USM, Tulane, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 16, 2005

USM, Tulane, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Date: Jun 16, 2005

A Work in Progress wrote:

I read that Tulane University and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians have announced an agreement for the Tulane to offer casino and resort management courses at the Pearl River Resort near Philadelpina, MS. The USM document "A Work in Progress" says that in November, 2002 Choctaw Chief Philip Martin and USM president Thames signed a proclamation to boost Choctaw enrollment at USM because of the many programs that could be used on the reservation to promote tribal economy. What gives? Will Tulane work the Silver Star and USM work the Golden Moon? Maybe Tulane will get the slots and we'll get the craps. Any word on our efforts during the past 2-1/2 years to boost Choctaw enrollment at USM? Which office is coordinating those efforts?

Unfortunately, I cannot give you any detailed answers to your questions. But I can give you some background on the problems facing the Choctaws and their booming casino industry.

For several years now the Choctaw Tribe has been working hard, attempting to find educated, motivated, qualified tribal members to take positions of responsibility at the various business concerns they operate. There are a few tribal members holding various high level positions, but the sad truth is that most of these positions are held by non-Choctaws. The vast majority of Choctaws who do work at the casinos hold low-level positions in the food service, sanitation, and housekeeping departments.

Why? Because most of the tribal members have realized that they do not have to work hard in order to earn a modest living. They will never be rich, but they will not starve either.

When given the choice of educating themselves, choosing a career, and working hard for advancement vs. staying at home every day, living in government supplied housing, and living off of the various government subsistence programs offered to them, many have chosen to just stay home. For this same reason, many have decided not to educate themselves, knowing that they will still receive the government handouts whether or not they graduate high school or college. It's a hard cycle to break.

This is not just a Choctaw problem; it is a human problem. I believe that, given the option, many of us would make the same choice if we were afforded the same government program "payments" that they are. Let's face it; many of us human beings are downright lazy!

To their credit, the tribe has been working hard on this problem. They are constantly and consistently promoting education at all levels, mostly focusing on their high school graduation rate, which is still low but is steadily improving. I think that the tribe would LOVE to see more Choctaws enter and complete higher education programs at ANY school, whether at the community college, junior college, or university level. State, Old Miss., USM, Tulane - they don't care. They are interested in raising themselves up out of the poverty they have suffered with for the past 40-50 years.

Who can balme them?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

But what has USM tried to do about it in view of its November, 2002 commitment? Or was all that talk only for show?

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Gnome Watcher wrote:

I believe that, given the option, many of us would make the same choice if we were afforded the same government program "payments" that they are. Let's face it; many of us human beings are downright lazy!

Not working doesn't mean you are lazy by any means. Some don't have the opportunities afforded to the middle and upper class. Others are diadvantaged physically.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

November elections wrote:

Gnome Watcher wrote: I believe that, given the option, many of us would make the same choice if we were afforded the same government program "payments" that they are. Let's face it; many of us human beings are downright lazy! Not working doesn't mean you are lazy by any means. Some don't have the opportunities afforded to the middle and upper class. Others are diadvantaged physically.

If you've got a good affirmative action program you don't need to work hard. You can fill a quota slot and not have to exert yourself.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Circus Master wrote:

But what has USM tried to do about it in view of its November, 2002 commitment? Or was all that talk only for show?

2004-2005 USM fact book, enrollment figures, p. 31

http://www.usm.edu/ir/factbooksite.htm

Native American enrollment

2000 (H/GC): 48 3
2001 (H/GC): 45 2
2002 (H/GC): 49 7
2003 (H/GC): 57 12
2004 (H/GC): 61 14

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many are Chocktaw is impossible to tell.

Date: Jun 16, 2005

Travailleur wrote:

November elections wrote: If you've got a good affirmative action program you don't need to work hard. You can fill a quota slot and not have to exert yourself.

