If the state gives back the AICC to the city, we could put its completion as a part MAPS 4 - 2017 improvements that address the south bank of the Oklahoma River.

If the state gives back the AICC to the city, we could put its completion as a part MAPS 4 - 2017 improvements that address the south bank of the Oklahoma River.

NM. Misread post.

Here's my question. If the city does take the AICC back, how will it fund the completion any better than the state?

A MAPS4 vote is great, but that will be later this decade at the earliest. Same with a bond election. Does anyone think the private pledges will be able to sustain themselves that long?

That's an interesting, creative and predictable, but untruthful recounting. In 2012 a bid package was prepared for items to complete the project, at which time the legislature was asked for $40 million as a MATCH to $40 million in pledged private funds that were contingent on the state providing their amount. The legislature failed for approve a bond issuance for the project, and the tea party has orchestrated a rebuff since then.

Well I don't know what to tell you Rover - do it my way and it opens. Do it your way and it sits like it is for some undetermined length of time. Talk about adhering to dogma.

The problem is this was a legislature decision to build this and now they are balking on the idea of funding the rest of it citing to money. It's like starting to build a house and wanting really nice finishes on the outside but when it comes to the inside, it is still a shell and you don't have the money to do anything else. I guess in this situation, you would go into foreclosure which is what I wish the city would do, take some TIF money and fund the hell out of this thing.

I don't think a TIF would work here because it would be city owned, and exempt from taxes.

Well I don't know what to tell you Rover - do it my way and it opens. Do it your way and it sits like it is for some undetermined length of time. Talk about adhering to dogma.

I don't adhere to dogma, I adhere to reality. There is a difference.

Get a room, you two.

:)

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but why doesn't the 39 tribes put up a million each to fund the cultural center?

Yes, it's been mentioned before by people who don't know that this initiative was started by the State Legislature, under Frank Keating, and continuing through the Henry and Fallin Administrations. It was not started by the Indian tribes.

Yes, it's been mentioned before by people who don't know that this initiative was started by the State Legislature, under Frank Keating, and continuing through the Henry and Fallin Administrations. It was not started by the Indian tribes.

Sort of - it was the brain child of Bill Anoatubby , Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, who persuade the State to fund it.

Sort of - it was the brain child of Bill Anoatubby , Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, who persuade the State to fund it.

And if I remember correctly, the Chickasaws have donated a considerable sum already.

I'm not interested in whose fault it is. I don't care who came up with the idea. I expect the state legislature to act like grown ups and finish it.

Actually I expect them to act like children and scream and point at each other, but I WANT them to act like adults.

Honestly, saying the tribes should fund it is a lot like saying black people should have been asked to pay for the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. Just like the civil rights era and the events leading up to it are an important (and not always pretty) part of our country's SHARED history, Native American history is an important (and not always pretty) part of this state's SHARED story.

By the way, I have no doubt that individual African Americans and black-owned businesses contributed heavily to the NCRM, but suggesting they should be the ones financially responsible for the telling of that story would have been incredibly offensive. Is the difference that we all know that some of the tribes have money? And that some of us assume that ALL tribes have lots of money?

Do folks here know how a large percentage of Native Americans ended up in Oklahoma in the first place? Spoiler: it wasn't by choice.

Honestly, saying the tribes should fund it is a lot like saying black people should have been asked to pay for the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. Just like the civil rights era and the events leading up to it are an important (and not always pretty) part of our country's SHARED history, Native American history is an important (and not always pretty) part of this state's SHARED story.

By the way, I have no doubt that individual African Americans and black-owned businesses contributed heavily to the NCRM, but suggesting they should be the ones financially responsible for the telling of that story would have been incredibly offensive. Is the difference that we all know that some of the tribes have money? And that some of us assume that ALL tribes have lots of money?

Do folks here know how a large percentage of Native Americans ended up in Oklahoma in the first place? Spoiler: it wasn't by choice.

I agree fully. The comments saying Native Americans should be responsible for completion of this museum is cringe worthy and down right racist. Not sure if its an attempt at humor or a legitimate opinion of theirs, either way its a very bad look for the individual and a bad representation of Oklahoma in genera .

It's probably not bad intentions on their part when they say it. I just think a lot of people don't fully connect the dots on this issue, and hey, we all know that all of the Indians are rich these days...right?

