June 06, 2008

Obama isn't the first

Kaw Indian preceded Obama on presidential ticketDemocrat Barack Obama is the first person of color to be a major-party nominee for president, but he's not the first to be on a presidential ticket.

Charles Curtis, a member of the Kaw Indian tribe, was vice president under Herbert Hoover. He served from 1929 to 1933. Curtis, a senator from Kansas, had been the Senate's majority leader and an unsuccessful rival of Hoover's for the 1928 Republican presidential nomination.

Curtis was a great-great-grandson of the Kaw chief White Plume, who offered his help to the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804. Born in 1860, Curtis spent much of his childhood on the Kaw tribe's reservation near Topeka and spoke the Kaw tribal language before he learned English.
Comment:  It's curious that Curtis went as far as he did in those supposedly unenlightened times. If an Indian ran for president or vice president today, he'd undoubtedly get smeared for having "radical" views on race and other controversial issues. (By "radical" I mean admitting that race is an issue. In other words, not pretending that racism doesn't exist.)

Oh, here's why he was nominated and elected:Curtis was strongly partisan: According to the Senate Historical Office, he often told audiences he was "one-eighth Kaw Indian and 100% Republican." He was a master at dealmaking.

First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1892, Curtis soon became chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. He drafted the Curtis Act of 1898, which abridged many tribes' rights under treaties to govern themselves and put the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs in charge of overseeing mineral and oil resources on tribal lands.
In short, he was a sellout--a hang-around-the-fort Indian. I knew he was a Republican, so I should've realized that.

15 comments:

writerfella said...

Writerfellahere --
Barack HUSSEIN Obama isn't the first WHAT? Native American in the top election quadrant? Afro-American in the top election quadrant? Person of color in the top election quadrant? WHAT? And how does that fit the many times asserted express topic universe of this blogsite?
And what's with this 'Lay off my wife!' statement from the candidate? It just may be what she said to him...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

dmarks said...

From gratuitous Republican-bashing in the main post to some sort of pointless attempt at Arab-baiting in the first post.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
'Republican-bashing' never is gratuitous, given eight years of George II, thousands of war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, billions and billions given to war profiteers while the public economy falters and sputters, and all Americans get is a 'Tsk, tsk,' from their President while gasoline and other commodities rise into a pricing stratosphere.
And 'Arab-baiting' is nothing compared to the 'Arab appeasement' that the current administration has attached to any and all of the above. But perhaps dMarks doesn't mind the world in which he now resides and mindlessly is intending to vote for John McCain for four more years of the same stinking and sinking status quo...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

dmarks said...

I knew I could get Rob and Writerfella on the same page eventually!

Does this mean now you are wholehearted on the Obama bandwagon?

dmarks said...

(and that Iraq war is Hillary's war. She voted to authorize it. Obama did not).

John Umland said...

Rob
I think you insult many Indians today whose ancestors survived because they were like the VP "a sellout--a hang-around-the-fort Indian." So are you in support of the 19th century philosophy that Indians belonged on reservations so they wouldn't mix with whites? The lack of American government integrity doomed many on the reservations because they couldn't hunt and they weren't being provided for as promised. I don't see why survival, which is why many tribes hung around the fort, is considered by you a negative thing.
God is good
jpu

Rob said...

"Gratuitous Republican-bashing"? Don't think so, DMarks. In fact, the Republican-bashing is essential to the point of this posting, which is how a minority (specifically a Kaw Indian) got elected vice president in 1928.

Rob said...

Did you read anything other than the title, Russ? Because the answer to your question is directly below it: "Democrat Barack Obama is the first person of color to be a major-party nominee for president, but he's not the first to be on a presidential ticket."

The thoughts and actions of world leaders (e.g., the president, the pope) and potential world leaders (e.g., candidates for president) are often relevant to my pop-culture focus. Why? Because they're among the opinion leaders and taste-makers who shape our culture.

If you need examples of this, consider how leaders such as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama have popularized their causes. Along with George W. Bush, Al Gore, Vladimir Putin, Evo Morales, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and U2's Bono, they help determine what people think. In some cases their influence is negative--people think the entertainment industry is shallow because of Britney, Paris, and Lindsay--but it's still an influence.

Rob said...

I called Curtis a sellout and a hang-around-the-fort Indian because he "drafted the Curtis Act of 1898, which abridged many tribes' rights under treaties to govern themselves and put the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs in charge of overseeing mineral and oil resources on tribal lands." Do these sound like good ideas to you, JPU? Is there some reason Curtis couldn't have stayed neutral on, or even opposed, these actions? Did "survival" require him to take anti-Indian positions? If so, how?

I didn't say anything in this posting about Indians who actually had to hang around forts to survive. My comments were directed only at Curtis. I doubt you can convince me that his political or physical survival depended on helping Republicans abridge treaties. But go ahead and try.

Rob said...

It's funny how you keep shilling for Bush III (i.e., John SIDNEY McCain), Russ, even though you claim to hate Bush's policies. Or are you too dumb to realize that repeating Obama's middle name as if he were a Muslim only aids the enemy? Are you sure you're not a McCain lobbyist with a built-in conflict of interest like the others helping McCain?

John Umland said...

Rob,
i don't disagree with the "sell out" term. it's the other term that is offensive, sort of like "house n*****" toward an African American or Uncle Tom. I do hope that the newest lawsuit against the US Government for billions in restitution for mineral rights will prevail, but i'm also cynical...
God is good
jpu

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Rob's position is that, for the first time, he gets to vote for a non-white candidate. BUT --
White America (read: any white over 30) will NOT elect a Black man President of the US of A because it is too early for such a matter. Maybe in 2020, but not now. John McCain has been handed the Presidency by any and all of those who ushered Barack HUSSEIN Obama into the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. And McCain as President will invade Iran, thus expanding the Gulf War II front and death toll, while allowing the price of gasoline to broach and surpass $10 a gallon, simply because it will finance the war. writerfella is a futurist, and what he sees as YOUR future now has become all but ineluctable...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Re "White America (read: any white over 30) will NOT elect a Black man President of the US of A because it is too early for such a matter": Thank you for your worthless opinion. Too bad it's at variance with the facts.

First, it doesn't explain why Americans have elected black governors and senators. Second, it doesn't explain how Obama won so many presidential primaries against white candidates. Third, it contradicts most of the polls taken so far.

In short, your opinion is unsubstantiated drivel. I suspect it's code for what you really mean: that you won't vote for Obama because you're not ready for a black president.

Rob said...

By the way, "White America" doesn't mean "any white over 30." In this context, it means any white voter 18 or older.

By limiting the white electorate to people over 30, you've ignored a significant group of potential voters. Unlike you, most of them are unbiased and willing to vote for a black candidate. What does that do to your made-up projections?

Rob said...

Alas, Russ, your comments on the 2008 presidential election proved to be incredibly ignorant. For more on the subject, see Stupidest Indian Prediction Ever.