Imagine that someone by the name of Hussein Abdullah Mohammed, or some such, were running for Choctaw Indian Chief. Imagine that this same Hussein Abdullah Mohammed (or some such) could not and/or would not provide proof of his degree of Indian blood when requested by a suspicious member of the Choctaw tribe. What would be the likely reaction from Choctaw Indian voters?
Racists!; Extremists!; Wackos!!!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
What's in a name?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Terry,
Are all the Native Americans you know this hung up on race-or are you just lucky in the ones who choose to post a comment on your site?
...but he has my vote because McCain picked Palin!
Well, that's about as good a reason to vote for Hussein Obama as there is.
Mom, I'm assuming this is the same anonymous commenter that we dealt with a while back. She's here complaining again that I don't welcome Indians. That I don't cater to Indians that exude her attitude means to her that I don't welcome Indians.
That's an unforetunate bias on her part, Terry.
I just seem to notice a lot of race comments from those claiming Native American heritage both here and over at Mr. Yeagly's blog as well. I was wondering if it is a common thing.
Well, that's about as good a reason to vote for Hussein Obama as there is.
On re-reading the above statement, I think I may need to clarify what I intended.
It wasn't meant as a disparaging remark towards Governor Palin. While I think she is eminently unqualified for the Vice Presidency (but who isn't in this race?), she nonetheless has good qualities and takes the correct position on certain issues. The intent of the statement is this -- since there's no good reason to vote Obama to my mind, McCain's choice of Governor Palin as his running mate and future V.P. is as good an excuse as any to vote Hussein Obama on Tuesday.
Mom, my apologies. I didn't realize you were asking a serious question. Most of the Indians I know personally generally tend to have this attitude, yes. They're very race-conscious people, not that I'm saying that's necessarily bad.
I'm not sure how anonymous concludes that Hussein Obama's "brownness" forms a bond between he and the Indian People, but whatever. Perhaps she could elaborate further on that point.
Ya know!!!
Like yeagley you invite or should I say entrap(with your racists remarks)...then you proceed to berate when you get attention. I'm sure you've noticed by now how he basks in glory in the attention he receives by his berating remarks toward his fellow Natives.(whom I might say don't claim him)
You and I and your (mom,partner)and yeagley know the Whites RULE...so tell me...why are YOU so centered on berating the Native American Indians? We are so few in numbers to bother with. If you would just Try to keep Race out of the conversation, I think WE would too. Treat us like Humans, not dogs. We would not bark back. But...that is too liberal...to communistic....not Savage enough for you and momma!
Who was this entry toward?
Racists!;, Extremists!;, Wackos!!!
So you tell me as yeagley so eloquently stated after his usual berating(entrapment) of his (only he claims)fellow Native American Indian "Can't we get along?(Ha,ha,ha!)
White Supremists Puritan Christians!;, Extremists!;, Wachos!!!
The intent of the post, Anonymous, was to get that element of the Indian community (which apparently includes you) to think about the utter stupidity of accusing others of racism, extremism, and wackiness, etc., for opposing Obama on grounds of his other nationality, his questionable past and past relations, and so on, when you would call it something altogether different for Indians, including yourself, to question the credentials of someone named Hussein Abdullah Mohammed, or some such, running for the position of Chief of a given Indian tribe.
Don't you see that?
Anonymous,
As I said to Jayrock on an earlier post, I am not Mr. Morris' mother. "Call Me Mom" is simply the pseudonym under which I post. I am not his partner either, although we seem to have some common ground and are both members of the AFB.
I fail to see how Mr. Morris can be classified as a racist. The American Heritage Dictionary defines racism as "The belief that some races are inherently better."
When he is requesting you to use logic and facts to back up your opinions, that's not racism, that's a request for objective facts or the personal observations which have led you to your conclusions.
When he requests that you not substitute insults for opinions, that's not racism, it's a request for polite behavior.