To Rover's point, it is interesting that the Feds didn't make a contribution to the AICC (even 5 or 10M helps). But knowing Oklahoma's legislature they likely did not apply for Federal support OR refused it when it was likely offered.

I have a hard time believing the Feds wouldn't contribute (if asked) since 1) they were responsible for Oklahoma even existing as "Indian Territory" and 2) this is not only Oklahoma's history but the nation's and 3) the Feds likely contributed to other cultural museums not located in DC. Native America is very much the cornerstone of Oklahoma so it is imperative in my mind that there be a world class museum for the state/citizens to be proud of.

Not to start a fight, but Rover's post did get me thinking why we don't have Federal support (which in-turn could lessen the state's burden AND force their hand given the timelines tied to Fed funding). Anybody have any insights here?

The boobs in the legislature tried to pass language demanding the AICCM accept zero federal assistance of any kind. I guess maybe they were afraid that they would be required to invite President Obama to the dedication or something awful like that.

OMG, this is what I was afraid happened. (shakes head, along with you Urbanized. ..).

Good grief, don't the state leg realize this is a US museum and could get some help from Obama if they were somewhat hospitable or at least acted like they wanted to be part of the Union that is the USA - headed by Barak Obama? If nothing else, it would be less money the state has to pony up with. ..

Not to start a political discussion, but anybody else agree a shot from the Feds should be taken? Any ideas on how to get that started? If the Feds say no, then OK. But at least try. ...

The federal government was asked and the original proposal called for something like 1/3 of the cost to be from the Feds. I want to say the federal government kicked in something like $15 million, we'll short of what was anticipated.

This is from 2012

https://www.okc.gov/mgr/2012fed/aicc.html


The United States Congress authorized $33 million in funding for the project through Public Law 107-331 in 2002. To date, the Federal government has provided a total of $8.2 million. Federal funding is essential to the completion of the AICCM, and we request the delegations’ continued support for this project.

Of course, that same page says the center will generate $3.8 billion in tax revenue so take it for what it's worth.

What the tea party sees as being noble in blocking this has just become them being clownish. This is a perfect example of how they can't lead, but only can be obstructionists. The rigid dogma precludes them from finding ways to have a good private public partnership on things like education, arts and culture.

The Smithsonian needs to take it over and make it an extension of NMAI.

^ Amen

I was going to mention this but the last few times I've driven by at night, all the lights are on at this place. How long has it been lit at night and construction has been stopped for so long?

I was going to mention this but the last few times I've driven by at night, all the lights are on at this place. How long has it been lit at night and construction has been stopped for so long?
I would guess that is a security issue.

It is always lit up & there is always security personnel on site. Its currently in a less than ideal location, and they can't afford not to protect it right now.IF this thing every get complete I expect the surrounding area to develop quite nicely.

If they got the money today, how long would it be before it opens?

I'm still one to push this to non-public funds. I really feel like it should never have started construction until all of the funds were obtained. I get that it's a museum and all that, but unless the state gets to run it and take in all the income, then I don't really feel like it's something we should be paying for. $40 million more can do a lot in terms of projects on existing needs. I don't disagree with bonding necessarily, but only if it doesn't replace another department's needs (which I do understand would mean an additional tax to cover the bond).

Im a bit conflicted because it's the type of thing that could potentially really offer something. But in practical terms, I know it's going to be a financial drain and will NEVER support itself. It's never been supported by the tribes, they picked a HORRIBLE location (and I don't think it's going to develop around it either....especially not with C2S down the road), and after 10 years, we're still looking at not having enough money to even open the doors yet.

With as much money as private givers donate to universities and other non-profits, you can't tell me that if people WANTED to give, that we wouldn't be able to come up with the remaining balance. Yes, we got a good push once, but maybe its time to get another push? If people think it's a good project, they'll give. If not, well then that should say something. It's sort of turning into a moneypit and I, for one, think an audit might be due.

bombermwc, it is a state project, rub by a state agency. Private funds have been involved and some 40 mil in pledges are waiting on further state action. The audit you think is needed already happened.

I'm still one to push this to non-public funds. I really feel like it should never have started construction until all of the funds were obtained. I get that it's a museum and all that, but unless the state gets to run it and take in all the income, then I don't really feel like it's something we should be paying for. $40 million more can do a lot in terms of projects on existing needs. I don't disagree with bonding necessarily, but only if it doesn't replace another department's needs (which I do understand would mean an additional tax to cover the bond).