Affirmative Action is what we used to call giving someone a break. It's a version of the command to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The problem is with the neighbor bit. We're okay with the people we already like, but we don't want to be neighbors to some people.

My favorite Affirmative Action story really happened. It goes something like this: There once was a boy from a family that the folks in power recognized as a group to get breaks. He really didn't look like school material, and in fact on an exam to get into a good school he returned a blank paper, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was admitted. He was really terrible at English, and had to repeat it three times, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was kept in school. He was so bad at a foreign language, that they finally gave up on trying to teach it to him. It gradually became apparent that he wasn't going to do all that well in a university, so he was sidetracked into the military. But he worked hard. He also became a journalist. All that time he spent in English started paying off. He went into politics and worked hard there, too. Finally, he became the top leader in government at a time of maximum political peril, and the entire nation owed perhaps its very survival to his dogged persistence and his moving speeches. He was granted the Nobel Prize in literature for his "mobilization of the English language" during World War II. His name was Winston Churchill, and he was Prime Minister of England when it was the world's superpower. Giving someone a break doesn't mean that you've given him a handout. It means you've given him a break. Churchill got breaks because he was from a privileged family--those used to be the only people that got breaks. He still worked hard for what he got.

I've always been glad that folks gave that kid a break. In fact, on at least two occasions I've quoted the end of one of his speeches to my students to say why I wouldn't be canceling class. The first time was 9/11, the second was after Frank and Gary were locked out of their offices. I only quoted the last few sentences, but here is the last paragraph. The date was June 1940, and the speaker was correct about the coming fury of Hitler's bombing. This speech helped the people not to surrender. It's all about working hard:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

Thank God for breaks.

Jameela

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

Travailleur wrote:
November elections wrote: If you've got a good affirmative action program you don't need to work hard. You can fill a quota slot and not have to exert yourself.

Affirmative Action is what we used to call giving someone a break. It's a version of the command to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The problem is with the neighbor bit. We're okay with the people we already like, but we don't want to be neighbors to some people.
My favorite Affirmative Action story really happened. It goes something like this: There once was a boy from a family that the folks in power recognized as a group to get breaks. He really didn't look like school material, and in fact on an exam to get into a good school he returned a blank paper, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was admitted. He was really terrible at English, and had to repeat it three times, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was kept in school. He was so bad at a foreign language, that they finally gave up on trying to teach it to him. It gradually became apparent that he wasn't going to do all that well in a university, so he was sidetracked into the military. But he worked hard. He also became a journalist. All that time he spent in English started paying off. He went into politics and worked hard there, too. Finally, he became the top leader in government at a time of maximum political peril, and the entire nation owed perhaps its very survival to his dogged persistence and his moving speeches. He was granted the Nobel Prize in literature for his "mobilization of the English language" during World War II. His name was Winston Churchill, and he was Prime Minister of England when it was the world's superpower. Giving someone a break doesn't mean that you've given him a handout. It means you've given him a break. Churchill got breaks because he was from a privileged family--those used to be the only people that got breaks. He still worked hard for what he got.
I've always been glad that folks gave that kid a break. In fact, on at least two occasions I've quoted the end of one of his speeches to my students to say why I wouldn't be canceling class. The first time was 9/11, the second was after Frank and Gary were locked out of their offices. I only quoted the last few sentences, but here is the last paragraph. The date was June 1940, and the speaker was correct about the coming fury of Hitler's bombing. This speech helped the people not to surrender. It's all about working hard:
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
Thank God for breaks.
Jameela

Jameela,

Your post is an excellent example of a type of affirmative action program having a positive effect on a person, as well as on a nation. Unfortunately, at least as far as the Choctaw tribe is concerned, this kind of story is the exception rather than the rule.

In 2000, the Choctaw tribe was able to relieve Boyd Gaming from their contract with the tribe to operate the Silver Star Casino through a buy out program. This allowed the tribe to collect all of the earnings of the casino for itself instead of paying Boyd Gaming the heavy "operations fee" as they had since it's opening in 1995. Why did it take 5 years for this to happen? Why did they contract with Boyd Gaming to run the casino to begin with?

