"Since 1492"... that is where the problem lies? Or does the problem lay with the fact that someone like you needs to have the poster define the issue to such a degree of detail that it would really take a BOOK to make the case?
Does the Spanish, French, British and finally American trafficking in Indian slave trade not constitute "terror" as you define it? How many native people were forced into slavery since 1492? How many were forced to load onto ships or trek across hundreds of miles of land at the whim of European "owners"? Columbus himself enslaved (and eventually extinguished) the entire race of Caribb Indians as "property" of the Spanish Crown... so wouldn't that lend a touch of validity to the date of "1492"?
Most "New World" cultures can point to 1492 as the beginning of the end as far as their sovereignty is concerned... its not an arbitrary number, is it? It is an excellent point in world history to begin to say that the rights and privileges of the people that lived here prior no longer applied once Europeans continued to settle the land.
If one really wants to have this sort of discussion, then perhaps we should talk about the fact that names like Red Cloud, Black Elk, Geronimo, Crazy Horse need the sort of detailed explanation that you expect from the creator of the offensive poster. More to the point, it is rather telling, isn't it, that we need to give greater detail into the WHY story? Like WHY these men were photographed in the first place? Perhaps, as I hinted at, those who are more familiar with the history of the Indian struggle, want to bring home the point that the general level of ignorance is unacceptable.
Which brings me to my point... You have a problem with this because of a blanket generalization (or indictment, if you will) of non-natives since 1492. I don't see this as the case, because there are thousands of examples of Indians serving with distinction in our Armed Forces since our nation's founding, and serving in all corners of the public sector. Senators, governors, Congressmen, mayors, teachers, generals, admirals, astronauts, civil rights leaders, MLB layers, Olympic medalists, NFL players, and no fewer than 28 Medal of Honor recipients can all claim Indian heritage. A blanket indictment would indict them as well, right?
The creator of that poster has every right to send the message that the USA does NOT have a monopoly on moral or ethical outrage at tyranny and terror, and using Indian leaders as an example of that is no different than a poster showing Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglas does for black Americans, right? Did MLK or Douglas NOT fight tyranny and terror as blacks raging against the Klan? Could a poster of them show a correlation between their fighting terror since 1869? Or perhaps since 1776 and the founding of the Republic, which allowed the institutionalization of slavery as the status quo over millions of square miles of the nation?
One more point. You make a comment that it is a "tasteless poster". Now THIS I might agree with... perhaps it is in bad taste to make the association in the manner that they do, if for no other reason that people like you are so ready to make the assumptions that you have. I will agree that this poster (and any like it) are in bad taste and should be considered nothing more than satire and are a detraction from the real effort... IF YOU CAN AGREE that posters showing Obama portrayed as a Maoist "Chairman" of the Party, or superimposed over the image of Lenin with waving Soviet flags behind him, or images of Hitler floating over the words CHANGE, are just as offensive and just as detracting from the greater effort of the national agenda.
THIS is my problem, Ryan... you have issues with images and language that might (might, mind you) make the issues and icons that you hold dear look different in a new light, but have no issues with the same effort turned against issues and icons you have no love for or association with. You hate the CHE t-shirts, but love the Chairman Maobama t-shirts... one should be banned, but others are simply "free expression". How is that NOT hypocracy?
We've already established the fact that Jackson is NOT the Hero of the Republic that some thought him to be, and that claims that he shouldn't be on the $20 bill are more than valid in the modern day... so perhaps this poster isn't that far from the mark as Ryan feels.
Now, where are we? Where does this discussion go? I haven't called anyone names, I haven't questioned anyone's integrity or honor, and I have done my best (first thing in the morning with a busy 8-year-old making constant demands on my time and attention) to respond to the valid points of previous posts. I'm still waiting for a legitimate explanation of why the poster is so grossly offensive, because all you have provided so far is emotional rants based on assumptions and stereotypes that are NOT universal even in our small group of like-minded friends... let alone the broader world in general. Notice I have not demanded ANYTHING in my posts, including apologies for personal slights and attacks, other than a move to more adult behavior... so I'm leaving this up to you. You decide where we go from here, because you are the one that can't seem to participate in Bund activities without suffering servere emotional or psychological trauma on a regular basis.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
This is SO typical...
I really don't know what to say.