Im a bit conflicted because it's the type of thing that could potentially really offer something. But in practical terms, I know it's going to be a financial drain and will NEVER support itself. It's never been supported by the tribes, they picked a HORRIBLE location (and I don't think it's going to develop around it either....especially not with C2S down the road), and after 10 years, we're still looking at not having enough money to even open the doors yet.

With as much money as private givers donate to universities and other non-profits, you can't tell me that if people WANTED to give, that we wouldn't be able to come up with the remaining balance. Yes, we got a good push once, but maybe its time to get another push? If people think it's a good project, they'll give. If not, well then that should say something. It's sort of turning into a moneypit and I, for one, think an audit might be due.

As kevinpate said, it's a state project. It was started by the state. It was funded by the state. It would be run by the state. All money from it would go to the state. They did an audit. They found no wrongdoing. All the money was accounted for -- the people running the project just picked expensive options. There have been private donations, and the city of OKC has chipped in as well. But this was a state project from the very beginning.

The issue is that everyone who was involved in creating the project is retired now. The people in the legislature today don't like it and don't want to fund it. We have a different breed of legislators now -- tea party types who don't like government spending. And they would rather let this thing fall in on itself rather than finish the project.

The issue is that everyone who was involved in creating the project is retired now. The people in the legislature today don't like it and don't want to fund it. We have a different breed of legislators now -- tea party types who don't like government spending. And they would rather let this thing fall in on itself rather than finish the project.

The current legislature likes spending just as much as the old legislature, they just spend it on other things.

The current legislature likes spending just as much as the old legislature, they just spend it on other things.

So true, things that basically support their districts; which in turn helps their re-election.

Is there something wrong with that Laramie? Didn't we all just pat Imhoffe on the back for the AWACS and Refueling projects he secured for Tinker? How is a state-level idea any different? Is it only NOT ok if it's not our district?

I would argue that the thing should never have been started and was a flawed concept from the beginning. The fact that no tribe in the state wants to help with it should tell you something. Whatever their reason for not helping financially, the point is you're trying to force a museum that no one seems to want. If it was wanted, we would have had it built years ago. Sometimes people try to sell projects as benefiting the "state", when really they don't...ie this thing. People in Enid or Lawton or Tulsa are in absolutely NO way going to get a benefit from this. Hell, if you live in Tulsa, you're close to several tribe HQ's and cultural centers.

Someone thought it would be a good idea to cram a bunch of tribe's cultures into a single building. The tribes don't want to do that because they don't want their cultures watered down, which is what it would do (take pieces to talk about). It may be less CONVENIENT to drive to, but each tribe's cultural center does a FAAAAAAR better job of teaching about their history than this place will ever even hope to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some Native peoples already help? And what is your basis for claiming that different Native peoples not wanting it? Just because groups haven't volunteered to pay for a state project is not an indication that they don't want it. There are a lot of projects that I want completed that I am not planning to pay for.

From a cultural stand point, I think this will become one of the top tourist draws in the state and also become important for many Oklahomans (including a lot of posters in this thread) to better understand the histories of Native peoples that is such an important part of Oklahoma's history.

Also, a lot of people who live in the metro or are visiting it cannot or will not visit the specific cultural centers that can be several hours away, but likely would visit the AICC. Many people are interested in Native histories, but not a specific group of Native peoples. The AICC is a perfect starting point for many people who will hopefully then visit specific cultural centers as their curiosity and understandings grow.

I've visited the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur. It is actually fantastic for being only a fraction of the size as the AICC. Very good content and they have traveling exhibits on the occasion.

It's a shame that this has stalled out, with the location and content, it could be fantastic and one of a kind.

To bomber -

Yes, Native American tribes have donated, and for you to say that people in other parts of the state won't benefit and don't want this is misguided. Hell, they'll benefit just by taking a day trip for a visit.

Well when they first started building this I was excited that I would be able to take my young kids to it when it opens , at this rate I might as well start saying I am excited to take my Grandkids to this when it opens ( if it opens). The past few years when we drive by the hill my kids ask "is it close to being finished yet" lol

Is there something wrong with that Laramie? Didn't we all just pat Imhoffe on the back for the AWACS and Refueling projects he secured for Tinker? How is a state-level idea any different? Is it only NOT ok if it's not our district?