Because in 1995, the Choctaw Tribe had no one qualified or knowledgeable about casino, restaurant, or hotel operations to sucessfully fill the positions needed to operate a profitable casino venture. They knew this, so they traded a significant portion of the profits away to Boyd Gaming so that they could learn "the tricks of the trade", so to speak. The plan was to have Boyd hire Choctaws as workers and/or assistants so that they could learn about casino operations, then follow through with the buy out program so that they could operate it on their own. The Choctaw employees could then step in and, using what they had learned from Boyd Gaming, operate the casino successfully.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.

By 2001, Choctaw tribal members held less that 1% of the upper-level leadership positions. The CEO, COO, and nearly all of the executive-level positions were held by non-Choctaws. There were many Choctaws employed at the casino by that time, but nearly all of them were in either food service or housekeeping positions, as I stated in my previous post above. This made me very curious, so I asked some of my friends at the casino, both Choctaw and non-Choctaw, about the situation. Every one of them agreed that the problem was that the majority of the Choctaws simply were not motivated to seek employment, much less to seek advancement to positions of responsibility and importance. They simply didn't want to.

Their housing is paid for through a government assistence program. They recieve, in one form or another, Medicare, Medicade, Welfare, and SSI assistence to cover all of their health care, food, and clothing needs. All of their educational structure is paid for through another Bureau of Indian Affairs program. Also, since the tribe began opening and operating various business ventures, each tribal member recieves a "bonus check" twice a year derived from the profits of these businessess. (These checks have grown steadily larger as their casino business grows, making it even more lucrative to not work.) As I said above, they are not rich, but they are certainly not in danger of starvation.

The problem is that they have been living like this for generations. Government programs have become a staple of their normal lifestyles, the rule rather than the exception as these programs were originally intended to be. They are now well used to being taken care of by the government from conception to interment, and there are few as of now who are willing to break that cycle.

Again, as I stated in my previous post, the tribe is agressively working to change this. Their focus on education and personal motivation is nothing less than outstanding, but I believe that they have come to realize that it will take some time to tear down the system of dependence on government that they have become used to, as this system has been in place for decades at least.

I, for one, admire their efforts.

Gnome Watcher

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

November elections wrote: If you've got a good affirmative action program you don't need to work hard. You can fill a quota slot and not have to exert yourself.

Jameela, you mistakenly attributed the above statement to me. I wrote this: "Not working doesn't mean you are lazy by any means. Some don't have the opportunities afforded to the middle and upper class. Others are diadvantaged physically." The quote you cited was that another poster. What that poster wrote and what I wrote is as different as night and day.

I can understand why you attributed the first quote to the wrong poster: it is because of this new formatting on the board. Everything gets jumbled up when one tries to quote and reply. I hope whoever changed the format will change it back ASAP.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

Travailleur wrote: November elections wrote: If you've got a good affirmative action program you don't need to work hard. You can fill a quota slot and not have to exert yourself. Affirmative Action is what we used to call giving someone a break. It's a version of the command to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The problem is with the neighbor bit. We're okay with the people we already like, but we don't want to be neighbors to some people. My favorite Affirmative Action story really happened. It goes something like this: There once was a boy from a family that the folks in power recognized as a group to get breaks. He really didn't look like school material, and in fact on an exam to get into a good school he returned a blank paper, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was admitted. He was really terrible at English, and had to repeat it three times, but because of his membership in a group slotted to get breaks, he was kept in school. He was so bad at a foreign language, that they finally gave up on trying to teach it to him. It gradually became apparent that he wasn't going to do all that well in a university, so he was sidetracked into the military. But he worked hard. He also became a journalist. All that time he spent in English started paying off. He went into politics and worked hard there, too. Finally, he became the top leader in government at a time of maximum political peril, and the entire nation owed perhaps its very survival to his dogged persistence and his moving speeches. He was granted the Nobel Prize in literature for his "mobilization of the English language" during World War II. His name was Winston Churchill, and he was Prime Minister of England when it was the world's superpower. Giving someone a break doesn't mean that you've given him a handout. It means you've given him a break. Churchill got breaks because he was from a privileged family--those used to be the only people that got breaks. He still worked hard for what he got. I've always been glad that folks gave that kid a break. In fact, on at least two occasions I've quoted the end of one of his speeches to my students to say why I wouldn't be canceling class. The first time was 9/11, the second was after Frank and Gary were locked out of their offices. I only quoted the last few sentences, but here is the last paragraph. The date was June 1940, and the speaker was correct about the coming fury of Hitler's bombing. This speech helped the people not to surrender. It's all about working hard: What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour." Thank God for breaks. Jameela

