously misplacing your machoism here. Do you also deny that the war of Northern Agression forever ended the South? said...

Fields, you can't simply deny someone's position by reversing the accusation, and expect that to stand as a valid argument.

Say what you have to say. You're position is intellectually unclear, expect that you want to consider me, the Indian, the racist.

Fine. Pretend you're not a member of any race. That's the general "white" position, as I have said. You just deplayed it loud and clearly.

Like most people, you think racist or racism is a bad word. Okay. Define it, or explain your use of it.

I've defined mine. If you can't deal with that, than offer your own definition. said...

Sorry for the misspelled word, "expect", instead of "except." I find no editing devise on this blog. I would not expect the owner to do the work of editing... said...

Whew! I misspelled more words in those last two posts than in the last two years. Sorry.

When I'm in a hurry, I spell phoneticcally.

I don't deserved to be answered! Is there any opportunity to edit ones post after it's posted?

Terry Morris said...

Dr. Yeagley,

Why is it that you endorse Mr. Nelson for HoR in district 87? Is it not because, as you stated in your article, that he's the best choice for Indians? You may think the best man for Indians is also the best man for Whites, but what you said in your article is that he's the best man for Indians, that he understands Indian concerns and so forth. So your primary concern is who the best choice is for Indians. This is a prime illustration of what I mean by "divided loyalties." Indians as a people and Whites as a people can never have the same interests, whether they think they do or not. Therefore, Indians should be made to decide for themselves where their primary loyalties lie, whether with their tribes and their people, or with the United States. How ever they decide should determine citizenship and all the priveleges and immunities thereof. This should be applied to all people of all races and cultures. No person should be a U.S. citizen and a citizen of England at the same time.

There's no contradiction in my supporting Indian sovereignty and rejecting dual citizenship for Indians. If Indians want to be a sovereign nation, self-supporting, self-sustaining, self-governing, and all that, then I have no problem with that. My problem is with giving Indians dual citizenship under the United States and the Indian nations.

The civil war destroyed way more than just the South.

As far as I'm aware, veterans of the U.S. military are eligible to receive veteran benefits without regard to race. So I'm not sure what you're driving at there, or how it relates to the subject of dual citizenship?

Do you think dead men ought to have power to rule over the living?

Terry Morris said...

"When I'm in a hurry, I spell phoneticcally."

I personally don't view spelling mistakes as that big a deal. I do it all the time, believe me. But if I can make out what you're writing, particularly when the error is an obvious typo, then that's satisfactory with me.

"Is there any opportunity to edit ones post after it's posted?"

Isn't there a trash can icon in the lower left of your posts? If not then no. But I thought that was a function on this blog, I'll have to check.

I can delete them from here if you wish to re-write them.

Terry Morris said...

Also Dr. Yeagley, with regard to what you said to Flanders on race...

In the second sentence of your opening remarks to this blog post, you call me a racist hypocrite without further explanation as to what you mean by "racist hypocrisy." Now, whether you or I like it or not, the modern definition of the word "racist" carries very negative, hateful connotations. Simply stated, a racist, by virtually everyone's definition, is someone who hates another person or group of persons based solely on the other's race. This is usually what people mean when they call others racists.

Then in your reply to my reply to your charge of racism, you reveal that you have no problem with people being "racists", only with those who manifest an inherent racism towards others of different races yet somehow believe they're above race, or that they're not a race.

Now, I don't disagree with you that there's a widespread problem of race denial within the white community, but because this is common within the white community does not mean that I or Flanders or others who visit and post here have been smitten by the same disease. I suspect that because you don't see me stating overtly in every third sentence (so to speak) that "I love the white race", that this is how you conclude I don't. And that's the reason I asked the question the way I did -- "exactly why do you say...?" But it's no more necessary to go about stating "I love my race" than it is to go about stating "I love Christianity," and so on. Have you ever noticed that people who incessantly state "I love you" at the end of their phone calls with their spouses and show such affection in public, usually actually don't; that these displays and statements of affection are generally and actually insincere? Indeed, when I see people doing this, demanding it or coercing it from their spouse at every departure, I'm almost immediately impressed by the obvious superficiality of it all. In other words, I see the very seed of marital breakdown in such expressions generally speaking.