I would argue that the thing should never have been started and was a flawed concept from the beginning. The fact that no tribe in the state wants to help with it should tell you something. Whatever their reason for not helping financially, the point is you're trying to force a museum that no one seems to want. If it was wanted, we would have had it built years ago. Sometimes people try to sell projects as benefiting the "state", when really they don't...ie this thing. People in Enid or Lawton or Tulsa are in absolutely NO way going to get a benefit from this. Hell, if you live in Tulsa, you're close to several tribe HQ's and cultural centers.

Someone thought it would be a good idea to cram a bunch of tribe's cultures into a single building. The tribes don't want to do that because they don't want their cultures watered down, which is what it would do (take pieces to talk about). It may be less CONVENIENT to drive to, but each tribe's cultural center does a FAAAAAAR better job of teaching about their history than this place will ever even hope to do.

There aren't enough facepalm meme's on the internet for how I feel about this post.

dankrutka/bellaboo - their contributions have been laughable so far. I'm not just pulling this statement out of my back pocket. I deal with tribes from across the country on a daily basis. While I may not be native, interacting with tribal entities daily does give me an insight to how they feel about things like this. Not shockingly, most tribes are self-focused and are interested more in what is beneficial to their members rather than generalized native projects, regardless of what form they come in.

jcougar - I realize what I said was a bit of a stretch, but I was just trying to make a point. In reality, people simple wont drive from all over in great numbers to see this. If visitors are in town, they'll see it. OKC area residents will come see it. But just like the local tribal centers, the vast majority of people that visit (externally from the tribe members) are not going to be from all over. Id love to see some statistics on proving me wrong though. I don't mean that as a pissfest, rather if I am wrong, i'll accept it and take it full on. But I would like to see some evidence rather than just off the hip.

dankrutka/bellaboo - their contributions have been laughable so far. I'm not just pulling this statement out of my back pocket. I deal with tribes from across the country on a daily basis. While I may not be native, interacting with tribal entities daily does give me an insight to how they feel about things like this. Not shockingly, most tribes are self-focused and are interested more in what is beneficial to their members rather than generalized native projects, regardless of what form they come in.

jcougar - I realize what I said was a bit of a stretch, but I was just trying to make a point. In reality, people simple wont drive from all over in great numbers to see this. If visitors are in town, they'll see it. OKC area residents will come see it. But just like the local tribal centers, the vast majority of people that visit (externally from the tribe members) are not going to be from all over. Id love to see some statistics on proving me wrong though. I don't mean that as a pissfest, rather if I am wrong, i'll accept it and take it full on. But I would like to see some evidence rather than just off the hip.

When/if this is ever completed I think it instantly becomes the 3rd & possibly 2nd biggest attraction in the City behind #1 National Memorial & #2/3 Cowboy Hall of Fame. Nothing else even comes close. It is very important this is finished & it will add amazing cultural value to our City. Its a very expensive project & just because it hasn't received funding doesn't mean people don't think its important. It just means OKC & the state is ultra conservative & we hardly ever spend money on anything that isn't a bare necessity.

Also, tribes don't have nearly as much money as people think they do. Most of the tribes reservations are in shambles, and it has led to very many problems within their populations. I agree that they may not be 100% behind the idea of shared history, but really there are so few remaining Native Americans that they have started to find common ground & a brotherhood even though their distant pasts don't necessarily align.

When/if this is ever completed I think it instantly becomes the 3rd & possibly 2nd biggest attraction in the City behind #1 National Memorial & #2/3 Cowboy Hall of Fame. Nothing else even comes close. It is very important this is finished & it will add amazing cultural value to our City. Its a very expensive project & just because it hasn't received funding doesn't mean people don't think its important. It just means OKC & the state is ultra conservative & we hardly ever spend money on anything that isn't a bare necessity.

Also, tribes don't have nearly as much money as people think they do. Most of the tribes reservations are in shambles, and it has led to very many problems within their populations. I agree that they may not be 100% behind the idea of shared history, but really there are so few remaining Native Americans that they have started to find common ground & a brotherhood even though their distant pasts don't necessarily align.

1 - Natives don't want to be your damn tourist attraction.
2 - Which reservations are those? You are aware that the tribes in Oklahoma don't have reservations like in other parts of the country, right?
3 - 10% of people in Oklahoma are native, is that really "so few"?

1 - Natives don't want to be your damn tourist attraction.
2 - Which reservations are those? You are aware that the tribes in Oklahoma don't have reservations like in other parts of the country, right?
3 - 10% of people in Oklahoma are native, is that really "so few"?