That's a very nice Churchill story but that's not the full affirmative action story. If Churchill gets admitted to Sandhurst while a student with a better academic record,better test scores,and better extracurricular activities is turned down because he has the wrong skin color-that's affirmative action.If you don't think it happens in selective schools and jobs you are sadly mistaken.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Travailleur wrote:

That's a very nice Churchill story but that's not the full affirmative action story. If Churchill gets admitted to Sandhurst while a student with a better academic record,better test scores,and better extracurricular activities is turned down because he has the wrong skin color-that's affirmative action.If you don't think it happens in selective schools and jobs you are sadly mistaken.

amen, brother

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Travailleur wrote:

That's a very nice Churchill story but that's not the full affirmative action story. If Churchill gets admitted to Sandhurst while a student with a better academic record, better test scores, and better extracurricular activities is turned down because he has the wrong skin color-that's affirmative action.If you don't think it happens in selective schools and jobs you are sadly mistaken.

How about an athlete who gets admitted to an academic institution to get an academic degree but who has a poor academic record, poor test scores, etc., while a much more qualified student is turned down?

Date: Jun 17, 2005

This Churchill story is an old canard and very misleading.
The Churchill center addresses this myth

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=111

"A: See Jim Golland's Not Winston, Just William? (Harrow: Herga Press 1988), a revisionist account of Churchill's Harrow Schooldays -- revisionist in that it proved that he was not the dunce he and others said he was. Golland noted that anyone who could recite 400 lines of Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome, and write a future history of an attack on Russia which presaged what actually happened in later years, could not be stupid.

Golland also said it unlikely that Churchill entered Harrow without knowing Latin (as WSC writes in My Early Life) -- it was a prerequisite, even for Lord Randolph's son. The bottom line is that Churchill was mediocre at what bored him, and very good at what interested him: English and History for example. At Sandhurst, which emphasized these subjects along with military tactics and strategy, etc., he finished near the top of his class."

Date: Jun 17, 2005

I appreciate everyone's responses on the Churchill "myth." Just to reassure you--in my own life it has only more greatly fueled my own conviction that all students need boosting. Or, as the kid said, "God don't make no junk." I can't single-handedly pull up everyone's grades or IQ, but I can believe that they can if they are challenged.

I worked in an affirmative action summer program once, and it was a real eye-opener. Here were bright minority kids, and no one had ever encouraged any of them to go to college. None. Nada. Zip.

Ouch,

Jameela

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

I appreciate everyone's responses on the Churchill "myth." Just to reassure you--in my own life it has only more greatly fueled my own conviction that all students need boosting. Or, as the kid said, "God don't make no junk." I can't single-handedly pull up everyone's grades or IQ, but I can believe that they can if they are challenged. I worked in an affirmative action summer program once, and it was a real eye-opener. Here were bright minority kids, and no one had ever encouraged any of them to go to college. None. Nada. Zip. Ouch, Jameela

