To Whom It May Concern:

Which of course, is everyone here.

Although personal, vivid derision is stock and trade in our personal encounters, Jambo was correct in pointing out that the flagrant personal attacks of my recent post title were below the standard we have each earned as participants in this Bund (read: the site and friendship). And as such, I apologize Titus. I wont, however, be removing or altering the post because I am of the belief that we are more apt to repeat those mistakes that are easily covered up.

And in that spirit, let me adress the current controversy, calm and of steady tone ...

Part I (of III):

I wasn't sure why until today (more on that in Part II), but I just couldn't figure out why you took my outrage over the poster as equal to denying the atrocities perpetrated on American Indians. One does not equate to the other. I can fully appreciate the tragedies at Wounded Knee, and who was responsible, and still find that poster outrageous.

In fact, my outrage is quite simple: I think that most Americans of reasonable faculties would agree that when one issues a message (in 2010), and 4 out of 5 of the words in that message are: "terrorism; fighting; homeland; and security" that this would tend to dredge up imagery of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, 9/11, Afhganistan, and Iraq. Can we all not agree on that simple premise? That those words will cause a particular image of Islamic Terorrism when presented in 2010?

If yes, then let me propose another simple premise we should all be able to agree on. "Since 1492" does in fact include the 234 years between 1776-2010. Does it not? By definition that is true. Right?

Ok, then my simple problem with that poster/tee was not that Indians have no legitimate beef, but rather that the proprietors of that poster and tee shirt (and I don't even know if they are Indian) expressed that beef in an inappropriate way. It was in very poor taste, inaccurate (unless there's current US Calvary raiding parties I don't know about), and when you consider honorable men are putting their lives on the line to defend all of us (including Native Americans) from the real terror of 2010, I would argue the adjective "disgusting" is more then appropriate.

Now, if we all agree on those 2 simple premises, is my conclusion and outrage over what is arguably the painting of my nation's entire history, through this very moment, as akin to Al Qeada that inconceivable?

And what's worse, it appears Titus that you agree with me, noting you found it in bad taste as well! When I read that I couldn't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning, and instead opted for typing the history of the American Indian as if I was denying those atrocities via my outrage. Then I read that "Che-tee shirt" banning comment, went back to my dead Three Card Poker table and thought, and thought ... and then it hit me. Of course, that's been it all along!

Let me explain ... Part II:

We (you and I, Titus) communicate almost exclusively electronically. No more back dock arguments or literal drive ways. This bit of disconnect, which has disallowed context born of in person contact, has opened up a template for you (I believe) that is causing much unneeded friction and unnecessary time consuming tributaries which distract from the body of any given argument (see the Obama/Mao-sign sub-thread).

I don't know how many times I've read you begin a paragraph within a post with "My problem with people like Limbaugh, Beck, Ryan, and Hannity is ..." That always bothered me a bit. This time you did it with Ayn Rand: "People like Ayn Rand and Ryan believe ..." Why? Why do you do that? My answer/theory: As you sit down at the keyboard and prepare to type up your post on subject A, B or C, it is more often then not to address or argue with this site's resident "conservative." And as you prepare to counter "the conservative", your numerous beefs, arguments and disagreements with well-known faces of the right, be it Limbaugh, Rand, Beck, and so on come bubbling up. They are conservatives after all, and you are about to do battle with one, so all of their greatest failings and ill advised positions (as you define them) are projected on to ME. Follow me here - I have never come to this site and expressed some cult like worship of Ayn Rand. I do own 2 of her fictional books, but I swear to all that is holy that I hadn't any idea that she argued ends justifying means and would entertain no criticism of her adopted country. Yet, I was treated to an entire argument that would have made sense ONLY if you were arguing with Ayn Rand, not F. Ryan. I'm reading these posts thinking "ban Che t-shirts?" When did I ever say that? That's something one might here on the Savage Nation, as Micheal has called for renewed Sedition Laws. So I thought, "aha, he's arguing with Michael Savage, not me." The Obama-Mao dust up? Perhaps the bone headed Mike Church would support that, but not I. Again, you're arguing with Church, not me.

You see friend, as you sit down to argue with me I get the distinct impression that you summon all the stereotyped conservative positions and all the arguments you've had in your head with Rand, Limbaugh et al, and you compile them into one body, call him "Ryan", and proceed.

Rather then expressing your beef with people "like" Ryan, how about arguing with just Ryan. And as such, if you're not sure about my position on Rand or any other conservative, you must first ask my position, get it on record, then assail any aspect you wish. Do you see what I am saying?

You could of ended all this controversy before it started by simply posting: "While I believe Native Americans have a legitimate beef, this poster was in poor taste.' Done, finished. I would have said I agreed and been done with it. Instead I was treated to an expose' on the history of the Indian's plight, told I've seen signs I haven't, and want t-shirts banned that I don't. All of which are arguments you need to be having with OTHER conservatives whom are on the record as supporting such things, rather then me, who happens to be this site's resident "conservative."

Titus, seriously, it is crucial that you break this habit. Were I to start numerous paragraphs with, "My problem with people like Oberhman, Pelsoi and Titus ...", and then went into the on the record opinions of Oberhman and Pelosi, I'm sure you'd soon tire of having to machete your way through the jungle of their stated opinions, just so you can have a millisecond to express your own. Likewise, this is wearing me OUT brother.

Just consider it.

Part III

I direct this question at you Titus, given it has been you throughout this thread that has repeatedly and passionately revisited the tragic history of Native Americans. And I mean this as a legitimate question, not a jab or a poke, or just trying to be cute (like I'd have to try ... hehehe ... I digress).

Given the sum total of the inhumane, forced, and treaded upon history of the Native American Indian, can you say in good conscience and with a clear consistency of intellect, that the Government of the United States of America, through this moment, is the legitimate and legal holder of the lands it considers its' sovereign territory?

And if not, what is your suggestion as to a remedy for the situation, assuming one exists?

(you see how I didn't lump you in with Ward Churchill's stated position of "giving back the land", and then ask you to defend it?)

Seriously, I'm quite curious about this one.

(PS. I'll address Andrew Jackson after you have time to repond to the III parts of this post)