So here's the question:

Who's the more sincere lover of his own race?, the person that trapses about announcing it in every third sentence, or the person who feels no need to do such and rather manifests an overall love for his own race?

But I think it a bit irrational of you to expect anything less than a negative response to your initial charge of racism. If your definition of racism is simply that one loves his own race or prefers it above all others, then fine, we can agree that "racist" is not necessarily a bad term. But given what the term means and the way it's used normally, surely you can see why our initial reactions to the charge were negative?


Anonymous said...

Wow Thank you Mr. Morris,

You were very respectful..something he hasn't learned, even though he has all those degrees.

Yeagley calling people names again...Smart elec and Cocky...

He has an Indian site, but guess what? No Indian can post, he does not allow disagreements with his views, he can't take constructive critism. He is the ultimate racist against his own. Well at least he claims to be Comanche and USES THE INDIAN IMAGE AS HIS MASCOT ON HIS BLOG.

When he sees no beneficial exchange, he writes you off. Banns you. Its his way or no way. He is a complete white racist against all Indian Views and Nations. We are getting really fed up with his talking about US, when were not allowed to respond in kind. He speaks with forked tongue and in circles making himself dizzy. Something I have noticed on his site very plainly is when he is frustrated and angry HE MISSPELLS his words, thats his M.O.

He speaks as though the Indian will follow his endorsement...absolutely none will. He has no followers in the Comanche Nation, he fools not one Comanche, though he has been fluffing it up to our Leaders of late....sumpin up....he doesn't give compliments freely.

I find it so amusing that he is even having this discourse with you, especially when everything he accuses others of, he himself is the biggest racist against any Indian Nation. You are right if you are saying he is doing this for show, his public exclamation is all show, he hates his Indianess. My only question is WHY THE HELL DON'T HE JUST GO WHITE. LEAVE THE INDIANS TO THEMSELVES, STOP USING US, NO INDIAN APPRECIATES IT AT ALL.

Thanks for letting me vent, he won't allow it on his site...I AM 4/4 COMANCHE.

Terry Morris said...


First, thank you for the comments. I'd be very interested in your view of Indian Gaming. For instance, what do you think about all these casinos cropping up all over this state, making it look like a spread-out version of Atlantic City or Las Vegas? Literally I want to cry every time I drive by that monstrosity on I-40 in Shawnee. And it's going to get worse before it gets better. We have a big one going up near my home as we speak.

Now, if you know anything about Dr. Yeagley at all, you know more about him than I. Don't get me wrong, I've known he's around for a while, but I've not read him much until very recently.

That said, I would say that my concluding comment in the original post (the more they speak the more I dislike them) brought about a lot of Dr. Yeagley's initial ire. In other words, I had it coming. I've apologized over at Bad Eagle, and the apology truly is sincere. I'm not going to remove the statement from the post, however, because that would just add confusion to the issue. I will say this however...

I was really prodding at my dad more than anything when I made the statement. I realize how the statement comes across to Indians now that I've thought more about it, and now I wish I had never put it in those terms, but it was really intended as sort of a half-hearted joke. You see, Dad and I don't quite see eye-to-eye on this whole Indian thing. But I want you to know that I don't dislike you or any Indian because of your race. I just didn't care for what Dr. Yeagley wrote in his article, and it came out all wrong in that final statement.

Thanks again for the comments. I hope you'll answer my question about your view of Indian Gaming.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for even ackknowledging me, Udah (Thanks)

I have been in the Indian Casinos from Phoenix to Philadelphia, Miss. I was so amazed at actually seeing real Indians working for a change in their own establishments. Beautiful, Beautiful places in the Deserts using their tradional designs. Apache Gold- San Carlos Indians, Sandia and Isleta casinos in
Albuquetque, Route 66-Laguana Pueblo, Cities of Gold-San Felip Pueblos, Oh-Kay in Sante Fe, Mes-Kwa-Tama Iowa, Dancing Eagle-Laguna Pueblo, Sky City-Acoma Pueblo, Mazatzal-Tonto Apache, Inn of the Mt. Gods- Mescalero, Wild Horse Pass Desert Diamond - Santa ver Pima, Casino Arizona - Pima, Casino Omaha- Omaha Indians, Silver Star& Golden Moon- Choctaw-Philadelphis Ms.. These are the beautiful Places I have visited from Arizona to Mississippi, now I am not a avid player, the most I have ever played was $30 and came out with $200 thats is tops, and I play only penny machines. My sisters love playing and I love the gift shops. And I love to travel my beloved America.