I congratulate you on your work.The less fortunate need and deserve our help.This isn't a function of skin color.We should help them because they are less fortunate.The beneficiaries of preferential admission to professional schools and selective universities have been shown overwelmingly to be the children of affluent minorities.The poor white child from the rural areas is left out. I'm against preferences for legacies and for athletes. Just because they're wrongly done doesn't justify racial set asides as public policy.If someone wants to devote their time and resources to helping people of one skin color that's their privilege.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Travailleur wrote:

The less fortunate need and deserve our help.This isn't a function of skin color.We should help them because they are less fortunate.The beneficiaries of preferential admission to professional schools and selective universities have been shown overwelmingly to be the children of affluent minorities.The poor white child from the rural areas is left out. I'm against preferences for legacies and for athletes. Just because they're wrongly done doesn't justify racial set asides as public policy.If someone wants to devote their time and resources to helping people of one skin color that's their privilege.

My father supported our family and worked his way through college on the meager salary of a janitor, scrubbing toilets at night for minimum wage, for seven long years. He was the first member of his family to complete high school, and the first to earn a college degree, magna cum laude. He was excluded from consideration for any category of financial aid because he failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the many programs available at the time. I know of many similar stories, both through personal acquaintances of my own family, and from my teaching career.

I intend to print and save your eloquent commentary on the chasm between helping those who need and deserve help, and token politically correct government mandated set-aside programs which often serve only to screw those who don't happen meet the arbitrary "need" definitions of would-be social engineers. Thank you.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Jameela,

Your post is an excellent example of a type of affirmative action program having a positive effect on a person, as well as on a nation. Unfortunately, at least as far as the Choctaw tribe is concerned, this kind of story is the exception rather than the rule.

In 2000, the Choctaw tribe was able to relieve Boyd Gaming from their contract with the tribe to operate the Silver Star Casino through a buy out program. This allowed the tribe to collect all of the earnings of the casino for itself instead of paying Boyd Gaming the heavy "operations fee" as they had since it's opening in 1995. Why did it take 5 years for this to happen? Why did they contract with Boyd Gaming to run the casino to begin with?

Because in 1995, the Choctaw Tribe had no one qualified or knowledgeable about casino, restaurant, or hotel operations to sucessfully fill the positions needed to operate a profitable casino venture. They knew this, so they traded a significant portion of the profits away to Boyd Gaming so that they could learn "the tricks of the trade", so to speak. The plan was to have Boyd hire Choctaws as workers and/or assistants so that they could learn about casino operations, then follow through with the buy out program so that they could operate it on their own. The Choctaw employees could then step in and, using what they had learned from Boyd Gaming, operate the casino successfully.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.

By 2001, Choctaw tribal members held less that 1% of the upper-level leadership positions. The CEO, COO, and nearly all of the executive-level positions were held by non-Choctaws. There were many Choctaws employed at the casino by that time, but nearly all of them were in either food service or housekeeping positions, as I stated in my previous post above. This made me very curious, so I asked some of my friends at the casino, both Choctaw and non-Choctaw, about the situation. Every one of them agreed that the problem was that the majority of the Choctaws simply were not motivated to seek employment, much less to seek advancement to positions of responsibility and importance. They simply didn't want to.

Their housing is paid for through a government assistence program. They recieve, in one form or another, Medicare, Medicade, Welfare, and SSI assistence to cover all of their health care, food, and clothing needs. All of their educational structure is paid for through another Bureau of Indian Affairs program. Also, since the tribe began opening and operating various business ventures, each tribal member recieves a "bonus check" twice a year derived from the profits of these businessess. (These checks have grown steadily larger as their casino business grows, making it even more lucrative to not work.) As I said above, they are not rich, but they are certainly not in danger of starvation.

The problem is that they have been living like this for generations. Government programs have become a staple of their normal lifestyles, the rule rather than the exception as these programs were originally intended to be. They are now well used to being taken care of by the government from conception to interment, and there are few as of now who are willing to break that cycle.

