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