I was so impressed with the beauty and employed Indians out west. In the case of the Pima Indians, they also have their own shopping centers, Discout Cards to Native Americans at these centers, their own sand Co., Waste Co., Telephone Co, and much more, but they had these before the Casinos even came a major thing. Tribes do not rely soley on the Casino Revenue.

Now comes along our Casinos in Oklahoma, not so beautiful and they don't emphasize the "INDIAN THEME". Yes they are toooooo Glarrry, for lack of a better word.

I would like these in Oklahoma to employee Indians only, but they don't. I think they draw a certain amount of corruption, but so do Churches. I see it as a passing thing, but why not benefit while we can. I could not care less if our four Comanche Casinos shut down tomorrow, they employ more non-Indians than Indians. I don't frequent them. The Indians who live here have the same issues as non-natives. That is the only reason I supported the Casinos in the beginning, I thought since they would be solely run by Indians, we would have opportunity the non-indians have had all along with the job opportunities, but it is not so. There has been corruption in the Profits from the beginning. I wanted ours to copy the Southwest Indians and employ Indians only, with Native Themes but it did not happen, Oklahoma is too slow, and we thought we were progressive.

The non-indians do not want the Indians to Prosper, they hold us down at every step, they pass laws without consulting the people it would effect and cater to the Whites. Now don't get me wrong, I have lived here all my life. I know its up to the individual to keep abreast of their own life and surroundings, but when the job opportunities are not there and its a struggle to keep afloat we don't always take interest in the Government as we should.

You are right in a way, we have two Governments to keep tract of, I think that is where we fail as Indians, because we think our own Government is taking the steps to insure our welfare, they don't always do it and we get left out of a lot of opportunities. The state Government does not cater to us if we don't keep up ourselves we lose out. We need to become more aware of our Tribal Governments activities to make sure they are taking advantage of the State level for our Nation.

Long answer, but a lot more could be said. I am just an average Comanche, not Einstien like Yeagley. But unlike him, I know my people, and we all want to provide for our families just as any other American citizen. We are not "HANG AROUND THE FORT DRUNKEN INDIANS WAITING FOR ROTTEN MEAT AND HANDOUTS" Thats his opinion of MY COMANCHE PEOPLE. He needs to read updated material on the American Inians of TODAY..stop romanticising on the past, BUT REST ASSURED WE WILL NOT FORGET OUR PAST, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO RELIVE IT....MY EXCLAMATION BUTTON IS BROKEN..... said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jdogg said...

This comment right here gets at the heart of all that is faulty with your argument...

"How ever they decide should determine citizenship and all the priveleges and immunities thereof."

You are not god nor president, and the the few agreements/treaties that the United States government hasn't broken were the agreements for healthcare (a sad cheap type of healthcare) and to retain our tribal identities through soverignty. I am Comanche and Creek through and through. I represent two tribes, two nations, and I also happen to live in the United States. The U.S. has made an agreement with my people that has nothing to do with you. You and your people are foreigners who came here. You have no choice or say in this matter. You come from elsewhere.

Simple enough?

Terry Morris said...

jdogg, yes, very simple indeed.

I see that you divide your loyalties between the Comanche and Creek Nations. Do you divide them further as a citizen of the U.S.? A three-way citizenship?

You quote my statement as being at the "heart of all that is faulty" with my argument. That's fine. Can you narrow down the faultiness of my arguments any farther? I.e., can you be more specific about how my arguments are faulty?

Obviously I'm not God nor am I the President. But what authority does the latter (the President) have in any case according to your view? In other words, if me and my people are foreigners which have no say in the matter, then our government (the United States of America) is ipso facto illegitimate. Therefore the President (and Congress...) has no say in the matter; no legitimate claim to any authority in the matter whatsoever. Whatever treaties the United States government has entered into with the Indian Nations are therefore illegitimate and without authority.

