Syrian refugees = Jewish refugees

Comparing this refugee crisis with a previous refugee crisis, we see little has changed:Retweeted Avraham Bronstein (@AvBronstein):

In the 1930s and 1940s enough Americans thought Jewish refugees may have included Soviet or German agents. ‪#‎NeverAgain‬ ‪#‎SyrianRefugees‬

Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

I tweet this every day now, but 169,000 Bosnian Muslim refugees came to the US in the 1990s, from a radicalized warzone. Not one terrorist.

Retweeted Terrell Lewis (@SgBz):

Thank goodness the innkeeper wasn't a Republican Governor ‪#‎p2‬ ‪#‎tcot‬ ‪#‎Christian‬ https://t.co/IZJiiPzfy1Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

America is literally formed as a country by people who ran away from persecution...

Retweeted Historical Opinion (@HistOpinion):

US Jan 20 ’39: Should the US government permit 10,000 mostly Jewish refugee children to come in from Germany? https://t.co/5cFs5RabQn

"If they're not white Christians," said America, "we don't care. Let 'em die in the Holocaust. They're not our responsibility."Retweeted southpaw (@nycsouthpaw):

What benefits has the US ever gained from admitting displaced persons? https://t.co/EpgS1CkjFnDr. Quimby on Twitter:

America...founded by cowardly Europeans who couldn't take the heat.

Retweeted Pete Fraser (@petefrasermusic):

One of these was in today's Daily Mail and one is nazi propaganda. Take your time. https://t.co/VjPYrwYKvS


If you're a Syrian refugee, you can move next door to me. I won't mind.

For more on terrorism, see Republicans Afraid of Syrian Refugees and First Thoughts After Paris Attacks.

Redskins try to buy approval

Redskins owner Dan Snyder makes visits to Indian Country amid name-change pressure

By Theresa Vargas and Liz ClarkeHope arrived in a private jet. By the time the aircraft with the Washington Redskins’ Indian-head logo on its tail landed in New Mexico, the tribal council of the Pueblo of Zuni was ready to greet its prominent visitor.

Daniel Snyder, the owner of one of the NFL’s most profitable football franchises, had asked to see firsthand the struggles of the tribe living amid red-hued mesas. To do that, he needed to see this: A cracked indoor swimming pool that had teemed with children and the elderly before it was condemned about three years ago. A swath of reservation land that had been set aside for hotels and restaurants that were never built because the funding didn’t match the dream. A wellness center where a Zumba class was about to start—one way the community is fighting an alarming diabetes rate.And:The team’s strategy to address the issue, however, goes far beyond its few public statements, according to interviews with team executives, people who know Snyder and Native Americans across the nation. Behind the scenes, Snyder and team officials have taken more than a dozen unpublicized trips to Indian Country, Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie acknowledged. They wanted to see for themselves what some people view as an issue far more pressing than the name of a football team: a population struggling with poverty, disease and substance abuse at rates higher than any other group in the nation.

The team could soon make a financial gesture to address some of these problems, including selling popcorn from a South Dakota tribe at the games. The move, like the name debate itself, promises to draw praise and criticism from the community that has the most at stake: Native Americans.Snyder's visit to Native Americans not enough

By Chris KormanThe post says Snyder is contemplating a business deal to sell popcorn manufactured by a Native American company, and could donate in the future with a focus on fighting rampant issues like unemployment and alcoholism. And he should do those things.

He should also issue a release that says: “After meeting with this proud and noble people, I realize that we minimize their contributions and make their lives more difficult today by calling our team Redskins, which is a racist way of supposedly paying homage to only the narrowest part of this group’s history. Switching the name will send a clear message that we must stop seeing Native Americans as painted warriors and instead as an integral part of our country. Voting for a new name will begin shortly.”