Again, as I stated in my previous post, the tribe is agressively working to change this. Their focus on education and personal motivation is nothing less than outstanding, but I believe that they have come to realize that it will take some time to tear down the system of dependence on government that they have become used to, as this system has been in place for decades at least.

I, for one, admire their efforts.

Gnome Watcher

Gnome Watcher,

You have a kind of odd perspective on the MS Band of Choctaw Indians. Most conservatives who know something about Chief Philip Martin and the "Choctaw Miracle" applaud profusely their relatively new financial independence as a tribe and see them as a model to get other Indian groups off of the federal government dole. I assume that you are a conservative for your view that those who do not work are simply "lazy" and do not seek the opportunities provided them and that the MS Choctaws seem to be receiving "something for nothing." Jameela responded well to part of that fallacy. The MS Choctaw economic success was made possible by progressive leadership that sought out federal feeder loans in the 1960s/70s designed for small business and Indian groups to start a whole range of businesses in the reservation communitites. Before that they received very little in the form of aid - if you think federal obligatory aid to Indian communities is generous you need to get out more. What you are also failing to realize is that the federal government owes Indian groups in perpetuity for the lands taken from them. American Indians are a special class of people in the US because of their treaty relationships with the US government. Federal aid to them is not supposed to be temporary but will remain permanent. That said, groups like the MS Choctaws have achieved remarkable success in looking beyond that relationship towards the goal of being self-sufficient. They will always insist on their treaty relationship with the US, however, and they will always be compensated for what was taken from them.

As to the issue of non-Choctaws holding senior lucrative positions - well, start asking Choctaw people what they think about it. Remember, all is politics and Martin hires who he wants and who is of most use to him. Lack of tribal education is a small part of that story - solidifying political power is a big part. Ask around and find out how many qualified Choctaws seeking higher positions who criticized something Martin established or who supported one of his opponents and then lost their jobs with no recourse. Politics. Politics.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Affirmative Action for the Stupid Elite

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Elite

Date: Jun 19, 2005

RE: USM, Tulane, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Oh the inhumanity of it all wrote:

W was also disadvantaged. Couldn't spell, couldn't study, couldn't get good job, and couldn't run a company, yet there are those who recognized he had potential. He was admitted into Yale without anyone looking at his scores. He was admitted into the Air National Guard over those who were more qualified and didn't go to Nam where the less affluent sacrificed their lives. He was given a baseball team in spite of having bankrupted every company he touched. He was given the greatest political machine on earth in spite of being unable to be elected as dog catcher. In spite of all these negatives against him, he has risen to the utmost levels of power and has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocents in his Jihad against Islam and 1722 sons and daughters who will not be wishing their fathers "happy father's day".

Hey, you're stealing my thunder. I was planning on using this exact rhetoric next Sunday for my weekly demagogery on Meet The Press. Why can't you understand that I'm trying my level best to make argumentum ad nauseum my own personal trademark? Leave it alone, won't you. I'm having a hard enough time getting anyone to take me seriously without some upstart wannabe propagandist cribbing from my playbook. Now I'll have to get in touch with Dan Rather and Bill Burkett for some new material.

Date: Jun 20, 2005

Angeline wrote:

Gnome Watcher,
You have a kind of odd perspective on the MS Band of Choctaw Indians. Most conservatives who know something about Chief Philip Martin and the "Choctaw Miracle" applaud profusely their relatively new financial independence as a tribe and see them as a model to get other Indian groups off of the federal government dole. I assume that you are a conservative for your view that those who do not work are simply "lazy" and do not seek the opportunities provided them and that the MS Choctaws seem to be receiving "something for nothing." Jameela responded well to part of that fallacy. The MS Choctaw economic success was made possible by progressive leadership that sought out federal feeder loans in the 1960s/70s designed for small business and Indian groups to start a whole range of businesses in the reservation communitites. Before that they received very little in the form of aid - if you think federal obligatory aid to Indian communities is generous you need to get out more.

