REDSKINS

I speak for no one but myself when saying it is saddening that Tulsa Union High School has followed the lead of the NFL’s Washington Team, by dropping its mascot name of “Redskins.”

Through the early 20^th Century, United States Indian Policy involved taking Indian homelands and confining the Indian people to reservations, where they were humbled. Their dignity destroyed by poverty, alcoholism, lack of education, public scorn and ridicule, the once self-sufficient occupants of America were forced to depend on the mercy of Indian Agents and profiteers.

Meanwhile, several tribes that were relocated under authority of the Indian Removal Act, realized their future depended on working to improve their situation. They instituted governments, schools and societies that respected their heritage, but understood that they must adapt to survive.

During these trying times, “redskin” was surely a derogatory term that conjured images of “wild Indians” attacking white settlers, or drunken Indians on a reservation. These “Redskins” were not generally considered productive members of society, regardless of tribal accomplishments. However, the accomplishments of individuals such as Jim Thorpe and Will Rogers were becoming recognized, and terms such as “redskin,” “braves,” and “warriors” were often laudatory, not derogatory.

In my opinion, naming a team “Redskins,” “Braves,” or “Chiefs” is a tribute to the fighting and winning spirit of the aboriginal occupants of America that in spite of devastating wars and diseases, brought by Europeans, still thrive. To think a sports team that has the goal of winning on game day would name their team after people they consider losers is ludicrous.

In the mid 1970’s, along with Kugee Supernaw, Pam Chibitty and others, I was involved in the incorporation of The Tulsa Indian Chamber of Commerce, as the founding president. During this time, I was called a name by a few Indian detractors that bothered me more than anything a white person ever called me. They called me an “Apple,” saying I was red on the outside and white on the inside, because I was working to pull Indians into a white man’s world.

In my life experience, I have been called “Chief,” “Red-man,” “Redskin,” “Brave,” “Blanket,” and others, but I always had enough sense to know when these were used derogatorily by opponents, or in recognition of my heritage, by friends.

May my “Redskin” brothers and sisters ever thrive in this great country.

Jim

My White Privilege

I am a direct descendent, five generations removed from Captain George McColloch, who along with his brothers, sister, and brother-in-law, Ebenezer Zane, settled what is now Wheeling, West Virginia and the surrounding area. Born into a family of patriots that fought in the American Revolution, that settled the old west, that were famous Indian fighters and that took up arms for the Union, in the Civil War, it might be thought that I am at the pinnacle of “white privilege.” Save for one thing; I am also a Cherokee Indian.

I realize that in today’s world, it has become a “badge of honor” to have American Indian ancestors. Even a recent candidate for the presidency of the United States falsely claimed to be a Cherokee. But this was not always the case. Let me take you back to 1911, the year of my mother’s birth. The Indian Wars ended 25 years earlier with the surrender of Geronimo, who spent the last years of his life as a prisoner of war and died in 1909. Oklahoma, though a new state, was still very much Indian Territory and to many living people that fought the Indian Wars, “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.”

My mother was born in Welch, Oklahoma, to a Cherokee woman who was at the time of the Dawes Commission enrollments, eleven years old and an orphan. Mariah, my grandmother, was later placed under the guardianship of a white attorney in Vinita, that took possession of her land allotments. Poor and uneducated, Mariah married a Scotsman named George Buchanan and gave birth to three children; two girls, of which, my mother was the youngest, and a younger boy.

When my mother was around three years old, George deserted the family and Mariah was forced to put the two girls in the orphanage at Pryor, Oklahoma. Within a year, my mother was placed in the Home of James Rogers, a prominent Cherokee rancher, on an indenture contract, meaning she was required to work for her support. Her older sister was also placed under an indenture contract to a woman in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where she was worked like a slave. The two sisters knew nothing of each other for years, until they accidentally met as young adults.

So, my mother’s “white privilege” was to be a “half-breed,” abandoned by a white father, placed in an orphanage and farmed out as an indentured servant. But the benefits don’t stop there. When enrolled in a white school she was spat upon, called “nigger,” and ostracized by the other children. She told that as a young woman, people would cross the street to avoid her on the sidewalk. Her only job opportunities were as a domestic servant, kitchen laborer or plucking feathers in a poultry house. She had no birth certificate, did not know her birth name until I was grown, and was granted citizenship by Act of Congress in 1923. Life might have been tough if not for her “white privilege.”

My dad was surely the recipient of “white privilege.” His grandfather, William, was a Civil War veteran and William’s grandfather, George, was an officer in the American Revolution, a politician in Ohio County, West Virginia, land owner and pioneer settler. But for some reason, the “white privilege” did not immediately pass to my dad. His father, my grandfather, took to the rails and abandoned my grandmother with five children. Likewise, my dad, as a young man took to the rails. He told me that he “hopped a freight” to Newton, Kansas, when he was fifteen. Walking down the street he saw a man coming toward him that looked familiar. As they came closer together, dad realized the man was his father and said, “Hello, are you Frank?” “I am, but who are you?” Said the man. “I am Ira, your son.” Said my dad. Perhaps, my dad’s “white privilege” began when he accidentally met his dad at a rail-yard in Kansas.