So why the contradiction? Why do you acknowledge the autority of the treaties between the U.S. and the Indian Nations, yet deny them in the same breath?

Jdogg said...

Actually I acknowledge the present state of things as they are now. This doesn't negate anything about where I live and what role government plays in the place I reside.

I am made up of two nations yes and I reside in a third. It's not that hard to figure out. My loyalties lie with my Father and mother's people. It's not hard for me to reconcile at all.

Terry Morris said...

"Actually I acknowledge the present state of things as they are now."

No you don't. You said that me and my people have no say in the matter. That's denying the present state of things as they are now.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Morris,

We Indians are far from innocent, but we are still here after all that has transpired throught our History, I think it is very interesting. I just wish the American School Systems would apply it as thourougly as they do all the other Peoples' History. It is not a pretty story nor romantic but its OUR STORY, deserves to be known thru the Education System just as we had to learn of the Euros coming
and taking over.

Have you heard of the Papal Bulls? I'm sure you've heard of the INDIAN BILL OF RIGHTS. There is soooooo much information even I as a full blood Comanche is still learning, everyday in speaking with someone, we learn from each other about something.... for instance Sacred Sites. The trouble is the Government has always held it back, because when we learn of
things, WE ASK QUESTIONS. THIS IS TABOO. Lot of Nations in the United States of America and lots of unanswered questions. Lots going thru my head at this moment. I know that the Indian has a lot of issues with the Government, but so do all other peoples.

We did not ask for these things the way they are..they were set in place by the first Foreign People who set out from Europe for Freedom of Religion oppression. These Christian Puritans imposed their immorality and call it being Christian on what they called lazy, dirty starving savages who were unable to take care of the beautiful land they occupied. These Christian Puritans had no clue that the Natives had always taken care of the Natural flow of the Land, that is until the White Euros arrived. Why the Native Americans were the first Ecologists. They followed the Food supply with the Seasons. Just becasue they roamed with the Seasons, the Euros thought they abandoned the land. The Native did not abandom but merely were following the Seasonal bounty. They were not in danger of starving, they knew the ecosystem, they knew that as they moved it allowed the land to rejuvenate. Not with the White Euros, they came they staked claim to a land that was not owned by anyone but shared by all, they took it for their own. they pretened to be friendly and traded for food items, then they took slaves, they killed women and children the geonocide started. The beginning of the end of the Indian story, because the Government does not want the truth told. This was started by the White Puritan Colonists, so they could reign on the White Throne, as Yeagley likes to point out so very often, and yes he is direct descendant of these White European Puritan, the ultimate racists.

Terry Morris said...


Thanks again for your point of view. It's a point of view I've heard all of my life.

I'm not sure what to tell you other than this, why don't you advocate for complete Indian autonomy as part of a genuine Indian sovereignty? In any event, no one that I know of is stopping you from telling your story of Indian suffering to Indian children. But if it resulted in some kind of a subversive Indian revolt, then here we'd go again.

Christians consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Whenever the Bible says something plainly that can only be taken literally, then that's the way Christians interpret it (the plain things are the main things). In the opening pages of the Bible (Genesis) God tells man (Adam) to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it." That "subdue it" part means something to Christians. We don't just take what God said prior to that and reject the rest of it. Christians believe that the whole Word of God is truth, not just parts of it.

In a way I wish for you that you'd lived your life four hundred years ago when this continent was pure and undefiled by the presence of whites. Perhaps you'd have been a happier person then.

J said...