No one's buying it

Why Jews Are Calling on Snyder to Drop 'Redskins'

By Stanley HellerWhy a Jewish letter? Two reasons. First, because the owner of the Dallas Cowboys claimed that Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington team could not be "insensitive" in keeping the name "redskins" since Snyder was a Jew. Second because the Ray Halbritter (Oneida Nation representative and CEO of Nation Enterprises, parent company of Indian Country Today Media Network) asked Jews not to buy products bearing the current Washington name or use the team logo. We wanted to respond to the Oneida call and to criticize Snyder for using Jewish suffering as an excuse to humiliate others.

On the Move On petition site where the statement was housed there was this further explanation for the statement:

The "R" Word is the Same as the "N" Word and the "K" word.

We Jews are appalled that fellow Jew Dan Snyder is blind to the fact that the name of the Washington football team that he owns is racist and deeply offensive to Indian peoples. As Indian leader Clyde Bellecourt said recently the “R” word is no different than the “N” word. We’d add that it’s also no different than the “K” word that has been used to taunt Jews for centuries.

Words matter. They can hurt and humiliate. They can help turn people into targets of hate.

The name of the team has led to other practices that promote humiliating stereotypes like fans wearing “headdresses” of chicken feathers or the mass tomahawk chop or cries to “scalp” opposing teams.

It is especially wrong to be shaming Indians, who have suffered so enormously from mass killing, land theft, treaty breaking and attempts to eradicate their cultures.Redskins May Try to Buy Indian Cover for Racist Name

By John F. BanzhafAlthough virtually every American Indian organization–as well as civil rights, black, Latino, and Jewish organizations–have in no uncertain terms condemned the team name as derogatory and racist, Redskins team owner Daniel Snyder may be trying to provide cover from growing protects by using his vast wealth to help persuade a few Indians to rally behind the name, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf, one of those helping to lead the movement to change the team’s name.

Team owner Daniel Snyder recently made several trips to Indian areas. Although the trips were supposed to be kept secret, team insiders admit that they are part of a strategy to address the issue of a name many now concede is racist. They suggest that the trips will result in the team paying off cooperative Indians, and even entering into sympathy contracts–e.g. selling popcorn from a tribe at games. The trips, by the way, were arranged by a lobbyist, and were described as “odd” by at least one tribal leader.

Snyder apparently is trying to persuade some Indians, especially those who may be the beneficiaries of his munificence, that Indians have far more serious problems than a racist NFL team name.

That’s obviously true, says Banzhaf, but hardly the point, and is simply an effort to distract attention.

Blacks had much more serious problems than Paula Dean using the n-word in private, or Dan Imus describing black hair as “nappy” or using thee word “Jigaboos,” but even a single use of the words led to condemnation and punishment, although some Blacks says they don’t really mind the use of the word.

Gay people have far more important problems than what a backwoods patriarch says about their sexual practices, but they quickly and strongly condemned his remarks–even though they were allegedly based on the Bible–about their sexual practices.

Fortunately, says Banzhaf, using his vast wealth to try to buy friends for the team’s name is likely to backfire. A former Redskins vice president of public relations admits that Snyder is in a difficult position. He says that using money to woo Indians would not help much, and could be “misinterpreted as a payoff.”

Even a recent ceremony, supposedly to honor Navajo Code talkers, was denounced, with the several Indians participating being called “props” for Snyder. One Navajo Nation Councilman condemned what he called team officials’ “antics to use our beloved and cherished Navajo heroes as pawns in their public relations battle to perpetuate this indignity and ignorance.”

“N*gger, W*tback, Ch*ink, W*p, J*p, etc. are racist insulting words, even though many of each ethic persuasion may not object, or feel that their people face more important issues. No reasonable person would use or repeat a team name like the C*nts, the F*ggots, or the R*tards, although each group faces more serious problems, and some no longer get upset by the use,” argues Banzhaf.Below:  The Redskins "honor" Navajo code talkers with purchases so fresh the tags still dangle from them.

Onion calls Redskins owner "kike"

Were the Onion’s anti-Semitic slurs “fair game”?

