Man, you're just never wrong, are you?

Couple items of importance here ...

I used the catch all word "jokes" to refer to your sarcastic, flippant remarks about the Holocaust during July of this year after the flotilla raid, during our Israel/Palestine discussions. And for the record let me posit that I don't think one can direct sarcastic Holocaust comments towards me, or any individual, without simultaneously directing that caustic "humor" towards Jews in general and the State of Israel in specific. Furthermore, I don't see how your saying the Lakud Party had at times cost themselves electoral success because quote: "they seemed to be moving towards a Final Solution regarding the Palestinian question" could be directed at anyone other then Israelis of that Party or Netenyahu himself.

If you want to apologize for those remarks (& the others, such as "Maybe they [Israel] should fire up the oven and gas chambers" in order to deal with Hamas) then just apologize without the qualification of "I was aiming that at Ryan's argument." The offense offered by such comments can not be contained within a carefully aimed shot at me. They scatter like shot gun pellet. If you regret them, categorically and without condition take them back. Otherwise, stop waisting everyone's time trying to maneuver around the redundant alarms, razor wire fences, and attack dogs you have surrounding the building where you store a Titus admission of guilt.

****
You wrote of me:

In short, she [Rand] was a firm believer in "The ends justify the means" when it comes to the study and understanding of American history. I think Ryan feels the same way.

Let me approach it this way:

"I'll debate, discuss or otherwise participate in any round table one wants to have about dark chapters in American history, from slavery to the mistreatment of Indians. But does that poster really do anything to communicate Indian culture to a wider audience, or further a legitimate discussion?"

I wrote this in my "jackal-faced" response. Does this paragraph strike you as someone unwilling to acknowledge or discuss the acts of malfeasance in America's history? As a "hear no evil see no evil", America can do no wrong devotee? As an America's ends justify her means Ayn Rand acolyte? Your generalization, and quite frankly conservative stereotyping of me, couldn't be more wrong. And I know you're venturing into the realm of unuseful stereotypes the moment you write "I don't feel like cutting and pasting specific examples."

****

You wrote:

"I feel it is just and right to look at our national history, and to recognize where we failed or made mistakes, and to know with utter certainty that we are where we are today because we overcame those failings and mistake... not in spite of those failings and mistakes."

Again, I'm 100% in agreeance. But do you think that poster does this? Do you think it encourages legitimate dialogue? And that leads me to my next point (and bare in mind the words clearly state SINCE 1492):

"Ryan claims that the poster "indicts" every non-native person in America since 1492... but I don't see it that way. I see it as a bold example of a minority segment of our society gently reminding ALL of us that tyranny has many faces, and it has been OUR face at times in the past."

Can I ask you a question Titus? If it doesn't indict every non-native person since 1492, then what is bold about the statement?

And while we're at it, how does a "bold" statement act "gently?" Look, you are the resident technocrat. You're the one so big on stressing that words mean something, and correctly identifying and defining them is crucial to effective debate. Well I don't see how one gets around the very plain meaning of SINCE 1492. It didn't read: IN 1492, or even FROM 1492- (pick your time frame), or any such other set of dates. It was "bold" precisely because the statement was to indict every European and non Indian - from the moment Columbus set foot on the shore to current day - as trespassing terrorists. And Homeland Security is an active, current agency on a current day mission to stop active terrorism, is it not? Combine that with "SINCE" 1492 and its plain to most that the purveyors of this message mean to decry every non-native since 1492, countless millions of honorable peoples, mostly citizens of the Unites States, as terrorists on the level of Al Qeada. Why else use "Homeland Security", a department set up specifically in response to Al Qeada terror attacks? And that's a "gentle" reminder meant to spark legitimate discussion on America's mistakes, Titus? I honestly think you're kidding yourself here.

Let me put it another way. What if at a "Settlers Won the West Museum" one was to offer for sale a box. A "cute" box. On the outside it read: Indian Removal Kit. Effective Since 1823. And on the inside was a blanket with small red pox marks on it. Would a purveyor of such a sick novelty not be accused of being flippant about the massacre of Indians up to present day?

****
"I'd also go so far as to say that anything our men and women in uniform are fighting to defend and protect NOW, those same men [Red Cloud, et al] were fighting for THEN."

Oh yes, sure. We all know that Native Americans of that era were profound civil libertarians. They were fighting for equality among the sexes; to rights against cruel and unusual punishment (see "A Man Named Horse"); for the right to remain silent; to uphold the right to speech, separation of church and state, and they NEVER targeted for death women and children, always taking the same care our troops do now to avoid civilian deaths ... and on and on and on. No you're right, the appreciation for fundamental human and civil rights as we understand them in 2010, that our troops are sworn to defend, is exactly the battle Red Cloud and his comrades were waging then.

Wow.

You know and I know that they fought to be left alone (we're talking the hot wars). So they could return to their lives as it was found. They fought for group freedom from the US government, not freedom of the individual, without which there is no resemblance of freedom on any level of society. They did not draw arrows and secure rifels to protect and preserve a Constitutionally protected open, free society as our troops do now. They did so to keep/protect what they had. And whatever else it was that they had (& I'm no Indian expert), it wasn't the free and open society our troops seek to protect (and enable in foreign nations) in 2010.

****
Lastly ...

"Who am I to question the Cherokee who thinks the Indian Removal Act was tyranny?"

This is a window into my base complaint with you in these matters. Now I am going to make a generalization about you, one I find apt given the evidence thus far.

No one, least of all me, would deny such dark chapters in our nation's history exist. I also agree that they should be discussed openly, and accurately. I also believe that such discussions are legitimate and need to be had so as to learn from our mistakes, especially grave ones such as the maltreatment of American Indians and slavery.

But I get the sincere impression from you that as long as the target is one of those grave injustices, it doesn't matter to you how unscrupulous the message is. No matter how inappropriate, no matter how many sacred cows they step on in the process (9/11 references of Homeland Security for instance), no matter how much collateral damage is accumulated in their accusation (indicting all persons SINCE 1492), no matter how repugnant, how off base, how ill advised or offensive to honorable descendants of Europeans, that message is "ok" with you so long as the target of the message is one of these historical grave injustices.

And I'm telling you, for you to set your parameters that wide, for you to give the messenger such a wide berth, accepting even the most ludicrous lines of dialogue as "gentle reminders" so long as their target is an event/time period deserving of scorn, you not only undercut the chances for a legitimate debate on America's dark chapters that you so prize having, but it smacks of "ends justifying the means", wouldn't you say?