Angeline,

Does being a conservative automatically make someone's position / opinion wrong? Is that considered to be an example of "wrong-thinking?" I am asking because it seems to me that there is a little bit of an anti-conservative vitriol in the opening lines of your post. However, to be fair, let me clarify my position:

I did not mean to imply that "all Choctaws who do not work are lazy." If this is the way you interpreted my words, I apologize, for that was not my intention. I am sure that there are some Choctaws (just as there are some Americans, in general) who are too sick to work, or are somehow otherwise physically or mentally disabled and are thus unable to work. I am sure that there are a large number who are either too young or too old to work. I am also sure that there are those who are responsible for staying home and taking care of the very young, the older persons, the sick, and/or the disabled. These people, in reality, are working but are not being paid wages nor are being listed as working.

That being said, I am absolutely sure that there is a well-sized group that has chosen not to work, a group that is content (to a greater or lesser degree) to live off of what they get from the government and the tribe. It is this group that has basically said, "I get livable housing, adequate healthcare, sustainable food supplies, and a few bucks to spend each month without having to work. So, why should I?" This is what I am calling lazy, a lack of motivation to improve one's living situation.

What you are also failing to realize is that the federal government owes Indian groups in perpetuity for the lands taken from them. American Indians are a special class of people in the US because of their treaty relationships with the US government. Federal aid to them is not supposed to be temporary but will remain permanent. That said, groups like the MS Choctaws have achieved remarkable success in looking beyond that relationship towards the goal of being self-sufficient. They will always insist on their treaty relationship with the US, however, and they will always be compensated for what was taken from them.

I have not failed to realize any of the above. I simply have failed to agree with most of it.

The US does not "owe" the tribes "in perpetuity" for lands "taken from them." The US does owe the tribes what was promised to them in the various treaties signed with them, as well as those benefits/programs added to the original treaty stipulations by Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If my memory of history serves me correctly, the tribes agreed to relinquish their lands in exchange for the promises made in those treaties.

Now, let me go ahead and stave off the numerous jeers, catcalls, and obscenities that are no doubt being hurled in my direction at this moment: I am not agreeing with nor condoning the conduct of the US government during the negotiation of or the execution of these treaties. I do know that many of them were broken, and that not a few of them were broken by the US government. I am also aware that most of the tribes were taken advantage of, in one way or another, by the US negotiators. I have read about Wounded Knee, Little Big Horn, and the Trail of Tears and I know that these were sad, desperate times for the tribes as a whole. However, with all of that in mind, we should also realize that the tribes did not have to agree to the treaties to begin with.

The tribes agreed to the various treaties because they knew that they were overmatched, outnumbered, and outgunned. Yes, they won several battles, but they also knew that they were losing "the war." Rather than fighting to the last man, woman, and child, they agreed to the treaties as a way of trying to save what was left of their people. However, they could have chosen differently. They could have chosen to fight on. In that event, it is highly probable that a few of them would have still survived. However, there would most probably not be any tribal lands or reservations as we know them today if they had chosen to do so. The survivors would have most likely been assimilated into the rest of the culture and disappeared.

We can argue about the fairness, rightness, and/or wrongness of it for years, but the fact remains that the tribes lost "the war" and the US government won.

As to the issue of non-Choctaws holding senior lucrative positions - well, start asking Choctaw people what they think about it. Remember, all is politics and Martin hires who he wants and who is of most use to him. Lack of tribal education is a small part of that story - solidifying political power is a big part. Ask around and find out how many qualified Choctaws seeking higher positions who criticized something Martin established or who supported one of his opponents and then lost their jobs with no recourse. Politics. Politics.

I think that you need to scroll up and re-read my previous post. I DID ask the Choctaw people what they thought about non-Choctaws holding senior positions - and then I told you WHAT THEY TOLD ME!