The New Republic's Marc Tracy says the Onion's piece about Redskins owner Dan Snyder had value as satire

By Prachi GuptaThe Onion divided readers yesterday with a controversial story that used racial slurs to mock Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who is Jewish. The Onion described Snyder, who refuses to change the racist Washington Redskins name, as a “hook-nosed kike” and “shifty-eyed hebe”:“The Redskins represent 81 years of great history and tradition, and it’s a source of pride for our fans,” said the hook-nosed kike, stressing that the team’s insulting moniker is “absolutely not a racial slur by any means.”While the Onion has been spot on so many times this year, the satirical news organization has also thrown out some jokes of questionable taste in the past few months. This particular story walked a fine line between promoting stereotypes and making fun of those who promote stereotypes—so much so that journalists still don’t know how to react.

Though the first reaction for many (including myself) was shock, it seemed that some self-identified Jewish journalists didn’t seem to mind. In fact, they actually enjoyed it:

The New Republic’s Marc Tracy, who has written extensively about Judaism and is a Washington Redskins fan (though he refuses to say their full name, because he agrees that it is racist), told Salon there are two major reasons the Onion’s story is polarizing—the first being the obvious use of stereotypes. “Obviously it’s done to make a point,” Tracy explained via email, “but you don’t have to get into litigating the relative nastiness of ‘redskin’ versus ‘kike’ (or ‘wearing feathers’ versus ‘shifty-eyed,’ for that matter) to realize that this is a hazardous thing.”

But the other and “much more interesting” reason, according to Tracy, is that “the article plays on a Jewish/philo-Semitic tension”:…Due to their own history of persecution and stereotyping, Jews ought to be much more sensitive to the persecution and stereotyping of other marginalized groups. And the thing is, by and large, Jews are much more sensitive, and are justifiably proud, for example, that they were instrumental non-black allies of black civil rights leaders (look at Rabbi Heschel in this picture!). In fact, there is an extent to which this is what we mean by “Chosen People”–there is a religious and even theological justification for Jews’ own feelings for Jewish exceptionalism. So among Jews I think there’s an extra sense of disappointment that Snyder would not be sensitive to the problem with the name–not only as an owner and a human being, but as a Jew.

But there is a potentially dark side to this, which is that when you start saying Jews “should” be like this or “shouldn’t” be like that, it can easily slip into philo-Semitism’s closely related opposite. It’s a thin line. Maybe somebody smarter than I has codified this into a formal rule, but I try just to call it as I see it. I think The Onion piece stayed on the right side of this line.Comment:  This posting made me uneasy too. Even though I've done similar things in my blog.

Perhaps it was the big bold headline on a major website. It would be easy to misunderstand if you glanced at the headline and didn't notice the Onion tag.

I guess I prefer the "Blackskins" approach. The made-up word and image make the same point without (potentially) offending anyone.

Reality TV's hipster racism

The hipster racism of reality TV

Bravo's "Princesses: Long Island" is just the latest reality show to act like ethnic caricatures are fair game now

By Elissa StraussI asked the Anti-Defamation League whether they thought the perpetuation of the anti-Semitic JAP stereotype on “Princesses” was a problem and they told me, in short, that they couldn’t be bothered. “While these shows are infantile and prurient and probably not helpful to society, we do not believe they are particularly destructive,” they said, as part of their official statement on the show.

Anna David, editor of “Reality Matters,” an essay anthology on the perverse pleasures of non-fiction television, thinks “Jersey Shore” was a turning point for both reality TV producers and the audience in terms of racialized stereotypes. When that show about a group of guidos and guidettes was first announced, numerous Italian-American organizations protested, requesting that MTV cancel it. They, of course, failed, which means that you and I both know who Snooki is and producers learned that the more exaggerated the ethnic stereotypes, the higher the ratings.

The success of “Jersey Shore” led to knock-offs like “The Shahs of Sunset” about Persians in Los Angeles—and “Princesses,” whose “larger-than-life characterizations of people who we can only assume in their real day-to-day life actually behave more like humans has, I think, made us all a little un-shockable,” David said.