Is this called the Oklahoma Indian Cultural Center? American. AMERICAN.

Edited for cruel language, sorry Swake.

1 - Natives don't want to be your damn tourist attraction.
2 - Which reservations are those? You are aware that the tribes in Oklahoma don't have reservations like in other parts of the country, right?
3 - 10% of people in Oklahoma are native, is that really "so few"?

Not to nit pick here, but the extent of the reservations within the tribal allotments are still valid. I have an Arapaho friend who maintains his company office in their (as he calls it ) Indian house out in Geary due to the fact that he has a lessened tax burden while within the reservations original borders.

Not to nit pick here, but the extent of the reservations within the tribal allotments are still valid. I have an Arapaho friend who maintains his company office in their (as he calls it ) Indian house out in Geary due to the fact that he has a lessened tax burden while within the reservations original borders.


There are tribal national boundaries in Oklahoma, not traditional reservations. Tribes can place land within the boundaries in reserve with the BIA and that then would be federally administered land more like a reservation in another states but there are not large scale reservations in Oklahoma. In other states the whole of the national boundary would be reserved land and any land transaction, usually only a lease, would require acceptance by the tribe and BIA.

If Oklahoma had reservations the whole state outside of central Oklahoma and the old unassigned lands would be reservations. The entirety of Metro Tulsa would be on reserved land and not technically in Oklahoma and probably could not exist in its current form.

1 - Natives don't want to be your damn tourist attraction.
2 - Which reservations are those? You are aware that the tribes in Oklahoma don't have reservations like in other parts of the country, right?
3 - 10% of people in Oklahoma are native, is that really "so few"?

Oklahoma has one reservation, the Osage Nation. The other tribes in the state are essentially republics.

1 - Natives don't want to be your damn tourist attraction.
2 - Which reservations are those? You are aware that the tribes in Oklahoma don't have reservations like in other parts of the country, right?
3 - 10% of people in Oklahoma are native, is that really "so few"?


There are tribal national boundaries in Oklahoma, not traditional reservations. Tribes can place land within the boundaries in reserve with the BIA and that then would be federally administered land more like a reservation in another states but there are not large scale reservations in Oklahoma. In other states the whole of the national boundary would be reserved land and any land transaction, usually only a lease, would require acceptance by the tribe and BIA.

If Oklahoma had reservations the whole state outside of central Oklahoma and the old unassigned lands would be reservations. The entirety of Metro Tulsa would be on reserved land and not technically in Oklahoma and probably could not exist in its current form.

Oklahoma has one reservation, the Osage Nation. The other tribes have essentially republics within the state.

Oklahoma has one reservation, the Osage Nation. The other tribes have essentially republics within the state.

The Osage Nation lost a 2001 lawsuit where they attempted to show that Osage County was a reservation and tribal members were exempt from state taxes on the reservation. The court ruled against the tribe saying the reservation was disestablished in 1872. The Osage Nation appealed the ruling in 2010 to the 10th Circuit and lost again. The tribe then appealed to the Supreme Court but the court refused to hear the case.

SCOTUS Lets 10th Circuit Opinion Stay in Osage Nation Lawsuit - U.S. Tenth Circuit (http://blogs.findlaw.com/tenth_circuit/2011/06/scotus-lets-10th-circuit-opinion-stay-in-osage-nation-lawsuit.html)

The Osage Nation does have three reservations like what exist in other states, at Hominy, Pawhuska and at Grayhorse, but they are very small, only a few blocks of houses each. I don't think any of them are even a full square mile and none of them have more than a few dozen residents. To compare, the Navajo reservation is almost the same size as Oklahoma with 300,000 residents.

When/if this is ever completed I think it instantly becomes the 3rd & possibly 2nd biggest attraction in the City behind #1 National Memorial & #2/3 Cowboy Hall of Fame. Nothing else even comes close. It is very important this is finished & it will add amazing cultural value to our City. Its a very expensive project & just because it hasn't received funding doesn't mean people don't think its important. It just means OKC & the state is ultra conservative & we hardly ever spend money on anything that isn't a bare necessity.

Also, tribes don't have nearly as much money as people think they do. Most of the tribes reservations are in shambles, and it has led to very many problems within their populations. I agree that they may not be 100% behind the idea of shared history, but really there are so few remaining Native Americans that they have started to find common ground & a brotherhood even though their distant pasts don't necessarily align.