By the time my younger brother was born, my parent’s had moved from Vinita to Tulsa, to start a new life, which was also the start of my “white privilege.” I was not shunned or teased because of my race, but I was, along with all other Indian kids, publicly recognized at the start of each school year, because the government paid a stipend to the school system for each Indian child they educated.

During this period in American history, Indian children were being sent to boarding schools far away from their families. Government deemed it necessary to strip the children of their language and culture, to ensure their assimilation into white society. When I finished Kindergarten my mother was approached to send me to a boarding school and I suppose that had it not been for my white father exercising “white privilege,” I would have been shipped off to California.

My parents came from different cultures and racial backgrounds that had historically clashed, but their backgrounds are similar, in that they had difficult childhoods and they realized that the only privilege they had was the privilege to work hard at improving their lives. They did work hard to improve life for themselves and for their children. The privilege they used to their advantage was and is available to all Americans. It is the freedom to work toward improvements in your life. My dad told me many times, “Son, the world owes you a living, but you will have to work hard to get it.” This is my “privilege” and it is the “privilege” I passed to my children.

Today, I am saddened by the numbers of young people that seem to think they should be apologetic because they are predominately white. They don’t seem to realize that the majority of their parents and grandparents that immigrated to this country were not blessed with inherent “white privilege.” Rather, the “privilege” they sought was the freedom to improve their lives.

To apologize for the “privilege” of working toward a better life is something I will never understand. Neither will I apologize for sending my children to integrated schools, or taking them to church, or teaching them to work, or to know the difference in right and wrong. These are not only “white privileges.” They are privileges available to anyone in this country that wishes to pursue them.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

Return to Normalcy?

Oklahoma and other states are now allowing businesses to open. Hopefully, we will return to normalcy soon, although I think the results will be with us for years. It seems to me that through this entire ordeal, people are motivated by fear and panic. I never thought that in my lifetime I would see churches in America, closed for any reason, but it happened, and with a surprising willingness. Fear has brought more allegiance to civil authority than to the Word of God. Government has demonstrated its ability to suppress the Church and in the future, it will be easier for government to control the Church. I do not mourn for the Church, it will reap what it sows. I mourn for the people that may spend eternity estranged from God because the Church has lost its autonomy. History has demonstrated that both, a church controlled by government, and government controlled by church, are dysfunctional and ineffective.

Jim

Unalienable Rights

When so-called “unalienable” rights, commonly understood as freedoms, are abrogated by government authority, it is self-evident that these freedoms are not “unalienable,” but are granted by an entity with the powers of enforcement. It does not matter if abridgments come from an elected official, or from a dictator. It does not matter if there are “good” reasons, or wanton desires for restrictions. When armed force is employed to arrest those that violate suppression of “unalienable” rights, freedom no longer exists.

Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This suggests that from the creation of The Declaration of Independence, there were Americans willing to sacrifice freedom, for personal safety. This was perhaps the primary distinction between the “patriots,” and “loyalists,” of the day. Patriots were willing to sacrifice everything for freedom, and Loyalists were willing to trade liberty for safety, under the Crown of England.

While this desire for safety has been with us since our Founding, it has grown exponentially since Joseph Fletcher’s thesis on “Situational Ethics,” in the 1960’s. Fletcher’s theories that there are no absolutes and that every decision should be motivated by love, found fertile ground in classrooms around the world. Today, Fletcher’s influence may be seen in every human endeavor from politics to religion, from charity to the workplace, in that “moral absolutes” no longer exist. The situation determines the response. For example, lying is not wrong if done to protect another person’s feelings, or theft is not wrong, if done to feed a family.

This is the lens through which “freedom” is viewed by many people today. For these, the situation determines whether or not, freedom is allowed, or allowable. However, freedom is an unalienable right and as such, freedom is not something to be authorized by a governing authority.

Furthermore, if freedom is unalienable, it must also come with moral responsibility. It is a moral responsibility to end one person’s freedom where it collides with another person’s freedom, and failure to do so is immoral.

Certainly, government has the righteous authority to determine when and where an individual’s moral freedom infringes on another and therefore, becomes immoral. For example, an individual has freedom to own a dog, until that dog bites a neighbor. At that time, the government has the moral authority and responsibility, to intervene. However, it is subjugation of the dog owner’s freedom, for government to decree that the man cannot own a dog, for fear that a dog may bite someone. On the other side of this situation, the neighbor has the moral right to defend himself against the dog, and it is infringement of his freedom, to restrict his doing so.