You, on the other hand, suggested that Native Americans are less than intelligent as a group because you suggest that they, as a group, would vote for Mr. Obama based on the color of his skin.That is racism and I wish you would not indulge in it as I have never thought so poorly of Native Americans as a group as to suggest that they would base their votes on such a premise.
Mom,
Anonymous has a right, and I would not deny her the right, to defend her people when they're being attacked without provocation. Anyone with the slightest instinctive attachment to his/her own people would do the same. Problem is, I'm not attacking them; she just thinks I'm attacking Indians -- you know, drawing them here for the sole purpose of berating them in person. The only Indian I've extended an invitation to come to this space is Jayrock. All others, including Anonymous, have come here of their own volition. But I don't have a problem with that either. They are welcome here, and they may express themselves here without fear of having their opinions deleted so long as they observe rules one and two. If I think they are right, I will say so. If I think they are wrong I will likewise say so. Seems fair enough to me.
I also think that Indians should work to preserve their bloodline and heritage. If this means that they consider the Indian race superior to the white race, etc., then so be it. I don't have a problem with that per se. Each race of People has its strengths and its weaknesses. We're not all the same by any means.
But there can be no justification for granting Indians dual citizenship. Indians wouldn't grant dual citizenship to whites or other races, allowing them to vote in Indian elections, nor should they. The other side of that coin is that Indians should resist the impulse to involve themselves in U.S. politics AND Indian nation politics at the same time. The two are, and shall ever be, perpetually at war with one another. Why? Because our worldviews are different, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Disparate worldviews are the source of disparate and incompatible political philosophies. As I said to Jayrock, complete Indian autonomy begins with YOU. A certain element of the Indian community seems to want Indian autonomy, but they won't put their money where their mouth is when it comes down to it.
As I've also said elsewhere, Hussein Obama Indians don't give a hoot about Obama per se, they just see in him an opportunity to finalize the complete destruction of "old America", an America they despise because of the sins "whitey" has committed against the Indian People since their landing and colonization of this continent. Such Indians may as well put the knife to their own throats, and they don't even realize it. They just can't get past their anger against whitey enough to realize what their actions portend for the future of the Indian People. All they care about is ushering in the "new America", which, no doubt and to their minds must be altogether better (superior to) than the old America. ...
Terry and your mom, you just don't get it do you? It seems to complicated to get into your heads.
Indians are voting for Obama not for the color of his skin but for his vision and ideas? He is working for the middle class. Us Indians are lucky if we get to the middle class, much less upper middle class.
Also, your ideas on Native identity are laughable. Don't expect me or other Natives to climb aboard your bridge to nowhere. We have dual citizenship because we are nations that reside within this nation. Treaties were signed by your government with your nations. You really have no say in the matter and it's really none of your business in that these agreements were agreed upon before you were even born into this country. You really can't have a say. You can have an opinion but it doesn't matter to be honest. These agreements were made before you were even here as a human. My people were here first dude. Deal with it.
Also, are all whites as condescending and as the mother and Terry? Do you see how that sounds? You guys sound suspiciously uncultured, uneducated and just plain country. I've known some "whites" and I'd have to say the opposite of what you two say, I'd say you two are the exception and seem to be have a chip on your shoulders when it comes to Natives, particularly Terry and his constant and uninformed opinions on Native identity. It's laughable.
So, as I've told Terry before, I'm not interested in attacking or subverting America. I suppose he thinks I am because I'm not a right wing extremist like him and I think differently. I voted for the superior of the two candidates running for president. That's all.
And if you think Fox news is not a right wing organization Terry you are more lost than you care to admit. I've never seen such blatant partisanship, with exception to msnbc. The ultimate hypocrisy is that Fox portends to be "fair and balanced" how laughable is that?
The reason there are more liberal than right wing in the msm is that right wing is not an intelligent approach to life. The educated and intellectual tend to lean left center. The uneducated lean hard right.
First of all it is highly doubtful that a Muslim Choctaw would be running for chief. My guess is that the Muslim Choctaw would be involved in his chosen religon and culture, you know, to be a Muslim?