I disagree about the attraction of the museum, but we'll have to see what happens when it opens. I think a lot of people think it's going to be far more successful than it really will be. That's just my opinion though, so I'm not going to claim I'm right and anyone else is wrong here.

As far as tribes go, your statements show a complete misunderstanding of tribal affairs. There are quite a few that have been VERY successful in the business world with entities that you just don't realize are part of a tribe's business arm. The smaller tribes may not be AS successful, but MOST have managed to bring income in through various things (and not just gambling). Take a look at the Chickasaw tribe and what they've done over the last 20 years. Do you have any idea how much they take in???? What about the Creek? Potowatamie? The list goes on and on. Again, you probably don't realize it because you don't understand how the things work. And just taking a look at a "reservation" doesn't MEAN anything. Some people choose to live a certain way, others do not. Let's not make blanket stereotype judgments of all tribespeople based on a flawed view of a subset.

I disagree about the attraction of the museum, but we'll have to see what happens when it opens. I think a lot of people think it's going to be far more successful than it really will be. That's just my opinion though, so I'm not going to claim I'm right and anyone else is wrong here.

As far as tribes go, your statements show a complete misunderstanding of tribal affairs. There are quite a few that have been VERY successful in the business world with entities that you just don't realize are part of a tribe's business arm. The smaller tribes may not be AS successful, but MOST have managed to bring income in through various things (and not just gambling). Take a look at the Chickasaw tribe and what they've done over the last 20 years. Do you have any idea how much they take in???? What about the Creek? Potowatamie? The list goes on and on. Again, you probably don't realize it because you don't understand how the things work. And just taking a look at a "reservation" doesn't MEAN anything. Some people choose to live a certain way, others do not. Let's not make blanket stereotype judgments of all tribespeople based on a flawed view of a subset.

Income and Poverty
$35,062

The median income of American Indian and Alaska Native households. This compares with $50,046 for the nation as a whole.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone population
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>
28.4%

The percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives that were in poverty in 2010. For the nation as a whole, the corresponding rate was 15.3 percent.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone population
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>

http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/DocServer/FUNDING_FACTS.pdf?docID=1441

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_social_statistics_of_Native_Americans
"The United States is home to 2.4 million Native Americans. In comparison to the rest of the population, this number is a very small amount (only .9%).[11] American Indians have historically lived in extreme poverty. With the rise of Indian gaming enterprises, the problem of poverty may have been variously addressed in select areas. Yet, while Native Americans have begun to take more control of their tribal economies and have begun to improve situations, poverty on Indian Reservations is still a major issue. The U.S. Census in both 1990 and 2000 indicates that poverty has prevailed on reservations; to this day, Native Americans have the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the United States of America. The poverty rate of Native Americans is 25%"


But let's not use facts to put "blanket stereotype judgements" of all tribespeople :-/. These super rich Indians should be funding our Musuem, because its about them and they have the monies!

Wow...is all I can say.

So because that percentage of the population lives in poverty (across the U.S.), that means the other super majority can't be doing anything right at all huh? You know, that other 70+% of the native population.

Wikipedia as a source???...it's crowd sourced and is woefully inaccurate because it's based on opinions and is NOT fact checked. I'm pretty sure any English teacher would mark that as NOT a useable source.

So you want to claim those couple of points there from a 5 minute google search as your basis of logic here. Congratulations, you made the point for me that every school teacher says....the internet is NOT the know-all source. Rather than rely on google, I work with tribespeople from all over the U.S. on a daily basis. I think I'm going to go ahead and use my real world experience to trump that google search. Again, I'm not saying there aren't plenty people living in poverty in tribes, but those people do that of their own choice. No one forces a tribe member to live on the reservation. If you live on the reservation, you can have all kinds of things paid for by the government, but it places you below the poverty line. Some people choose to live that way rather than work. It's a choice and no one forced them to do that. It's not some hidden fact or some racist statement, it's just reality. There a millions of natives with their own businesses (just check out one of those national gaming shows (like NIGA) and see how many people there have nothing to do with gaming but have a tribal business). They run the gambit from t-shirt, to electrical, to plumbing, to accounting/tax services, whatever you can think of its there. hell I've got a stack of cards from the last Oklahoma show (OIGA) 50 cards high from all different groups just in OK.