American society has come to the place where fear of what might happen, and the attendant desire for security has undermined freedom in every sector of life. One cannot start a business; engage in a profession or trade; build, repair, or remodel a home; drive a car; dig a pond or harvest a forest without government permission. Bank accounts are monitored and one cannot withdraw or deposit large sums of cash without government oversight. We are no longer secure in our homes, persons or papers. Law enforcement can knock down the door of the wrong house, and if the owner resists, his life may be forfeit with no accountability.

How does this differ from the conditions in dictatorships that we Americans rail against? There is no difference, and all one need do is look at responses around the world concerning Corona Virus to know this. Americans are at the crossroads. If we continue to cower in fear of what might happen, government will not need a pandemic to tell you when you may leave your home, or where you may travel.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

If You Think Corona Virus is a Threat

Wait until you feel the effects of the Saudi Arabia/Russian oil flood. For over 40 years, the sale of U. S. oil to foreign buyers was mostly banned. This was in part, an effort to preserve the national oil reserves, and assuage those that feared exhaustion of domestic oil.

This fear also spawned myriad environmental regulations that morphed from protecting oil reserves to protecting the climate. These regulations severely limited domestic oil production and exploration, making the United States more and more dependent on foreign oil. For decades, the U. S. was fleeced by the OPEC countries that limited production to keep oil prices high, while billions, perhaps trillions, of U. S. dollars flowed into the economies of these oil rich countries.

Finally, in the second decade of the Twenty-First Century, thanks to new technology and political persistence by oil companies, the U. S. achieved oil independence. Oil prices dropped. Americans were freed from the yoke of OPEC. Not only did the U. S. become energy independent, but it was determined that the U. S. had the largest known oil reserves and had become the largest oil producing country in the world. The possibility of an oil economy no longer controlled by the Middle East “Robber Barons” was within grasp. But the Globalists among us were not happy. The particular reasons I do not know, but it is reasonable to think they all involve money.

In January, 2016, under the Obama Administration, restrictions on U. S. oil exports were lifted and U. S. oil began flowing to foreign nations. While this may, at first, seem to be a good economic move because it opens foreign markets to domestic oil producers, the down sides are that it ties domestic oil prices to foreign oil production, and makes the U. S. a competitor in world oil markets. Even more problematic is that this move made the U. S., once again, vulnerable to market manipulations by OPEC.

In recent weeks, while the media focuses on Corona Virus, the price of oil is dropping daily, as Russia and Saudi Arabia are in an advertised battle, to see which of them can produce the most oil. The increased production naturally lowers the price and because U. S. oil is tied to world prices, Americans are enjoying the lowest gasoline prices in years. While this feels good for the moment, be sure there is a price to pay.

Earlier in this writing, I used the term, “Robber Barons” because one of the schemes used by the original “Robber Barons” was to lower the price on a product until the competition was forced out of business, and then, having a monopoly they could charge what they wanted.

Foreign oil producers can survive on lower prices, simply because U. S. oil producers have higher production costs. If the world market oil supply continues to increase, the price will continue to fall, and U. S. production will cease. When U. S. production ceases, OPEC will again own the game and prices will skyrocket.

While the media focuses on Corona Virus, our economic enemies are plotting our economic downfall and Washington seems oblivious. Remember, when the price of gasoline triples that “Washingtonites” don’t buy gasoline. Their cars, chauffeurs and fuel are provided by the taxpayers that have no say in the “global economy.” 

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

THE DEATH OF REASON

      In more reasonable times, it was understood that the “burden of proof” rested on those that sought to deviate from normally accepted standards of morality. These “accepted standards” were usually based on long-standing religious doctrines, or cultural niceties, and often had no legal standing. For example, lying to your mother is not normally acceptable to society, because it is morally wrong. However, lying to mother is not normally illegal. On the other hand, murder is both morally wrong and illegal. Again, “in more reasonable times,” moral standards were as effective in determining behavior, as were legal prohibitions. Indeed, most people were more concerned about “right or wrong” than they were about “legal or illegal.”

      Throughout the ages, wherein morally right governed people as much, or more, as legally right, it was understood that deviation from “normally accepted standards of morality” required a much higher burden of proof to do so than simply stating, “it is illegal.” Legal or illegal may be determined by the wishes of government, but morally right is determined by higher authority. While I personally believe God is The Higher Authority, I realize that many people do not agree with my belief. Therefore, let’s identify the higher authority as being the welfare of society. The “Welfare of Society” is a much higher standard than legal or illegal, because that which is “legal or illegal” by man-made decree, is not always best for society. Slavery was an example of “legal” and Prohibition was an example of “illegal,” but both proved detrimental to society.

      Today, the law, which only defines “legal,” or “illegal,” and often does not consider “right,” or “wrong,” is being used to determine the moral standards of society. Keep in mind that societies existed long before written legal codes, but every society that failed to maintain a moral code, failed.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com