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)

I'm arguing with Kramer!

You really must stop this. This thing of telling me I have done or do believe something which I've never mentioned.

I know this is a side issue, but it ties into a bigger point in a bigger post I'm doing.

You accuse me of supporting the types of images you presented, namely Obama as Mao.
I say no, I don't support them and truthfully haven't ever seen such images.
Again, you make a post noting that I have no problem with such images, signs and the like.
Again, I say I have NEVER seen and DO NOT support such images, and quite frankly outside of your description, have no idea what you're talking about.
Then your big conciliatory post is, "well, maybe you don't support em', but you have seen them."

Enter Seinfeld: In one episode Kramer hands Jerry a present, "Happy Birthday buddy!" Jerry says, "It's not my birthday." Kramer: "Yes it is." Jerry: "I think I'd know if it was my birthday or not." Kramer: "You'd think you would, but you'd be wrong." Jerry: "Maybe it is my birthday.

Ha!

What do you want me to say? I did see a picture once, can't remember if it was Nixon or Bush, with a small mustache, meant to be Hitler. It was a clip of protesters at a G8 summit ... I think.

But I HAVE NEVER laid eyes on your images until I pulled up the Bund today. PERIOD. Now just think about that for a minute - not only have you repeatedly insisted I have seen the images, but then went so far as to assign me my position on them! Come on man, give it up already. I consume 99% of my news via online and the radio (which includes NPR & the BBC, as my many rants on their programming confirms). My TV time is reserved almost exclusively for streaming Netflix and dvd's. So I wouldn't have seen them on TV. And although google undoubtedly boasted a .7 second return when you searched these items, I can't begin to imagine how obscure a website you must have had to enter to actually find them. I don't do obscure too much (and by the by, if it was MSNBC, et al, trying to make Tea Partiers look bad, that counts as "obscure" - who watches MSNBC, have you seen their ratings?)

Now that I have seen them, do I share the same outrage as I do the Indian terror poster/tee shirts? NO. But neither did I express similar outrage over the Bush (or Nixon) Hitler sign. Do you really think me that much of a partisan hack, and that bereft in my understanding of history, to not realize that such images are the work of whackadoos? Really? That sucks.

Now, had in these images someone replaced Obama's face with say, Old Glory, or "Est. 1776", something along those lines, then my outrage meter would have went up a tick or two - that's debasing my nation, not a single, contemporary, man. Obama is a politician. Bush is a politician. Yes, presidents, but they have not reached the "sacred cow" status as say a George Washington, et al. And let me assure you, had it been Old Glory etc, with such an image, that was placed in the entrance of a museum I was attending on my kid's field trip - then damn right I would have expressed the exact same outrage via the same texts and picture that I did the Indian, "America is a terrorist state" picture.

Ok? Jeeeeeeeez.

I'll get to the rest in a second, I just had to deal with that.

Give me ten minutes...

I don't want to fight for fighting's sake. Let's take a moment and let me present my case that the Indians of the colonial period were NOT the barbaric savages that so many (even today) still think they were. I'm not talking about Ryan here... I'm talking about people like Ayn Rand, Ike, and even the vaunted and much loved Reagan, who have all at some time made comments or statements hinting at the savage nature of the Native American people during the late 18th and all through the 19th Centuries.

I am convinced that the Iroquois League is the oldest extant example of a representative democracy, and that it can show a direct historic link as far back as the 12 Century (as far back as 1175 AD). Evidence that the Founding Fathers drew inspiration and guidance in drafting the original Articles of Confederation from the written laws of the League are ample and can be found HERE. These six nations formed a "union" in which people were allowed a voice, individual freedoms were recognized (even those of women and "aliens"... non-tribal members), and a "congress" of leaders met to decide issues of individual member states for all member states. This League existed for at least 600 years... longer than any other extant body of American Indian society... which tells me that they were NOT simple savages living happily off the land. They knew cultivation, metal-making skills, had a syllabic written language, and could waterproof leather containers so well that the white settlers of the 17th and 18th centuries paid top-dollar for the products because they could not duplicate the process at all.

After the formation of the United States of America, Washington, Knox, Jefferson and Madison all worked at developing Federal policies that would "incorporate" the Five Civilized Tribes into the fabric of American society as equals... and initially, it worked very well. By 1815 and the end of the War of 1812, the Cherokee people had both a phonetic written language (using the English alphabet) and a syllabic alphabet invented by Sequoyah and still in use today by traditional scholars of the tongue. Should you follow the above link, you'll find that the Cherokee nation had no fewer than four daily newspapers, and as many as 11 print and binding shops. They were renowned producers tobacco, whiskey and rye, and produced some of the richest men in the State of Georgia (Joseph Vann was a millionaire and owned more than 150 slaves on his 1,200 acre plantation before 1834... when he was forced to leave Georgia for the wilds of the Tennessee because of Jackson's Indian Removal Act). The Cherokee people fought a "war within a war" when the majority of Cherokee voted to side with the Confederacy, while a pro-Union minority took up arms (and uniforms) to fight to remain with the North. The "Yankee" Cherokee were considered by modern West Point historians to be some of the best artillery fighters of the entire century, moving batteries between distant points in such short amounts of time that even Confederate cavalry troops couldn't keep up.

The Chickasaw and Choctaw nations sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, and paid the price when the war was decided against them. However, these nations sent more than 15,000 men to defend their homes during this war, and these men fought with bravery and distinction that even Lincoln's Administration was forced to recognize. These are the ONLY Confederate pensions to be honored by the Federal government after the war (more than 1,200 of the survivors drew their pay from Federal coffers for the remainder of their lives)... while being denied the right to own land, vote or travel freely outside of the Indian Nation that is now Oklahoma. What does THAT say about the actual degree of patriotism that the Indian people showed?