If such a person were to run for chief I would imagine there would be dissenters, targeting specifically his non Native name and probably the question of his religon would surface. These are all valid points however in that the office he is running for is CHOCTAW. I would assume that any Comanche would ask the same of his chairman, to be Comanche and to have Comanche beliefs.
Here is where the blatant racism comes into the picture for Terry and David.
Obama is running for president of the United States, an open country and can be quite open to interpretation. The right likes to think that the only people who should be in office are those who are Christian with Christian principles. They like to think that if said person doesn't have these principles then they are subversive and will not represent America properly. There doesn't seem to be any leeway on this. They are of course wrong.
Whether you like it or not, the country is a melting pot with all types of people who reside in it. The country is NOT all Christian. Hell the first people who resided in the country were NOT Christian. The right likes to think life never existed before them but they are of course wrong.
There is of course the matter of race. The status quo likes to vote into power those that look like themselves. Obama doesnt' look like Joe the plumber.
Guess what America, outside of Oklahoma county, there's a whole other world within the U.S. that doesn't look like Joe the Plumber.
In due time this will all pan out. Right now you just have the traditionalists hemming and hawing about change. Your right if you think at its core, it IS racist thought, disguised as conservative values. They are masters of code words.
The election will be won by Obama though and there's not much they can do at this point.
Not my problem really.
Jayrock wrote:
Treaties were signed by your government with your nations. You really have no say in the matter and it's really none of your business in that these agreements were agreed upon before you were even born into this country. You really can't have a say. You can have an opinion but it doesn't matter to be honest. These agreements were made before you were even here as a human.
I've already thoroughly dispensed with this argument in another post. What Jayrock is saying, effectively, is that we're all, including Jayrock and the entire Native population in America, subjected to the tyranny of a dead generation, both Indian and White. Here again I appeal to common sense and common reason (something the educated Jayrock seems to be severly lacking in) -- on what legitimate basis are the living subjected to the laws and treaties of the dead without consent? Because a dead generation said so? What foolishness! Taken to its conclusion, all voting in U.S. elections, including Jayrock's and the Indian People's vote, is utterly meaningless and will not and cannot change anything. And yet Jayrock is voting for the candidate of change. **rolls eyes**
And by your rationale Terry, the dead wrote the constitution therefore it is meaningless!
Or wait, I assume you were a strict constitution traditionalist? I assume you lived your life by it's original laws...
Oh wait...so your saying that the word of your government is no good...your saying that because Terry Morris wants preferential treatment and wants his voice heard, therfore the country should re-examine it's treaties it made with Indian nations...making the word of the U.S. government meaningless...okay...
Is this Oklahoma common sense? Nah, I think this is Terry's version of common sense ;)
Jayrock,
I'm going to let you in on a little secret I've been withholding -- you're going to lose, it's as simple as that. Your problem here is your lack of experience. You don't really want to tangle with me, I can guarantee you that, not on questions pertaining to the constitution and the founders, nor on human nature and the insanity of modern American politics.
You know what they say about assuming anything, right?
One thing: by my rationale, as well as their rationale, the founding generation have no more right to tyrannize the living than one group of living have a right to tyrannize another group of living. Anyone who thinks differently is a slave, pure and simple.
You've involved yourself in yet another palpable error. It does not follow from what I wrote that the constitution is meaningless. That's your impression because your mind is, at this point, incapable of reasoning to other options. Options which are discoverable through a little effort, on this blog. In other words, search the archives.
I had a pretty good response to momma and webster, but it didn't go thru, so here is another try.
I am voting for Barak Obama, because he represents me and mine more than McCain. My People were not allowed to vote until 1924, though they fought in both Wars.
Arizona Native weren't allowed until 1950. That is a Real Shame. THIS IS NOT YOUR FAULT NOR MINE, but the Native Americans voice is always muted.
