First Americans Museum

[Pete]

That was my thinking, if we had a ferry it could make an easier connection.

Didn’t we used to have a more “commuter boat” setup at some point or am I getting confused?

No, it's always been the River Cruise setup but it would be easy to run other types of boats and routes.

[jn1780]

Is there not a river taxi or river boat cruise stop that is relatively close to the canal taxi?

Yes, it seems just like it would be one extra stop for a river boat cruise that already takes awhile to travel up and down the river especially upstream where it has to pass through a lock. A dedicated boat between these two areas would be nice.

[Plutonic Panda]

It this finally moving forward? I've been in town for last week and I haven't seen any movement.

[Pete]

It this finally moving forward? I've been in town for last week and I haven't seen any movement.

Yes, they have been working on the inside for a while.

[David]

This has apparently been renamed to the First Americans Museum.

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...16642701185024
https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...17952099979265

[dankrutka]

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

[KayneMo]

This has apparently been renamed to the First Americans Museum.

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...16642701185024
https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...17952099979265

I love it.

[Pete]

Much better name for sure.

The previous one was way too long and somewhat associated with failure.

[PaddyShack]

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

I don't want to derail this thread, but what exactly are we supposed to do today? Tear down our cities and move back to Europe? Why should I be held accountable for something that happened generations ago, mostly by far richer and more powerful families than mine. I understand the need to properly educate people in today's society about the atrocities of the past and I believe in all peoples sharing their culture and family histories, no matter where they came from. But I just don't know why we have to argue over sovereignty in today's world. Which peoples were forced out of Oklahoma when the U.S. forced these tribes from the east coast? If these nations can be sovereign, then why can't other peoples of differing cultures and races become sovereign as well?

This is not to say we should eradicate the history or culture of these nations. I just don't see returning Oklahoma lands to tribes who were forced here from their true lands in the east.

[PaddyShack]

As for the name change, I hate that it now says FAM...

[PhiAlpha]

This has apparently been renamed to the First Americans Museum.

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...16642701185024
https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/st...17952099979265

Great name, fam. Let's go!

[CloudDeckMedia]

The clean design, black text and three triangles of red, yellow & blue pointing in different directions. Pete, do you have a press release that explains the symbolism behind these elements?

[David]

The clean, primary color design reminds me of the new Convention Center and Scissortail Park logos.

[PhiAlpha]

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

Yeah, fam. After thinking about this, it probably would've been better just to scrap altogether the whole idea of building a Smithsonian quality museum meant to honor these people and tell their stories so that all of us terrible folk who stole their land wouldn't have a venue to gain a greater appreciation for them. God forbid the Native American Tribe funding this decide on a name that references Native Americans as the first people who inhabited America, the name the world has used to refer to our continent for the last 500+ years. Should've just built the Boomer Sooner Museum of Manifest Destiny instead to complement the Cowboy Hall of Fame.

I'm being a sarcastic a** but in seriousness, I don't think many people are going to feel that way about it, especially since the Chickasaw's most likely came up with the name or at minimum signed off on it. Though given the public's propensity to get offended and bent out of shape by the smallest of things lately, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a scathing article about it on the front page of the Washington Post.

[king183]

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

Dan, your argument doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something and you can help me understand it. I am Native American and have been heavily involved in tribal issues for many years. In my experience, I've seen nothing to indicate this name is harmful, insulting, or would be considered ahistorical; in fact, it's just the opposite. Many tribes, including mine, have been using--indeed, advocating the use of-- the "First Americans" label for a very long time in an effort to better establish in the minds of the American people (and others) the fact that they were the first to arrive on the American continent nearly 16,000 years ago. It is an infinitely better and accurate name than "American Indian," which is truly ahistorical.

[David]

I assume what Dan is keying into is the use of Americans which is still colonial in origin by way of Amerigo Vespucci. I think you sometimes see First Peoples used as different alternative? Regardless though, I feel like the Chickasaws are the source of this and I would trust them to navigate those waters.