This is just a small piece of the evidence that America has come to see as truth the false statements that the Indians were uneducated savages living in teepees and wigwams because they knew no better. These people, for the most part, wanted to be Americans from the start of the nation itself... but it was the nation itself that made this process of assimilation almost impossible. This is the cause of the resentment and bias that brings about posters like the one that got this whole thread started... a myopic view of history and a biased assumption of facts that do no justice to either side of the debate and only further the ignorance and intolerance that brought about the problem in the first place.

Perhaps the poster does nothing to further such debate itself... but it isn't wrong or morally objectionable simply because it refutes modern, traditional conservative views on the topic of America's role in crimes against the Indian peoples since 1776 (or 1492... as the poster says). I'm inclined to think, though, that the poster DOES further the cause and debate, because that is exactly what is happening here, isn't it? Aren't we forcing ourselves (and anyone unfortunate enough to have to read along) to look closer at the topic? Aren't we forced by the poster itself to examine what we have all taken to be "fact" in a new light?

Isn't that a good thing... no matter how distasteful we might find the impetus?

True...

To be fair and just, you did not say you "supported" such posters as I have provided above... but surely you've seen them. We all have, and several are the brainchildren of conservative radio talk show hosts that we've all listened to. My point was that (I'm being very specific here) had these sorts of posters presented themselves to your attention rather than the one that did... would the same level of outrage and anger have manifested?

complete fantasy ...

I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had "no problem" with Obama being portrayed as Chairman Mao. I dont even know what you're talking about. I never said it verbally, never wrote it here at the Bund and as far as I can recollect have never even seen such an image nor one involving Hitler. Either produce evidence to the contrary or retract it.

And by the way, I dont want the Che shirts "banned." I dont want to give government those types of powers. People have a right to be half wits ... as you are so aptly pointing out with this Mao-Obama accusation.

And fear not, this ties into a much larger post I'll make after work.

No one responded?

I guess I'll have to keep this going then, until someone does.

"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. "

Holy non sequitur, Batman! Sacred Cows? This poster steps on on sacred cows? This poster steps on the hallowed memory of 9/11... but the image of Andrew Jackson can't be seen by descendants of the Five Civilized Tribes as offensive? Isn't that what you called "blatant revisionism" against one of the greatest Presidents this nation ever had? And you say I'm reaching? Please...

This poster indicts ALL persons since 1492, but your statement that "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; 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." does NOT tell me you think every Indian that died as a result of the Federal government (specifically Jackson's administration) ignoring the Supreme Court's findings and injunctions got EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVED? They had no understanding of their rights under the Constitution, isn't that what you're saying? So obviously, those rights don't apply... or perhaps don't exist at all.

Your offended by a teenager wearing a "Che" backpack or having the hammer and sickle t-shirt because these symbolize people or groups that killed tons of people you never knew... but that image of Jackson is the face of a man who killed (or caused to be killed... also a "high crime and misdemeanor" in this nation) nearly 10,000 American citizens, who owned land, paid taxes, voted (at least at a local level) and took their case to the highest court in the land... AND WON... and the people that made that poster might be able to count some of those dead among their ancestors. A direct blood tie to a crime that you seem to think is far less impacting on American history than 9/11 was. We were attacked by terrorists and madmen on September 11... but those thousands killed between 1831 and 1838 were driven to their deaths by their own government, with Andrew Jackson championing the cause all the way to completion. Why is the image of Jackson any less offensive to THEM than this poster is to YOU?

I think that is a fair question, and I'd love to see a response to it.

Quickly...

I'm out of morning now, and have to get ready for work, but wanted to say this:

"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. "

Your sarcasm is noted, and while I find it unfortunately employed, I understand what you are saying. I think you are 100% WRONG, however. Furthermore, you are really letting your ignorance on the topic shine through...

Using the movie "A Man Named Horse" as an example of cruel and unusual punishment in the culture of the American Indians is almost beneath you. It tells me that, not only do you not understand the greater portion of the Indian's struggle, but that you have never really watched the damn movie, either.

The suffering that was portrayed in the movie was #1, completely fictional... and #2 was self-inflicted in the (fictional) attempt to show that the suffering of an individual on a voluntary basis was somehow able to extend itself to the greater suffering of the community and culture at large. Richard Harris was portraying someone who was taking on the "voluntary" role of Jesus Christ, and by hanging from hooks in the skin until the skin ripped, the suffering experienced by the individual would take away from the suffering of the group. It is a fictional story of redemption and grace, without the Christian trappings. Nothing more.

I also think your blatant refusal to see that for the vast majority of Indians that suffered under the tyranny of the Indian Removal Act considered themselves AMERICANS. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, they begged their Congressmen and Senators to speak up for them, they attempted to remove the threat by running Indian candidates for the Governorship of both Georgia and Alabama... is short, they did what the Constitution of the United States required them to do to protect and preserve their individual freedoms and rights, to no avail. None of them fought a secessionist war against Jackson... they did what the Government told them to do, and died because of it. Nearly 10,000 of them. Crazy Horse and Red Cloud were doing exactly what they were told to do under established treaty, and when the US reneged on those promises, they fought to DEFEND the treaty rights... not to become a separate country. Black Elk wanted his son to go to University and become a statesman in Washington... instead he died at Wounded Knee, because he was denied the right to travel on a train from SD to Washington. I don't know about YOU, but I'd think long and hard about taking up arms against the Government that treated ME like that... and that is a promise.

So, you can continue to hold the cultures that existed side-by-side with the Founding Fathers in the category of savages and wild men that scalped and burned women and children for the pleasure of it all you want. I choose to recognize that the US holds a debt to these cultures in the very formation of its representative system, as history demands I do.