This is done by those people who are a part of groups like National Federation of Republican Assemblies, Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee, Citizen Equal Rights Alliance, and One Nation. These White groups simply just want to do away with the INDIANS, PERIOD. They want to erase us and force us to assimulate. They think we are fake Indians just pretending to BE! They need to realize that we Natives pay taxes on EVERYTHING, just as you, that is except that the little bit of lands that we own...these people are working to take even that away, The last bit of our Sovereignty is being attacked, by these white groups.
MY RELATIONS COULD NOT VOTE! I CAN! It's been 80 years since the first Americans became the "LAST" citizens, they DID NOT HAVE A VOICE....I DO, IN THEIR MEMORY I WILL VOTE, I JUST WISH THERE WAS MORE I COULD DO OUT OF RESPECT FOR THOSE SO MISJUDGED THOSE FIRST AMERICANS. No matter who wins, the WHITES STILL RULE, DON'T WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT THE FIRST AMERICANS, WE ARE SO FEW.
You Mr. Webster, use an old picture of maybe your ancestor here representing you! Why aren't the Natives allowed to seek their ancestry without being labled, savages, heathen, backward, living in the past, and the worse one yeagley always lament is "anti-American". The World beyond Oklahoma wants to know the whole story of the Native Americans. YOUR story is taught in the School systems beginning in 1600s. Ours is mentioned (minutely)in passing in a very distorted and biased view, making this in my opinion the beginning of racism.
By the way yeagleys' definition of Racism verbatim: "When you try to destroy someone else's race and Nation, or at least demean it, or morally condem it", this is different than yours and even more damaging, but whats so disheartening is....he practices this on his own Race by siding with these groups against the Advancement of Economics Development in the Indian Nations.
Oh Terry, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. I see it, I read it, it's inconsistent as all get out, but I think I might finally have gotten to the bottom of it.
When hubris such as yours is faced with the consequence of reality and truth it doesn't know what to do other than fall back on the same old narratives you always seem to fall back on, the dreaded constitution and your interpretation of it and how all others should read it.
I think I've made my points and I'll leave here understanding that I've read two right wing extremists whine about a country that exists only in their heads, and sadly is moving along quite quickly without them, to a more effecient, decenty way of life.
Good luck trying to make Indians not vote or not be proud of their identities...yeah, good luck with that one Terry...
I think I've exposed your weak arguments enough and I think you know that too ;)
Darock/Jayrock, (whatever you want to call yourself),
I did not say that Indians would be voting for Mr. Obama because of his skin color, that was an observation made by anonymous. You will kindly note that I objected to her statement.
"Treaties were signed by your government with your nations. You really have no say in the matter and it's really none of your business in that these agreements were agreed upon before you were even born into this country. You really can't have a say. You can have an opinion but it doesn't matter to be honest. These agreements were made before you were even here as a human. " To the best of my knowledge I have not stated any ideas about "Indian identity". Also, it is my business as a citizen of this country to be aware of the agreements made by my government. It's called citizenship. I cannot keep tabs on all of it but I do my best to be informed with the time and resources at my disposal.
"My people were here first dude. Deal with it.
"Yes, there were other people here before white people arrived, and had those white people NOT held to the Christian beliefs you so openly criticize, there would be no sovereign Indian nations in this country. You might try investigating those principles which have allowed you to be a dual citizen rather than tearing them down.
"And by your rationale Terry, the dead wrote the constitution therefore it is meaningless!
" Mr. Morris has made the argument before, that the current generation of "We the People" should reaffirm the Constitution and our support for it's principles. Otherwise we are all living under the rule of dead people who don't know what the challenges of our world are like. I support the principles outlined in the Constitution because they are brilliantly done for the most part. However, I like Mr. Morris and others also believe that we, as a people, including Indians, have a responsibility to review and refresh those documents from time to time, otherwise the people cannot be expected to uphold guiding principles of which they did not approve.