Ryan, I'm flat out amazed that you could write what you did... and utterly NOT amazed that you are enraged that I wrote what I did. You almost never take the time to really READ what I am writing... you simply assume what I am saying and react to that assumption.
Jambo, I'm amazed that you are still the "nice-Nazi" that you were back in the Wealthwood Park days... something really never change, huh?
So, now having missed ALL the flames while I did a quick ten hours at the joint, I might as well weigh in too, right?
First of all... I need some clarification. What frigging "holocaust jokes" did I make??? I made a sarcastic reference to the nightmare of the Nazi genocide... not to decry or demean the Israelis, but to show the marked myopic view that most conservatives take when looking at the issues facing the Palestinian question. More to the point, I was using it to decry and demean RYAN... not the Israelis.
I have NEVER made a joke about the holocaust, but I have made flippant reference to it and I have employed a sarcastic tone when speaking of it or about it... and there is a great injustice in doing that. I know that, and I readily apologize for it.
So... having said that, can we now, once and for all, move past THAT episode in our history? Is this forever going to be a thorn festering in our paw?
Now, in the almost forlorn hope of having put the "holocaust jokes" portion of the last several posts to rest... can we move on now to a more rational discussion of why that poster so completely pissed off Ryan?
"Why you shameful, slothful, jackal faced, slimy little moron! "
Nice post title... really helped set the tone for the rest of the read, let me tell you. Most here at my house wanted me to point out that "jackal-faced" should have been hyphenated... but I don't want to be labeled as the Grammar Nazi again either. Liz thought "slothful" particularly apt...
I could go through the last couple of posts and cut-and-paste mountains of stuff to refute... but I won't. I think I can sum up the problem rather nicely without it.
I can't stand Ayn Rand. She was a good writer (not great, but good). She held solid, conservative views, many of which I agree with. She was a great advocate of small, very limited government that functioned within very clear boundaries of operation. She looked for a free hand for business, with low taxes, as the best means of a strong, vibrant economy. She believed in an educated electorate, aware of the issues and ready to exercise their franchise rights to the best of their ability at every opportunity.
She also believed that "America" as it existed during her lifetime could NOT be criticized for actions, policies or agendas of the past because those actions, policies and agendas brought America to exactly where it was when she was writing, speaking and formulating her political and philosophical views. I am convinced she was a racist, a bigot, and an ultra-nationalist. America wasn't the greatest nation on earth because of the ideals of the Constitution and the founding principles that led to it... it was the greatest nation on earth because of what it had gained over the 175 years it had existed prior to her arriving at her conclusions. In short, that means that slavery, the abuse of native peoples, failures in governmental ethics or standards, and wrongs perpetrated by the majority onto the minority were ALL ACCEPTABLE in light of where the nation had come as a whole.
In short, she 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.
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.
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 anyone deny that terror and tyranny have been employed by the US government in the past? Has anyone a greater right to bring this up than the people most associated with Red Cloud and his fellow Sioux? Who am I to question the Cherokee who thinks the Indian Removal Act was tyranny? Who am I to question the Sioux who thinks that the actions of the US 7th Cavalry Regiment at Pine Ridge, SD was tantamount to "state sponsored murder" when they shot 351 men, women and children in the snow for no other crime than dancing a "illegal" religious dance? The very picture that got all this started is of Red Cloud and his other Sioux leaders visiting PA in 1880 to inspect the schools where their children were being educated by a government that didn't represent them, with teachers that didn't answer to them at all, in a state they didn't live in and couldn't travel to without permission. That, to me, sounds a lot like tyranny. Red Cloud couldn't vote, he couldn't own land, and he couldn't buy a train ticket to see his kids in PA without special permission from Washington DC and the BIA. His friends, family and at least one of his children would DIE at Wounded Knee only ten years later... for no other reason than that they wanted to dance a special religious dance that the government had decided was "bad".
If that was the sort of stuff that those men were willing to fight against, then I think they are better examples of "American Heroes" than James Polk, William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, or Zach Taylor ever could hope to be. 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 were fighting for THEN.