“We all now essentially understand and accept the fact that any group of young people of a specific cultural group featured on a reality show are going to be outrageous.”

These sentiments were echoed in many responses to “Princesses” from Jewish women. In a series on the Jewish Daily Forward that I edited only one of the four contributors were offended by the show. And Alana Newhouse, editor of Tablet and long-time JAP observer, told me that “no one is crying foul because these shows are all—to a one—exercises in minstrelsy.”

Jennifer Pozner, author of “Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV,” said that there are pernicious causes for and effects from this “why bother?” response to “Princesses” and the like.

“People have stopped challenging [ethnic stereotypes], because they are buying into them,” Pozner said. She sees Americans as tired of protesting caricatures, but says there’s a problem with such fatigue: studies have shown that when people stop actively resisting stereotypes they start unconsciously believing in them.

Rachel Dubrofsky, a professor of communications at the University of South Florida, said that she thinks the decreased resistance to reality TV is a product of our collective belief that, in the age of Obama, we live in a post-racial society.

“The logic seems to go, since we are no longer racist, then we can now make fun of race issues and racialized stereotypes since they are no longer an issue,” she explained. “The assumption seems to be that self-awareness (about race issues) absolves someone from being a racist.”Comment:  The same "thinking" behind these modern-day minstrel shows is behind the countless examples of hipsters in headdresses. "We're no longer racists, so we can act like racists, because racism isn't racist in a post-racist society."

For more on the subject, see Jezebel's Guide to Hipster Racism and Hipster Racism.

Jewish defender dresses in blackface

Blackface-Wearing New York Politician Says he Won't Dress as an IndianThere's a consensus in the United States of America that the wearing of blackface is a racist act. It's something you just don't do, and if you do it you can expect to be rightly pilloried. For American Indians, it's often frustrating that racism toward Native Americans that feels very overt is somehow harder for the mainstream to detect.

With some ill-advised costume choices, and a thoroughly unapologetic apology, a New York State Assemblyman is doing his part to connect the dots.

Dov Hikind of Brooklyn is being rightly pilloried for hosting a Purim party wearing blackface. Costume parties are a tradition of the Jewish celebration of Purim, and Hikind had decided to host his in the costume of "basketball player," which necessitated an orange jersey-ish garment, an afro wig and dark makeup.

Hikind's getup earned him plenty of press. His initial response was a shrug of acknowledgement in a post to his blog entitled "It's Purim. People Dress Up." "I am intrigued that anyone who understands Purim--or for that matter understands me--would have a problem with this," he wrote. "This is political correctness to the absurd." Hikind was fixated on the idea that the costume only seemed racist because people didn't understand Purim. Also on Monday he held a news conference to address the criticism--but didn't. He explained again that costumes are part of the Purim celebration. (The "it's not racist, it's a costume" argument is one Natives hear every Halloween.) In addition to explaining what a costume is, he offered a classic first-draft non-apology: "Anyone who was offended--I'm sorry that they were offended, that was not the intention."

Hikind posted a more genuine apology to his blog on Tuesday. Unfortunately for him, the New Yorker and the Daily Show were still reacting to Monday's news.

African Americans have plenty of cause to be incensed by Hikind's ignorance--but so too do American Indians. On Monday, when Hikind was still trying to defend himself with the "political correctness to the absurd" argument, he told a New York Times reporter that the outcry was making him rethink his plans for next year's Purim.

"Next year I was thinking I’d be an Indian," he said. "But you know, I’ve changed my mind about that. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Somebody will be offended."

Of course, it's hard to know whether (or to what extent) he was joking about dressing as an Indian. (It is also hard to know exactly which kind of Indian he had in mind, but that's beside the point.) If he didn't know blackface was a no-no, there is really no telling how unenlightened his thinking may be when it comes to Native stereotypes. Many have seen a unique irony that it is Hikind who would be in this position--Hikind is well known as a zealous, perhaps overzealous, defender of the Jewish community against anti-Semitism or perceived anti-Semitism.