"Also, are all whites as condescending and as the mother and Terry?" Interesting that you categorize me as "white" even though you have no idea what my racial background is. One guesses you are making assumptions based on my portrait. I'm glad to hear you've " known some whites" . Is that along the same lines as saying "some of my best friends are....", with the caveat being, therefore I can't possibly be prejudiced against that group? Just by the way, I don't live in Oklahoma so I have seen a bit of the non-Oklahoma world. I also grew up in a very ...diverse, urban community, so, not country either. As for uneducated... also mistaken. I attended a big 10 university. I'll grant you that I didn't graduate as there were some personal challenges that arose halfway through, but I had enough of the liberal arts courses that, God willing, I'll never have to take another. I have continued my education and have earned a degree at another college. Good of you to make those assumptions in order to bolster your arguments though. Not nearly on a par with the manipulativeness of the Obama campaign, but nicely done.
"The reason there are more liberal than right wing in the msm is that right wing is not an intelligent approach to life. The educated and intellectual tend to lean left center. The uneducated lean hard right." How old are you, if I may ask? In my observation, the educated and intellectual tend to lean left center until they hit the real world, you know that place outside of the university boundaries where performance counts? (Unless they are going into a career in education, politics or journalism.) If you read my reply on the other post, you would also be aware that conservatives have been and are being culled from the journalistic community.
I must also take exception to your statement "the dreaded constitution and your interpretation of it and how all others should read it" Most legitimate Constitutional scholars do not rely upon their own interpretation of the Constitution, they rely on the further writings of those who wrote and approved it. Commentaries like those to be found in the Federalist Papers.
"The right likes to think that the only people who should be in office are those who are Christian with Christian principles. They like to think that if said person doesn't have these principles then they are subversive and will not represent America properly. " You are correct in that. That is not racism. Christian principles can be held by those of any race. That does not mean that all the people of the country must be Christians, just that Christian principles should be the base of the government. I believe Christian principles are superior because they allow for the discussion of other principles. Show me any other religion based governmental form that allows it's people to adhere to religious beliefs other than their own without penalty. (And I tend to believe that all governmental forms are based on the religious views of the people who rule in them. Even atheism qualifies as a religion under one of the definitions in my dictionary.) It is not racism to have a preference for a consistent system of underlying principles that allow people to have the freedoms that we possess.
This is getting longer than I had intended, so I will end with this thought. You said: ""Not my problem really." http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Image
:Martin_Niemoeller.jpg You may be saying good riddance to the folks you don't agree with now, but sooner or later it will be your turn. We are all in this together and if we want to preserve any of our rights, we had better start defending all of them.
My apologies that the link doen't work, but you can copy and paste it to your browser.
Jayrock wrote:
I think I've exposed your weak arguments enough and I think you know that too
Here's an example of Jayrock "exposing my weak arguments":
And by your rationale Terry, the dead wrote the constitution therefore it is meaningless!
As someone once so eloquently said: "be careful with the thereores. LOL
Goodbye Jayrock. I was hoping you'd prove me wrong on my initial assessment of you that you are a (leftist) coward. But no such luck, eh?
Anonymous wrote:
You Mr. Webster, use an old picture of maybe your ancestor here representing you! Why aren't the Natives allowed to seek their ancestry without being labled, savages, heathen, backward, living in the past, and the worse one yeagley always lament is "anti-American".
Anonymous, I'm not Yeagley and he's not me. Why do you feel it necessary to throw punches at Dr. Yeagley in virtually every post you put up at my site?
Whatever your problem is with Dr. Yeagley, please take it up with someone who cares.
Elsewise,...
who is labeling Natives with these terms? Who here is trying to stop Native Americans from seeking their ancestry?
It seems to have completely escaped you why it is that I prefer to use Native Americans as my prime example to show the utter illegitimacy of granting dual citizenship to anyone. I've explained it before, but in the simplest terms that I can possibly muster at this very moment in time, let me put it this way:
Natives belong here (on this continent) and nowhere else. Others (non-Indians) having and exercising dual citizenship priveleges do not. Some of these people don't even live here, and never have lived here. If I can show that it is a bad policy to grant dual citizenship to Natives, then how much more so is it a disastrous policy to grant dual citizenship to all others?