So, please... stop assuming I have forgotten why men like those Jambo listed and your brother risk their lives to protect what this nation stands for, when it is abundantly clear that the one that has forgotten is you. They fight against bin Laden and all the rest... yes, but they fight to keep us safe from repeats of Wounded Knee, and the Indian Removal Act, and Dred Scot, and Plessy v Fergeson, and all the other mistakes and errors that this great "experiment in democracy" has stumbled into since it began. THAT is the genius of this nation... we learn from our mistakes, and we are stronger and better for it.
Ryan, I'm flat out amazed that you could write what you did... and utterly NOT amazed that you are enraged that I wrote what I did. You almost never take the time to really READ what I am writing... you simply assume what I am saying and react to that assumption.
Jambo, I'm amazed that you are still the "nice-Nazi" that you were back in the Wealthwood Park days... something really never change, huh?
So, now having missed ALL the flames while I did a quick ten hours at the joint, I might as well weigh in too, right?
First of all... I need some clarification. What frigging "holocaust jokes" did I make??? I made a sarcastic reference to the nightmare of the Nazi genocide... not to decry or demean the Israelis, but to show the marked myopic view that most conservatives take when looking at the issues facing the Palestinian question. More to the point, I was using it to decry and demean RYAN... not the Israelis.
I have NEVER made a joke about the holocaust, but I have made flippant reference to it and I have employed a sarcastic tone when speaking of it or about it... and there is a great injustice in doing that. I know that, and I readily apologize for it.
So... having said that, can we now, once and for all, move past THAT episode in our history? Is this forever going to be a thorn festering in our paw?
Now, in the almost forlorn hope of having put the "holocaust jokes" portion of the last several posts to rest... can we move on now to a more rational discussion of why that poster so completely pissed off Ryan?
"Why you shameful, slothful, jackal faced, slimy little moron! "
Nice post title... really helped set the tone for the rest of the read, let me tell you. Most here at my house wanted me to point out that "jackal-faced" should have been hyphenated... but I don't want to be labeled as the Grammar Nazi again either. Liz thought "slothful" particularly apt...
I could go through the last couple of posts and cut-and-paste mountains of stuff to refute... but I won't. I think I can sum up the problem rather nicely without it.
I can't stand Ayn Rand. She was a good writer (not great, but good). She held solid, conservative views, many of which I agree with. She was a great advocate of small, very limited government that functioned within very clear boundaries of operation. She looked for a free hand for business, with low taxes, as the best means of a strong, vibrant economy. She believed in an educated electorate, aware of the issues and ready to exercise their franchise rights to the best of their ability at every opportunity.
She also believed that "America" as it existed during her lifetime could NOT be criticized for actions, policies or agendas of the past because those actions, policies and agendas brought America to exactly where it was when she was writing, speaking and formulating her political and philosophical views. I am convinced she was a racist, a bigot, and an ultra-nationalist. America wasn't the greatest nation on earth because of the ideals of the Constitution and the founding principles that led to it... it was the greatest nation on earth because of what it had gained over the 175 years it had existed prior to her arriving at her conclusions. In short, that means that slavery, the abuse of native peoples, failures in governmental ethics or standards, and wrongs perpetrated by the majority onto the minority were ALL ACCEPTABLE in light of where the nation had come as a whole.
In short, she 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.
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.
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 anyone deny that terror and tyranny have been employed by the US government in the past? Has anyone a greater right to bring this up than the people most associated with Red Cloud and his fellow Sioux? Who am I to question the Cherokee who thinks the Indian Removal Act was tyranny? Who am I to question the Sioux who thinks that the actions of the US 7th Cavalry Regiment at Pine Ridge, SD was tantamount to "state sponsored murder" when they shot 351 men, women and children in the snow for no other crime than dancing a "illegal" religious dance? The very picture that got all this started is of Red Cloud and his other Sioux leaders visiting PA in 1880 to inspect the schools where their children were being educated by a government that didn't represent them, with teachers that didn't answer to them at all, in a state they didn't live in and couldn't travel to without permission. That, to me, sounds a lot like tyranny. Red Cloud couldn't vote, he couldn't own land, and he couldn't buy a train ticket to see his kids in PA without special permission from Washington DC and the BIA. His friends, family and at least one of his children would DIE at Wounded Knee only ten years later... for no other reason than that they wanted to dance a special religious dance that the government had decided was "bad".
If that was the sort of stuff that those men were willing to fight against, then I think they are better examples of "American Heroes" than James Polk, William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, or Zach Taylor ever could hope to be. 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 were fighting for THEN.