The term racist gets tossed around these days with little forethought about what it actually means, or has meant in the past. In todays world the term "racist" is accepted without question as a bad term and for good reason since the generally accepted on the street definition, which can be summed up with "Intolerance or hate, the abuse of a person or group of people based on the color of their skin.", this definition has spread like wildfire engulfing entire nations in its devastating flames. And we are left with the charred remains of what used to be the idea that different groups of people are exactly that different, and now we find ourselves wandering through the ashes knowing that we cannot state any concerns or views about a group of people other than our own without immediately being labeled racist. This in my opinion is a sad state of affairs, when and why did it become so wrong to display an interest or concern about the effects of other ethnicities on your particular society? The common definition of racist in todays world cannot just be applied to white people, that is racist in itself by todays standard right? So we are left in the mix labeling each other racists accusing one anothers ancestry of being racist towards are own, this futile battle continues to rage onward as we speak. So where does the current common definition of racist originate from? Well some people will argue that it is a much needed representation of the facts that history has displayed for us, I tend to disagree with that for several reasons. I myself claim, by no means to be an expert on this subject I am just your average American, with the same access to our history that anyone else has. But by my definition of racism which is in no way associated with todays, the term racist simply means "A person that has come to the realization that separate groups of people are different in their ideas religion and customs." now some are going to say that this is simply denying the truth, or it is just a highly sugar coated version of the facts at hand. I'm not trying to personally settle an issue that people have been debating for years, what qualifications do I have to do so? Nor am I claiming that these are my uninfluenced or original thoughts on the subject, I will be the first to tell you that it simply isn't the case. But I have been blessed by my creator with the gift of reason, a gift that he has in trusted to all of us so we are able to discern truth from falsehood and right from wrong. So I ask the question is it hate or intolerance that leads a person to have concerns about other races and their effects on his or her society? Or is it just our own human nature trying to reveal to us the undeniable truth that we as separate groups of people are different? Let us exercise our gift or reason here and try our best to use it for the purpose that God intended it for, and not let it be clouded by todays display of constant name calling and endless bickering. In closing I humbly request that you do not allow yourselves to be engulfed in the flames of this current state of affairs and, reply to this with an onslaught of what I fear will be passionate reactions to what I have said here, but instead you allow yourselves to "Reason from past to present, and allow experience the least fallible guide of human opinions be appealed to for an answer to these questions".

Terry Morris said...


Not to be too nitpicky, but since this is my blog I'm going to make the following request of you:

Please try to follow the example of some of the other commenters here. Which is to say, try to break your comments down into paragraph form. You see, a lengthy comment like you've written above is somewhat difficult to follow when there are no breaks in it such as that which I'm going to insert here.

I see that you put your final statement in quotes. Does this mean that you're quoting an historical figure or something? If so I don't recognize the quote so I'd appreciate your giving attribution and citing some reference. But the statement does bring another quote to mind from Noah Webster:

"But reason without revelation is a miserable guide, it often errs from ignorance, and more often from the impulse of passion."

I think this was a general view among our Founding generation, and I certainly hold it to be truth. So we have to be careful about appealing to reason and reason alone. This is part of what Christianity and the doctrine of Divine Providence teaches us.

j said...

Mr. Morris,

I ask that you forgive the haste that I wrote my former comment in, I meant no disrespect toward you or the readers of your blog. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience I have caused you or your readers. And rest assured that any further comments of great length will be written within the standards that you and your readers have established.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Morris,

Thats the problem...when WE INDIANS point out an issue the way we see it, and all we would like is to have the truth it in the school systems you think we are UNHAPPY. I have a loving family and three kids and 8 Grandchildren, we are not destitute. Now that would make me an uhappy person.

Design by Yeagley has already set in place that any outspoken Indian woman that is over 55 is and OLD MEAN, MALCONTENT, JEALOUS, whiney...he has got to you it seems.....since you think I am unhappy.

The Indian Stories ARE being placed out there, and it is thru out Comanche Nation College. I hope you change your attitude about our stories becoming "AN INDIAN REVOLT". Geeze, yeagley has really gotten to you.

I apologize again for getting off the topic of "OKLAHOMA INDIANS, HERE'S YOUR MAN". Contrary to anothers' belief....INDIANS do apologize.

There is not much more than I can say, since you say that you have heard it all your life, I can only guess that I bored you to no end...sorry.

jdogg said...


I'm saying that the rules are written with your government. You and your people have no REALISTIC say in this matter in that the government to government relationship has been established. Really all you can do is accept this or whine about it under the guise of your political views, i.e. conservatism.

Understand now?

jdogg said...

I wouldn't apologize to this guy anymomous. It seems he is the bitter one and sees only negative comments within Native points of view such as yours.

