Obama to hold third Native American conference

Associated Press ^ | Nov. 22, 2011

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will address Native American leaders Dec. 2 as they gather for a White House sponsored tribal nations conference at the Interior Department.

It will be Obama's third conference with American Indians. Obama first met with tribal leaders in November of 2009.

[oneamericanvoice]

Indians don’t smoke “peace pipes”, as such. So Obama wouldn’t do that. However, I don’t know what they did when that Crow family adopted him.

[Jay Santos CP]

Pigford III, American Indian style.

[oneamericanvoice]

Wonder what that Crow family that adopted him thinks of him now?

If you think about it, it would have been a good move, because no politician pays attention to Indian. But like everything else, Obama blew that too. Just another broken promise.

[Timber Rattler]

Are they such a small minority that their vote means little in the larger scheme of things?

Collectively on the National scene? No. But within their respective individual states, yes, particularly in major Indian states like Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Alaska, where larger, politically powerful tribes like the Cherokees, the Navajos, the Hopis, the Sioux, and Alaska Indians can vote in blocs, thus making an impact on state and local elections.

[doc1019]

Thanks. I think you have answered my questions, or, at the very least, given me reason to research more.

[oneamericanvoice]

True. Liberal in the cities. Although there are Conservative Indians, but they stay quiet about it. Most are patriotic, but there are those who will say, “I fought for my people. Not the US.” The most idiotic statement ever, and that was from a respected elder. It’s like saying, I love milk but hate cows.

[oneamericanvoice]

There was a family (Crow or Cheyenne) who adopted him after one of the conferences, the first I think.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Community agitators must agitate communities or die.

[hellbender]

Obama...said he is “working hard to live up to” the name that was given to him by the Crow Nation: “One Who Helps People Throughout the Land.” That’s all well and good, but it seems to us that if the Crow Nation had given a little more thought to President Obama’s personality and actual accomplishments, they could have come up with some other names that are more appropriate for the man. Such as: Chief Laughing Pork Chief Born In Three Places Chief Bow to Other Chiefs Chief Shitting Bull Chief Lost His House Chief Hide-behind-Bush Chief Talk With Machine Chief Deer in Headlights Chief Blabbering Stream Chief Running Mouth Chief Who Spend Wampum Like Drunken Kardashian Sister Chief One Term Chief Who Love Own Reflection In Pool Chief Spread Other People’s Wampum Chief Never Stop Running Chief Peacemaker Who Start Class Warfare Chief Double Talker (shortened from the literal translation: “Chief Who Talk Out of Both Sides of Mouth”)

[MtnMan101]

You missed: “Chief Walking Eagle”. So full of sh!t that he can’t fly.

[RightGeek]

Chief Tax-Free Smokes is in hiding, but the others will be there.

[sgtyork]

How can you forget the conference that was going on the day of the Ft. Hood massacre. Remember the bamster giving a shout out to the indian activists before discussing the dead at Ft. Hood?

[sgtyork]

How can you forget the conference that was going on the day of the Ft. Hood massacre. Remember the bamster giving a shout out to the indian activists before discussing the dead at Ft. Hood?

[Fiji Hill]

I dislike the term “native American” for Indian because it implies that all others are not really Americans.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

SueRae> in answer to your question - MANHATTAN ISLAND

[Bellflower]

Here is a youtube of his speech to Indians before his election. He promises them just about everything. I wonder how that has been working out for them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuPiBNf0PWg

[oneamericanvoice]

I dislike the term “native American” for Indian because it implies that all others are not really Americans. I understand the argument, however, it is a straw one, since the subject is "Indians". Therefore when used in context the listener is clear of whom it refers to. It isn't to exclude. If "indigenous" were used, would you have a problem? Think about it. Probably not, since it basically means the same thing. So, again we are faced with context.

[Fiji Hill]

Maybe the Indians should call themselves Siberian-Americans. I’m not a “European,” an “Anglo,” or whatever liberal term is currently in vogue, and I maintain that I have as much of a right to be in this country as any Indian.

[oneamericanvoice]

Why Siberian-Americans? Not everyone came over the land bridge. Sure, you have as much right to be here as Indians. That isn’t part of the discussion. Let me see if I can make this clearer. If someone told you to put a ice cube tray of water in the refrigerator, you would know that they meant the freezer side. Well, if someone is talking about a pow-wow, and they use the term Native American, would you think that it meant non-Indians? No. Because you have context.

[Osage Orange]

I live in Oklahoma...and I'm part Indian.

IMO, most Indians here are Democrats. And they ain't Conservative.