So, please... stop assuming I have forgotten why men like those Jambo listed and your brother risk their lives to protect what this nation stands for, when it is abundantly clear that the one that has forgotten is you. They fight against bin Laden and all the rest... yes, but they fight to keep us safe from repeats of Wounded Knee, and the Indian Removal Act, and Dred Scot, and Plessy v Fergeson, and all the other mistakes and errors that this great "experiment in democracy" has stumbled into since it began. THAT is the genius of this nation... we learn from our mistakes, and we are stronger and better for it.
How convenient for you ...
Just blame it on sleep deprivation rather then addressing my beef. In 2 full posts I "wigged out" once in a post title & once in the last sentence of one post. The rest was a clear recitation of my grievance. Yet you addres only those 2 wig out portions.
You "not defending" Titus over the Holocaust jokes or his 1492 contraianism (if that's a word) isnt good enough in my opinion. Sometimes, when someone steps over the line with Holocaust jokes or indifference to calling active duty military personnel "terrorists", I think a couple wig out lines are precisely what is called for. But go ahead, chalk it up to sleep deprivation so you can avoid engaging on the other 90% of what I wrote. You stood silent on Holocaust jokes ... dont why I expected anything more on this issue.
You "not defending" Titus over the Holocaust jokes or his 1492 contraianism (if that's a word) isnt good enough in my opinion. Sometimes, when someone steps over the line with Holocaust jokes or indifference to calling active duty military personnel "terrorists", I think a couple wig out lines are precisely what is called for. But go ahead, chalk it up to sleep deprivation so you can avoid engaging on the other 90% of what I wrote. You stood silent on Holocaust jokes ... dont why I expected anything more on this issue.
Drama shields ENGAGED
Your resignation from the Bund? Does that mean I get fired as your friend? We're not BFFs anymore? The whole wedding trip to PA, cleaning up the debris at your Long Beach house, the hours and hours spent debating in yards and breakrooms, all gone because Titus posted something and you didn't like it and couldn't take a deep breath before you FLAMED?
I'm not defending Titus, the same way I didn't defend Titus during the Holocaust jokes. I'm completely over the lack of civility we ALL HAVE EARNED. You say insane stupid shit all the time and do I flame you? No. I don't flame Titus. I've said insane shit (New Deal 2008 leaps immediately to mind) and everyone saw fit to slaughter the idea with civility.
If you're working on 58 minutes sleep in 24 hours, just coached your kids football team to an agonizing playoff loss, distracted by hot Russians and work, MAYBE YOU NEED TO NOT FREAKING POST FLAME RESPONSES. I recall a similar breakdown over bilingual education of your children sometime before 2008 that also resulted in F YOUS and threatened breakups of bromances, and seem to recall the "no sleep" excuse getting waved then. At what point in time in our careers to we learn NOT TO ENGAGE IN HEATED DEBATE WHEN WE'RE SLEEP DEPRIVED?
Is it so hard, really, to just give it a day? You go WAY LONGER not posting, but the minute something asinine comes up you LOSE YOUR MIND and can't take a moment to think, "Dude, I need to give this a minute. Take a perspective break."
If it were Titus going full wig freakout, I'd be chewing his ass, but at least he answers his phone and saves me the trouble of typing. And if your only criticism of me is a perceived silence over some stupid thread buried in the forgotten past, then you are too tired to debate.
I'm not defending Titus, the same way I didn't defend Titus during the Holocaust jokes. I'm completely over the lack of civility we ALL HAVE EARNED. You say insane stupid shit all the time and do I flame you? No. I don't flame Titus. I've said insane shit (New Deal 2008 leaps immediately to mind) and everyone saw fit to slaughter the idea with civility.
If you're working on 58 minutes sleep in 24 hours, just coached your kids football team to an agonizing playoff loss, distracted by hot Russians and work, MAYBE YOU NEED TO NOT FREAKING POST FLAME RESPONSES. I recall a similar breakdown over bilingual education of your children sometime before 2008 that also resulted in F YOUS and threatened breakups of bromances, and seem to recall the "no sleep" excuse getting waved then. At what point in time in our careers to we learn NOT TO ENGAGE IN HEATED DEBATE WHEN WE'RE SLEEP DEPRIVED?