Also he seems very curiously interested "allegiances " as if we were all going to war in the near future and he needs to know which "side" of the fence you live on, or more precisely he may subscribe to the whole age old anglo conservative adage of where his "taxpayer" money goes. He most likely and incorrectly assumes that he has a say in what agreements his own government has made, long before he was born.

It's trite and I've seen it all before. It's nothing new but it seems to continue in the heart of the midwest, this ignorance or selective memory of United States history.

If anyone is bitter it is Terry, for he cannot see reality as it is, but only as he wishes it to be perhaps.

Terry Morris said...


Yes, yes, I get it now. That me and my people have no "realistic" say, instead of simply no say unqualified as you put it before, makes all the difference.

Thank you for your very enlightening comments.

Apparently you subscribe to the idea with Yeagley that dead men ought to have power over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites. And to make sure that these dead men retain their power over the living, you work tirelessly and ceaselessly within two separate governmental frameworks to establish the inviolability of the agreements made between one group of dead men and the other -- so long as the rivers flow and ... whatever.

But like Dr. Yeagley, you're not quite convinced that me and my people have no (realistic) say in the matter, so you go about trying to affect the outcome of the U.S. elections to ensure it. In other words, your statements are again self-contradictory. If you could keep from contradicting yourself you'd sound a lot more reasonable, don't ya know.

But anyway...


I find Dr. Yeagley to be oddly interesting. But his position is rather incoherent as far as I can tell. Like Call Me Mom, I find his manner of writing confusing as hell. I can't make heads or tails out of what he's trying to say to be honest with you. It is therefore impossible that he's "gotten to me" as you say, because I can't understand him. I'm speculating here, but it seems to me that he's trying to speak a hybrid dialect -- Indlish?

Last but not least, J,...

It's not that you've offended anyone, it's just that it's hard to follow a lengthy comment with no breaks. I appreciate your pledge to honor my request though.

Anonymous said...


Indians are just naturally polite, it seems though that the white world thinks this is submissiveness. We are polite and observant (not subservant) up to a point.

I just happen to notice that Doctor Yeagley wanted him to post him off air, so I just figured Doctor Yeagley did his ying/yang on him, thats the reason he calls me "Unhappy" and wishes me back to the "GOOD OLE DAYS."
"ON SECOND THOUGHT...IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO RIDE ALONG SIDE LOZEN, OR TAVE PETE EXCEPTIONAL WOMEN WARRIORS. On second thought..I can't shoot a bow from a horse or for that matter even ride one. I best stay in the modern world..but that doesn't mean I will ever forget what happened to my People......and want the TRUTH KNOWN.

Thanks J.D.

Mr. Morris says he has heard it all his LIFE, I can only guess that its from his parents first, their parents and so on. My Mother and Father never spoke ill of the White people, or nothing I can remember, the things I know, I experienced the prejudiced myself, on the buses, at school, at the stores, so on and so on, you know what though....when I leave Oklahoma....the prejudice seems to be left behind also. This American is a beautiful place...when we put aside our prejudices. The birthplace of myself is where I should feel most comfortable, by speaking out...maybe the Christian foreigners to "THE LAND OF THE RED MAN" Oklahoma, will one day see the light.

I hope Mr. Morris can get to know more of the Indians ways in person and not just heresay, but I doubt that will happen. People just tend to stick to their own, nothing bad or wrong about that, except you never really get to know each other.

Terry Morris said...


On the whole you've been very polite, and I appreciate that. And I don't count it some kind of a weakness, by the way. Indeed, it reveals a strength of character that I wish more people possessed.

Now, if I've misinterpreted what you've said then let the fault be my own. But isn't part of what you're saying, in point of fact, that whites have defiled this land with their presence here? If not then I stand corrected.

jdogg said...

I'm still not sure where you think I'm contradictory and exactly what point your trying to make? It's confusing as all get out.

Also, I don't really work tirelessly at anything politically. I vote, that's about it. Where you decided to make me a political activist is really curious and and odd tangent, perhaps because you have no real argument.

The dead people you refer to I assume are the makers of the constitution, writers of treaties, creators of laws. If you want to change the laws that is your perogative but I can't imagine you'll go very far with that idea. Funny thing about agreements and the like, they were meant not to be broken and you know, made to adhere to.