[PhiAlpha]

I assume what Dan is keying into is the use of Americans which is still colonial in origin by way of Amerigo Vespucci. I think you sometimes see First Peoples used as different alternative? Regardless though, I feel like the Chickasaws are the source of this and I would trust them to navigate those waters.

Yeah that's how I took it, but what are we supposed to do? If you just call it the First People Museum, that wouldn't really be accurate either as most evidence points to the first humans appearing in Asia and Africa. I guess we could call it the "First People of the Continent Eventually Known as America That Certainly Was Not Known as America Back Then Museum" but that's a mouthful.

[AP]

Canada uses the term First Nations, I believe. Though, I don't see how First Americans would have been signed off on with the Chickasaw nation approving considering all of the work they are doing.

[dankrutka]

There’s a lot to respond to, but I’ll do so in the short time as I walk through an airport (forgive any errors). First, I appreciate those engaging in the discussion honestly. There’s no need for over the top sarcasm or a debate on whether you should give up your property and move to Europe or we whether we should abandon the museum. A lot of strawmen and close-mindedness.

Political sovereignty is still a huge issue for Indigenous Nations. It doesn’t just mean getting land back or seceding from the US. It is complex and pertains to a variety of legal issues I can’t lay out here. I’ll find some good readings and post them.

Indigenous nations precede the word “America” and even when the U.S. formed, they negotiated treaties as independent nations. Of course, Indigenous nations have had their own names for the land that became “America,” most notably the Lenape (Delaware Nation) called it Turtle Island. So, most nations were violently forced to be American over and over again. Boarding schools were about “killing the Indian” to make them “American.” I am not here to tell the Chickasaw Nation what to do. It’s not my place. Each nation and its citizens can make that choice. My point is that they are alienating large numbers of Indigenous peoples at a museum “for” them. There are plenty of names that would have been better and less divisive in Indigenous communities. This museum could recruit Indigenous scholars to visit OKC, but this name is bad branding IMHO... beside the FAM part.

[Zuplar]

Many American Indians, including myself take pride in being American. I can’t take anything Dan says seriously anymore after the past few overly political correction posts he’s made regarding Indians.

[dankrutka]

Canada uses the term First Nations, I believe. Though, I don't see how First Americans would have been signed off on with the Chickasaw nation approving considering all of the work they are doing.

I am sure the Chickasaw Nation chose the name. However, this is not a Chickasaw museum. It’s supposed to be for all nations and peoples so I don’t know why they would pick such a divisive term within indigenous communities.

[dankrutka]

Many American Indians, including myself take pride in being American. I can’t take anything Dan says seriously anymore after the past few overly political correction posts he’s made regarding Indians.

I never said you shouldn’t take pride in being American anywhere in my post. I would never say that to anyone. You might want to re-read my post. But, more than that, I'm happy to engage in discussion. I want to learn different perspectives on these issues. I lived the first 29 years of my life in Oklahoma and didn't learn near enough about the Indigenous nations in the state. It's embarrassing. So, I've been doing what I can to learn as an adult. In fact, everything I posted I learned from Indigenous scholars (not to say I represent everything perfectly!). But to just call my post PC and dismiss me is disappointing. I'd be happy to learn from you and share your perspective (if you want) too.

[dankrutka]

While I'm sure I can find better sources, the Wikipedia page on Indigenous sovereignty has a lot on how the issue has evolved and a number of court cases being fought on the issue today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal..._United_States

Here's a good post by Debbie Reese (Nambé Pueblo) on why "First Americans" is problematic.. she explains the issue far better than I do as she discusses children's books that use the term: https://americanindiansinchildrensli...20Americans%22

[hoya]

Good God, people will get pissed off over any stupid thing.

[PhiAlpha]

Good God, people will get pissed off over any stupid thing.

Yes. It’s beyond annoying.