"Dov Hikind is the first person who will holler about something when he thinks or hears a whisper that it might be anti-Semitic," said Assembly member Annette Robinson, according to the Wall Street Journal, "but does not recognize something is disrespectful to another community."Comment:  For more on blackface, see Mummers Parade in Redface, Blackface and 1491s on Redface and Blackface.

Poster compares abortion to genocide

Elections 2012: Abortion Debate Targets Native Students at University of New Mexico

By Mark TrahantThe debate about abortion rights surfaced on the University of New Mexico campus this week–and American Indians were the focus. A poster with a fetus inside of a medicine wheel read: Abortion Extinction. Then it said, “Today, an Indian boy was killed the Indian way. Hey ya hey!”

Native students organized a protest on Wednesday and the posters were removed.

“The first thing that went through my mind was pure hurt, and then I was angry,” UNM senior Paula Herbert told KOAT in Albuquerque. “I left, and I actually cried in the hallway because it hurt me. My people were represented in a negative light.”

Signs in the native protest said: “Racism is not pro-life” and “We will not be used to further your political purpose.” The Native students did not get into the abortion debate, responding instead about the negative depiction of Native Americans in the posters.Comment:  You can see the poster in the video below. The blurring covers the bloody body of a fetus.

The description above is missing a few things. The fetus is wearing a headband with a single feather. It's resting in a birth control wheel--a container that helps women take the pill daily. The first caption, above "Today, an Indian boy was killed," says, "color the redman gone."

This poster is wrong in so many ways. First, in general:

Genocide means the killing of a people distinguished by their race or religion. You can call abortion "mass murder" if you want, but that doesn't make it genocide. All genocides are mass murders, but not all mass murders are genocide.

I suspect people would be apoplectic if a poster showed fetuses being gassed with Zyklon B like the Jews at Auschwitz. It would be obvious the poster-maker was using the Jews' pain and suffering for their own agenda. Well, the same applies to Indians.

Many cultures around the world, including Native and Jewish cultures, accept the practice of abortion. It's unfair to equate the historically documented suffering of Natives or Jews with the suffering imagined by conservative Christians. (When you can prove a fetus has a soul, go ahead and do so. Until then, that a fetus is a person is an opinion, not a fact.)

Equating abortion with birth control is simply stupid. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Next, on the Native elements:

Some reports called the headband with feather a "headdress." Not quite.

Even if it was meant as a benign way to identify Indians, the headband is stereotypical. Most Indians don't wear such headbands and never did.

Using the medicine wheel for a non-religious purpose against the wishes of Indians is sacrilegious.

The "redman" isn't gone, so comparing exterminated fetuses to exterminated Indians is false and stereotypical.

The phrase "Today, an Indian boy was killed the Indian way" is simply grotesque. What the hell is that supposed to mean? That Indians slaughtered their babies, either by aborting them or by killing them after they were born? Because that's what Indians do: butcher everything and leave bloody corpses behind? That alone is enough to call the poster racist.

"Hey ya hey!" is a phony, pidgin-English version of the Navajo greeting "Yah ta hey" or the Lakota greeting "Hoka hey."

I should add that the "killed the Indian way" caption sends a mixed message. Indians were the victims of genocide...but they killed babies in "the Indian way." Well, which is it?

The poster presumes you're sympathetic to the near-extermination of the Indian. But it undercuts it with the fetus in a headband and the various captions. There's an air of mockery here. "Look what happened to the savage Indians with their funny headdresses, silly chants, and murderous practices," the poster seems to say. "If you're not careful, the same thing will happen to fetuses."

The anti-abortion group 40 Days for Life has denied it was behind the poster. But this is what happens when you take an absolutist position. When you're a fanatic, you draw like-minded fanatics, even if you don't agree with them on everything. Until you denounce the hatemongers in your midst, you deserve to be lumped with them.