Angeline, what you do not know is that my company was a vendor to the Choctaws for over 3 years and, during those 3 years, I spent nearly every working day either on the reservation or at one of their businessess, interacting with tribal members from every walk of life - from executives and managers, to hourly workers and those who didn't work at all. I also interacted with non-tribal members, so I was able to get "both sides of the story."

Yes, politics plays a big role in a lot of the business that is conducted by the tribe. However, in any business, especially one where millions of dollars is involved, politics is always going to be a part of it.

Chief Martin has quite a few family and extended-family members working "for" him either at the casinos or at the other businessess. However, most of them do not hold "high" positions - they hold positions based upon their ability to perform the job. I got to know several Martin neices, nephews, and cousins during my time there and ALL of them were expected to perform their job duties to the best of their abilities. Perhaps they may have been given more chances than non-relatives, but I did see a few of them "transferred" to other positions when it became obvious that they couldn't perform the duties of the job they were holding. I have no doubt that Martin has retaliated against some who have opposed him, but not the vast majority, at least not as far as I could tell.

Gnome Watcher

Date: Jun 20, 2005

Howard Dean wrote:

...Hey, you're stealing my thunder. I was planning on using this exact rhetoric next Sunday for my weekly demagogery on Meet The Press. Why can't you understand that I'm trying my level best to make argumentum ad nauseum my own personal trademark? Leave it alone, won't you. I'm having a hard enough time getting anyone to take me seriously without some upstart wannabe propagandist cribbing from my playbook. Now I'll have to get in touch with Dan Rather and Bill Burkett for some new material.

chill out, somebody loves you

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/OPINION/506200305/1009

Date: Jun 20, 2005

Reader wrote:

Howard Dean wrote: ...Hey, you're stealing my thunder. I was planning on using this exact rhetoric next Sunday for my weekly demagogery on Meet The Press. Why can't you understand that I'm trying my level best to make argumentum ad nauseum my own personal trademark? Leave it alone, won't you. I'm having a hard enough time getting anyone to take me seriously without some upstart wannabe propagandist cribbing from my playbook. Now I'll have to get in touch with Dan Rather and Bill Burkett for some new material.

chill out, somebody loves you http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/OPINION/506200305/1009

Mrs. Jacobs, the Democratic party and I thank you for your support, but your check bounced. Could you send me a cash contribution, preferably in small denomination unmarked bills? I'm about to embark on a fact finding junket to Amsterdam with my great friendTeddy Kennedy and some pocket change would come in handy for, uhhh, tips.

Date: Jun 20, 2005

Reader wrote:

Howard Dean wrote: ...Hey, you're stealing my thunder.

...chill out, somebody loves you

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050620/OPINION/506200305/1009

You've got nothing to worry about Howard. All Republicans love you. We hope you stay around for a very long time. Just keep on talking you silver-tongued devil.

Date: Jun 20, 2005

Oh cr*p wrote:

The biggest problem I have with academics is the passing along of stupidity without thinking - as can be seen from my previous post Churchill was a callous idiot and yet is being held up by a very educated professor as an example of "Affirmative Action". Unbelievable. This is the kind of education that students are now receiving, and we wonder why they are dumb.

Oh cr*p,

Sorry if my silence--after someone claimed that the Churchill story was a myth--sounded like complicity. I probably should have posted a note--as I do now--to say that I should have done some low-key googling to check out the story, though whether one website doth a myth make is open to question. I've been silent because, ironically, I've been checking out any number of other stories in the course of the study leave I worked very hard to achieve. Checking out the Churchill story/myth/truth/whatever meant that I couldn't check something else out. There are only so many hours in the day. I know that looks sloppy--sorry. I just wish you could see all the many things I've been working night and day on that aren't sloppy.

I doubt that Winston Churchill was either a secular saint or the Antichrist. The truth--as usual--probably lies somewhere in between. But this topic is, finally, off-topic on this board.

Now, I've got to get back to work.

Yours sincerely,

Jameela Lares