Dual citizenship priveleges brings out the worst in people, i.e., it causes them to divide their loyalties between one nation and another. In legal terms one might say it is a "conflict of interests." In courts of law jury members are routinely excused who have a conflict of interests between the two parties in a lawsuit; someone who is a blood relative, or a friend of a defendant is excluded from serving on a jury because he has a conflict of interests with justice itself.
Now I ask you, in a hypothetical Anonymous vs. Joe American court case, can it in any way be called just if Joe has friends and relatives on the jury, and/or on the bench, that ultimately decides the case? In whose favor do you think such a jury, and/or judge is likely to rule? Ans: certainly not yours, Anonymous.
It is this illegitimate policy of granting dual citizenship that I have a big problem with, not Indians, not with them reclaiming their history and culture and language, and so on.
You were speakig of Obamas' name, Yeagley constantly made fun of Obama, his name, his looks, his color, his everything, you tandem this with "brownies" remark..I merely stated "we relate to him because he is Brown".
Yeagley entraps with disparaging remarks against the Indians, you do the same here! Why do you think he allows YOU to keep posting? Its because you agree with everything he says and you praise him, and like wise.
I stood in a crowd today at a Methodist Church, (of all places since the Methodist Church supports McCain), for 2 1/2 hours amongst nothing but White Farmers, laughing and saying unkind things, about their hunting and fishing rights, so I could hear I suppose, but I stayed my place. Mr. Morris, that is what WE INDIANS have to put up with ALL the time. I just read my newspaper and looked at the walls and floor, while they looked at ME, the only Brown one in the line. If it was allowed I would have put on my Obamas' shirt that I have been wearing all week,(wash it everynite). Give those Rednecks something to look at! Indians are not really rude and pushy as most white portray us. We, you might say, know our place.
Yes you have made it clear how you feel about our having our own Government, Constitutions and Courts, or Dual Citizenship as you call it. You most likely want us smudged off the earth. If you can....be patient for about twenty more years, maybe you will get your wish.
For the time being we are allowed reserved rights and priveliges which belong to the individual Indian, this has long been recognized by the Judicial system in writing, but rarely have the Indians Nations fought seriously for these rights which are inherent. We just accept our fate and really just wish to live apart more or less.
Ya Know....I think its time our People start the Real
Fight for our Rights....but gosh, darnit, by golly what would YOU say then? Just like Palen, the Government with just a swish of the pen would take the hunting and fishing rights away from the Native, but then give it to the "Joe"- White Recreation Hunter, with the law on his side, while our inherent rights are being violated, what to do?
For what its worth Thats Why stood in line with all those white people, what good will it do I Don't know yet, but my Grandson will have the Posters I have kept "ROCK THE VOTE", "A CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN", "THEY COULDN'T, YOU CAN". No matter the outcome, I spoke with my VOTE!
Anonymous wrote:
You were speaking of Obama's name, Yeagley constantly made fun of Obama, his name, his looks, his color, his everything, you tandem this with "brownies" remark. I merely stated "we relate to him because he is Brown".
Yeagley entraps with disparaging remarks against the Indians, you do the same here! Why do you think he allows YOU to keep posting? Its because you agree with everything he says and you praise him, and like wise.
Okay, I don't know how much more of this I can take before I start to get perturbed. I mean, I do have a tolerance threshold like anyone else.
Anonymous...
(1) I never made any "brownies" remark. My word was "brownness". Read it again.
(2) I don't agree with everything Yeagley says. I agree with some of what Yeagley says, but certainly not everything he says. How exactly do you conclude that I agree with everything he says?
I don't want to address anything else you said at this point. It simply does not make any sense to me, to be honest. Perhaps you could elaborate further?
Ya gotta love it Terry, you really do.
Barack is now yours and mine's president.
Ya gotta love it Terry, you really do.
Barack is now yours and mine's president.
Hussein is the president-elect, but I don't have to like it, much less love it, anymore than I liked it or loved it when that moral ingrate Clinton was elected in '92.
Know what I mean?
"yours and mine's"?
Post a Comment