Is it so hard, really, to just give it a day? You go WAY LONGER not posting, but the minute something asinine comes up you LOSE YOUR MIND and can't take a moment to think, "Dude, I need to give this a minute. Take a perspective break."
If it were Titus going full wig freakout, I'd be chewing his ass, but at least he answers his phone and saves me the trouble of typing. And if your only criticism of me is a perceived silence over some stupid thread buried in the forgotten past, then you are too tired to debate.
"I got hit in the plane."
That list of honorable service men only makes Titus' original post infinitely more sad.
I'm not on some "high horse" regarding my brother's service, it's simply the most personal, readily available example that I could list. I could of used George Washington, every Medal of Honor winner, ANY non indigenous individual worthy of praise and reverence post 1492. And make no mistake, that poster/tee shirt & massive sign as you walk in the front door - as 4 bus loads of kids piled through - was indicting EVERY non Native man woman and child since 1492 as a terrorist, and it flippantly employed a 9/11 associated reference to do so. And my emotional outburst is the real issue ... sure pal, whatever you say.
And while we're discussing the "sacred premise" of the Bund, as Jambo did in a recent text to me, let me clue you into something - I'm hardly in the mood to be lectured about this site's sacred status from someone who sat quietly by as his brother made grotesque Holocaust jokes during our Palestine/Israel debate. Am I the ONLY ONE outraged by that as well? Blood is thicker then Holocaust jokes? Really?
Furthermore - Titus posted online. I responded online. Jambo then assumes the prerogative to call and "chew my ass out", as he wanted and I did not allow. Look here chief - you want to take cyber arguments out into the proverbial "street", by hashing this out in the more personal format of the cellular phone, then fine. But understand, that's how you fracture more then the Bund's premise (I'm talking fracturing friendships, not mafia style "fracturing"). Taking these fights into the home, rather then fighting them out here, is EXACTLY how we descend into "f*ck you's" via text my friend. So be careful what you wish for.
Lastly - I want you both to think very hard about this, but especially Titus. Titus, you so loosely framed the parameters of your devil's advocate question that you actually had to issue a follow up post clarifying that you were not inferring that every non-indigenous man, woman and child post 1492 was akin to Al Qeada. THINK ABOUT THAT. That's how far (much like your disgusting Holocaust references) you took your contrarian stance on this issue. You had to come back and clarify that in your opinion not every American of European decent was a Bin Laden. And MY RESPONSE is what was "out of bounds" Jambo? MY RESPONSE was the post that was uncalled for or untoward? Really? Titus laughed off, even offered "well they have a point" overtones towards gross historical associations (and the practice of exposing them to busloads of 9 year olds no less, including my own son), and my calling your brother a few names in a post title is the REAL problem? The REAL blemish? Please. Let me clue you into something chief - I suggest backing up and gaining some perspective regarding how far (too far) Titus takes the devil's advocacy at times.
Look, you want my resignation from the site - just ask. But don't ask me to take back a word I wrote or even one second of outrage ... because I will not.
I'm not on some "high horse" regarding my brother's service, it's simply the most personal, readily available example that I could list. I could of used George Washington, every Medal of Honor winner, ANY non indigenous individual worthy of praise and reverence post 1492. And make no mistake, that poster/tee shirt & massive sign as you walk in the front door - as 4 bus loads of kids piled through - was indicting EVERY non Native man woman and child since 1492 as a terrorist, and it flippantly employed a 9/11 associated reference to do so. And my emotional outburst is the real issue ... sure pal, whatever you say.
And while we're discussing the "sacred premise" of the Bund, as Jambo did in a recent text to me, let me clue you into something - I'm hardly in the mood to be lectured about this site's sacred status from someone who sat quietly by as his brother made grotesque Holocaust jokes during our Palestine/Israel debate. Am I the ONLY ONE outraged by that as well? Blood is thicker then Holocaust jokes? Really?
Furthermore - Titus posted online. I responded online. Jambo then assumes the prerogative to call and "chew my ass out", as he wanted and I did not allow. Look here chief - you want to take cyber arguments out into the proverbial "street", by hashing this out in the more personal format of the cellular phone, then fine. But understand, that's how you fracture more then the Bund's premise (I'm talking fracturing friendships, not mafia style "fracturing"). Taking these fights into the home, rather then fighting them out here, is EXACTLY how we descend into "f*ck you's" via text my friend. So be careful what you wish for.