For more on conservative hate, see The Logical Conclusion of Extremism and Conservative Hatemongers Deny Responsibility.

No Holocaust museum for Indians

The U.S. Has a Holocaust Museum, But Why no American Indian Holocaust Museum?

By Peter d'ErricoIt is strange that there is a Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., to commemorate what the Nazis did in WWII, but no museum to acknowledge what a long series of United States governments did in the anti-Indian wars that are inextricable from American history. There is no American Indian Holocaust Museum, even though there are documented incidents in which mass killings, not just mass arrests, occurred across the continent over decades.

Exactly what is the “duty of memory”? Do we have a duty to remember anything? We know the adage from George Santayana, that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” But what if we want to repeat the past? What if the past is celebrated, not mourned and commemorated?

There’s an awful lot of American flag-waving at Indian Powwows, despite the bloody, anti-Indian history associated with that flag. Does this mean Indians have no memories? Does it mean they celebrate their Holocaust? This is a phenomenon discovered by some who have worked with colonialism: Frantz Fanon, for example, studying Africa, noted that colonized people strive to emulate the culture and ideas of their oppressors.

It seems that the first “duty of memory” is to remember. And how do we remember? By searching out the past, looking for evidence, facing facts, poking through facades, ignoring excuses, refusing lies.

Last year, President Obama ordered the creation of an “Atrocity Prevention Board,” saying, “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” He also said, “America’s reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.” He added, “history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort.”

One wonders whether America might do better to start with cleaning its own house, starting with its memory of its history. The U.S. cannot claim clean hands on the issue of mass atrocities and genocide. It cannot claim immunity from the charge of systematic slaughter. In Fanon’s words, these historical events leave behind “germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land [and] from our minds….”

Only when we have removed the rot of historical denial and replaced it with the fresh air of historical memory are we able to say we have carried out the “duty of memory.” Only then may we say we are ready to prevent atrocity and genocide.Comment:  I wouldn't bet on seeing an American Indian Holocaust Museum anytime soon. It probably won't happen until the rabid right releases its hold on American politics. Because these people believe America hasn't done and can't do wrong. They think God wrote our history and the Founding Fathers were his disciples.

For more on the subject, see Why Do Indians "Live in Past"? and Colorado Rejects "Genocide" Label.

Coushatta and Israel establish relations

Israel and the Coushatta: one miracle that deserves another

Though ties between the Coushatta and the State of Israel have taken on an economic tone, the relationship is ultimately rooted in a shared appreciation for and commitment to nationhood, sovereignty and self-determination

By Allison GoodIn 2008, David Sickey of the Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was glued to the media coverage of Israel’s sixtieth anniversary. As a result, by the end of that year, the Coushatta would become the first Native American tribe to establish a formal relationship with Israel, hosting an affirmation of friendship event with Israeli consular officials and issuing a proclamation that May 14 would be “Stakayoop Yanihta Yisrael,” or “the day to honor Israel.”

These days, the Coushatta are the exclusive American distributor of Aya Natural, an Israeli startup skincare company, and Sickey recently participated in the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance’s trade mission to Israel, led by Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. Though ties between the Coushatta and the State of Israel have taken on an economic tone, the partnership is ultimately rooted in a shared appreciation for and commitment to nationhood, sovereignty and self-determination.

“When I came to the tribe with my idea to establish relations, they took an interest because the Coushatta value sovereignty and nationhood much like the Jewish people, and autonomy is something to be embraced,” recalled Sickey, who currently serves as vice-chairman of the tribe governing council. “We decided to explore ways of reaching out to Israel to celebrate their independence and recognize that achievement.”

Though the Coushatta do practice Christianity, Sickey said that religion was not a factor in his attraction to Israel.