How many people here have sat down and talked to a tribe about the museum? Anyone? I have. And you quickly find out how LITTLE interest there is in them paying for support of it. It's a simple fact of funds being diverted away from their own programs to a project that they don't see benefiting their people. I can give you the long story that they each give on that if you want it, but youre not going to like it because it's a sore spot that can be quite colorful in language as well.

Wow...is all I can say.

So because that percentage of the population lives in poverty (across the U.S.), that means the other super majority can't be doing anything right at all huh? You know, that other 70+% of the native population.

Wikipedia as a source???...it's crowd sourced and is woefully inaccurate because it's based on opinions and is NOT fact checked. I'm pretty sure any English teacher would mark that as NOT a useable source.

So you want to claim those couple of points there from a 5 minute google search as your basis of logic here. Congratulations, you made the point for me that every school teacher says....the internet is NOT the know-all source. Rather than rely on google, I work with tribespeople from all over the U.S. on a daily basis. I think I'm going to go ahead and use my real world experience to trump that google search. Again, I'm not saying there aren't plenty people living in poverty in tribes, but those people do that of their own choice. No one forces a tribe member to live on the reservation. If you live on the reservation, you can have all kinds of things paid for by the government, but it places you below the poverty line. Some people choose to live that way rather than work. It's a choice and no one forced them to do that. It's not some hidden fact or some racist statement, it's just reality. There a millions of natives with their own businesses (just check out one of those national gaming shows (like NIGA) and see how many people there have nothing to do with gaming but have a tribal business). They run the gambit from t-shirt, to electrical, to plumbing, to accounting/tax services, whatever you can think of its there. hell I've got a stack of cards from the last Oklahoma show (OIGA) 50 cards high from all different groups just in OK.

How many people here have sat down and talked to a tribe about the museum? Anyone? I have. And you quickly find out how LITTLE interest there is in them paying for support of it. It's a simple fact of funds being diverted away from their own programs to a project that they don't see benefiting their people. I can give you the long story that they each give on that if you want it, but youre not going to like it because it's a sore spot that can be quite colorful in language as well.

Why do you participate on a ONLINE INTERNET FORUM if everything on the internet is useless? This isn't English class, this is a message board & gathering information from MULTIPLE internet sources that say THE SAME THING is valid information. I'm not saying because their AVERAGE demographics is poverty, that ALL Native Americans are poor or don't/have the capability of running their own business or having their own success. The fact is their is a MAJOR economic problem within the Native American population & you ignoring that fact because "some people don't want to live their live that way" is ridiculous.

The Fact is Native Americans have more important issues that should be the focus of their investments (we both, and Native Americans agree with that based on you last paragraph).

Your original point, which is bogus, is that since because Native Americans haven't been the driving force behind the investments for this project than it isn't worth anybody's money.

I want the street in front of my house fixed. Just because I benefit more than most doesn't mean I need to pay extra out of my own pocket.

This thread, like the dirt and improvements to which it once related, should be given to the okc city council for appropriate disbursal.



OKC, take back your dirt, and as a thank you for playing, enjoy the nice parting gifts left on it.

Optimism is fading over fate of American Indian Cultural Center in Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5402948)

jcougar, i'll say it again, if this project was so good, it would have been completed long ago through. There is nothing stopping private donors from giving outside of the private push drive they had. Far too many people believe it's a waste of time and money from ALL sides. After this many years, it would have been done if was worth it. I have a feeling we'll be looking at an incomplete structure in another 10 years too. So you can say what you want about me disagreeing with the sources others used to form their opinion, but the fact remains...the place is far from done and there's no hope in sight for anyone to give money to it.

Sounds like it might be time for the city to snatch the property back, would be far better than waiting on the state for another year of failure.

Thanks for the $90 million, state legislature!

Myopia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myopia) - noun my·o·pia \mī-ˈō-pē-ə\

2: a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
— my·o·pic \-ˈō-pik, -ˈä-\ adjective
— my·o·pi·cal·ly \-pi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

What a mess.

Maybe the City should give this project $69 million instead of Clayco.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest if the city were pressured to purchase this land back and take it over to either finish, or demolish and start anew.
Whether it's the city's responsibility or not, is beyond the point now. We have a structure, mired in controversy and cost inflation, that has been sitting for a number of years now with no real future vision.

The sooner something happens here, the better. Otherwise, it will continue it's decay into a massive eyesore. Extremely unfortunate because I always liked this project and thought it would have been really cool to add to OKC's resume of museums.