Lastly - I want you both to think very hard about this, but especially Titus. Titus, you so loosely framed the parameters of your devil's advocate question that you actually had to issue a follow up post clarifying that you were not inferring that every non-indigenous man, woman and child post 1492 was akin to Al Qeada. THINK ABOUT THAT. That's how far (much like your disgusting Holocaust references) you took your contrarian stance on this issue. You had to come back and clarify that in your opinion not every American of European decent was a Bin Laden. And MY RESPONSE is what was "out of bounds" Jambo? MY RESPONSE was the post that was uncalled for or untoward? Really? Titus laughed off, even offered "well they have a point" overtones towards gross historical associations (and the practice of exposing them to busloads of 9 year olds no less, including my own son), and my calling your brother a few names in a post title is the REAL problem? The REAL blemish? Please. Let me clue you into something chief - I suggest backing up and gaining some perspective regarding how far (too far) Titus takes the devil's advocacy at times.
Look, you want my resignation from the site - just ask. But don't ask me to take back a word I wrote or even one second of outrage ... because I will not.
Shit, Cobb... You didn't fight at Normandy neither.
If I'm going to wake up to the phone making noise because I got a text message complaining about how Ryan has to stay away from the Bund for a while because his man thong is creeping up over Titus' asinine posts, and Ryan is suffering ruined sleep over it, it had better be over something a damned sight more important than this shit.
Let's make one thing abundantly clear, Cheeto. Last I checked, you aren't in a VA line either. Every single day of our lives we have visible reminders of family members who have served. So if you think some bone poster from the turn of LAST century is worth a fracture within the Bund, then that's your freaking loss.
John Foster, Private, US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
Audie Foster, Auxiliary (drummer) US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
William Foster Jr. Private, US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
Arthur C. Peterson, Private, US Army, AEF (1917-1918)
George L. Keeney, LT (jg) US NAVY aviator (1941-45)
Ray H. Foster, Major, US Army 82nd Airborne (attached) OSS Jedburgh Team Monocle (France) Team Greenwood (China) (1939-48)
Elizabeth (Peterson) Foster, Sgt, WAAC (1941-43)
Thomas Orrbin, Sgt US Marines 3rd Division (1968-71)
Shannon Kenney, Sgt VMFA 232/ VMFAT 201 (1970-73)
Richard J. Foster, TSgt US Air Force (1964-78)
Anne McCandles, Captain, US Army Cmd Comp C 205th Inf Brigade (1967-85)
Leona Stevenson, SK2 (E5) US Navy NSFA (Deep Freeze) (1982-86)
Robert D. Stevenson, LCPL US Marines 1st MEF (2001-04)
Timothy S. Stevenson, Sgt, US Marines VMM 261 (2004-present)
Let's make one thing abundantly clear, Cheeto. Last I checked, you aren't in a VA line either. Every single day of our lives we have visible reminders of family members who have served. So if you think some bone poster from the turn of LAST century is worth a fracture within the Bund, then that's your freaking loss.
John Foster, Private, US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
Audie Foster, Auxiliary (drummer) US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
William Foster Jr. Private, US Army 25th Wisconsin (1861-65)
Arthur C. Peterson, Private, US Army, AEF (1917-1918)
George L. Keeney, LT (jg) US NAVY aviator (1941-45)
Ray H. Foster, Major, US Army 82nd Airborne (attached) OSS Jedburgh Team Monocle (France) Team Greenwood (China) (1939-48)
Elizabeth (Peterson) Foster, Sgt, WAAC (1941-43)
Thomas Orrbin, Sgt US Marines 3rd Division (1968-71)
Shannon Kenney, Sgt VMFA 232/ VMFAT 201 (1970-73)
Richard J. Foster, TSgt US Air Force (1964-78)
Anne McCandles, Captain, US Army Cmd Comp C 205th Inf Brigade (1967-85)
Leona Stevenson, SK2 (E5) US Navy NSFA (Deep Freeze) (1982-86)
Robert D. Stevenson, LCPL US Marines 1st MEF (2001-04)
Timothy S. Stevenson, Sgt, US Marines VMM 261 (2004-present)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