No the only reason you and others like you whine about the state of Native america is because you feel disenfranchised. It's highly ironic in that if you ever paid a visit to Native American, particularly the Navajo rez or some of places in SD, you'd come to find that things are not all rosy in "tax free" world.

Anglos can be funny. Back in Oklahoma everyone thought i got a check in the mail for being Indian and in Texas people asked if we lived in teepees still.

Anglos can more often than not have a very warped idea of Native america and this informs their thinking oftentimes, sadly. They can have very strong argument built upon shoddy framework; the foundations are flimsy and it only gets worse from there.

As a Native, we can and have to live in this country we call the US of A and we continue to be tribal peoples. It's not hard but anglos can make it sound hard.

And so we come back to what I think is at the heart of your argument, how can I live and participate in this country while staying Native? The answer is simple, you just do. Your practice your ceremonies, you try to reclaim your languages that you were forbidden to speak by US of A and you keep on keeping on. You do it for your families and your children. You do it cause your Native.

It's really not that difficult when you don't have any other choice. Perhaps it's just a Native thing and you wouldn't understand? When one is part of something greater than themselves, when one has an actual culture, you just contribute and participate and continue it. It's that easy.

Being without culture, it may be difficult to empathize.

Terry Morris said...


It's not my purpose to be your enemy, truly. You're an American and I'm an American, and if nothing else, that should unite us ... at least to a certain degree.

When I say that your argument is "self-contradictory", this is what I mean:

You vote in the U.S. elections by your own admission. Additionally, you're here arguing a political perspective (am I right to assume that you also argue the same perspective with friends and relatives; people in your circle of influence?, perhaps even at other blogs and websites?). If you really thought that me and my people (and you and your people by implication) had no say in the matter, why would you waste your time voting and arguing your position?

Thomas Jefferson (among others) certainly didn't believe that dead men had/have any power to rule over the living. I can provide you with a few quotes if you like.

Thanks for the comments.


jason Asenap said...

I vote. You vote. He and she votes.

Treaties were made, for the land you live in by your government. All of them were broken to some degree by the government. The government broke it's word time and time again.

What it seems your advocaing is another lie, another failure to comply with an agreement.

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.

Your focused on this us against them mentality. I am not interested in that. I have many friends of all colors and nationalities. We have drinks, dinner, etc.

It doesn't seem that I could do that with you at all, American or not.

However, have a good night.

Terry Morris said...

Well now, there ya go. I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Morris,

"I rest my case"

I hope your not one of those Judges that are in for life...that makes a decision that ruins a life because of ill conceived feelings. I would absolutley never be a "JUDGE", I have my opinions, but they are mine, I have a right to them.

I am very curious about how your Father feels about the Native American. Did I miss the explaination, other than what was said something to the effect that... the more we speak the less you like us?

I think Jason sounds like a very upright Educated Indian Male making his case with words..not violence...we need more Indian men to speak up and out, actually Indian Women too, thanks Jason. Indians that have been INDIANS ALL THEIR LIVES AND ARE PROUD OF IT...NOT YEAGLEY COMES LATELY....I REST MY CASE....OOPS.

Terry Morris said...


Jason's fine, he just has trouble following the train to the caboose, that's all.

Yeagley quit the conversation because he realized that to answer those questions, either way, would expose a contradiction in his thinking...

I'm not going to speak for my Dad more than just in broad terms like I've already spoken. If he wants to share in more detail his beliefs concerning Indians and Indian affairs, then that's his to do. Remember, though, I also said that Dad and I don't quite see eye-to-eye on the Indian question. There's also at least one more post in the Webster archives which explains a bit more about my Dad's feelings concerning Indians. But in a nutshell, Dad's quite a bit more sympathetic to Indians than I am.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, and Thank your Dad,

I like your dad already....I don't give out my likes loosely either.

You said expressions of display are just for show. But I do like a hug once in a while....Chairman Coffey gave me one yesterday, made me feel good considering yeagley says "the old women cause the trouble in our Nation" Chairman Coffey knows better. I don't even have to kiss up to him either, like you know who tries, in fact I the Chairman respects Honesty up front. Chairman Coffey is my Comanche family.