Historical parallels between the Coushatta and Jewish experiences were also a crucial push factor. Originally encountered by Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto in the sixteenth century, the tribe was forced to relocate from present-day Georgia and Alabama to southwestern Louisiana due to pressure from colonial settlements. Their reservation sits on 685 acres of prairie and forests in the heart of oil and gas country neighboring Acadiana. The federal government officially recognized the Coushatta in 1973, and today the members of the tribe’s seven remaining clans number 879.

“When we first pitched the idea to the council, the issue was what do the Coushatta and the nation of Israel have in common, but once we began to look into it, we found similar stories about the plight of Native Americans and the Jewish people, the search for homelands, banishment from our homelands, adversity and persecution,” Sickey explained. “We both also have modern-day challenges of security and land rights.”Comment:  As I've noted before, many Indians sympathize with the Palestinians, not the state of Israel. You know, because Israel stole the Palestinians' land and keeps them subservient in reservation-like areas.

For more on Israel, see Palestinians and Indians "Invented"? and Gaza = "Largest Indian Reserve."

Below:  "Coushatta tribesmen meet with an Israeli delegation."

David Duke speaks to teabaggers

The White Supremacist Roots Of The Tea Party’s Obama HateThe racial bigotry against President Obama began before he was inaugurated and has continued unabated to this day. The hatred against Obama cannot be for his policies because he is a Centrist who has enraged many on the Left for not acquiescing to their demands that he pursue a Progressive agenda. Teabaggers complained from the start of the president’s term in 2009 that he was taxing them too much even though the tax rates were from George W. Bush’s term. The president cut taxes shortly after taking office and the teabags still claimed Obama was overtaxing them. The teabaggers have complained about all of President Obama’s policies regardless that they benefited from his agenda, so the only explanation for their opposition that makes any sense is his race.

David Duke made a video-taped speech for teabaggers that laid out bigoted reasons for the tea party’s desire to return America to the Founding Fathers’ days when African slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person and the predominant race was white. The racial bigot Duke told teabaggers that African Americans, Jews, and other minorities were interlopers trying to change America from a white man’s country into a diverse nation of ethnicities and that it will be the undoing of our country. No-one is surprised that David Duke is still a bigot, but his dysfunctional logic supporting ethnic cleansing gives one pause and informs why teabaggers want America to return to its original European, white roots set at the country’s founding.

Duke accused Jews in the media of promoting President Obama, and throughout his speech refers to “real Americans” as European-American people who overwhelmingly did not vote for President Obama and reject him as the country’s leader. Duke claimed the original Boston tea party was a rejection of foreign intervention in America’s government and he goes on to insinuate that the president, Jews, and non-whites are a foreign power who are robbing European Americans of their freedom to rule themselves. To further his argument for white supremacy, he referred to the Founding Fathers’ first immigration policy that limited immigrants to “free white people.” The racial rant quotes Thomas Jefferson and cites his reason for opposing slavery as a “danger to our posterity,” and that Jefferson said “unless African slaves were repatriated to their motherland, he shudders for America’s future.” Duke also said Jefferson’s writings on the slavery issue have been “completely censored in the popular media” and that it is a despicable plot to fool the American people.There are many problems with Duke’s supremacist rant, and besides being sickening on many levels, it gives a clue to why teabaggers cite the Founders’ original intent at the nation’s beginning as being a golden age. Teabaggers and Duke have idealized the late 1700s as the model for 21st Century America as if the past two-hundred years of progress did not improve America. Duke’s racial tirade explains the Black voter suppression being supported by teabaggers as well as the attacks on women’s rights. Duke kept referring to the Founders’ and the Constitution, but never acknowledged the multitude of amendments that were necessary to keep pace with the changing landscape in this country.

Teabaggers have opposed the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause that are part of the so-called “Reconstruction Amendments” that include the 13th and 15th Amendments that abolished slavery and granted voting rights to people of colour respectively. If America was constrained to the original 10 amendments in the Constitution, the country would be no better than a third-world country and anyone who was not white would be little more than property.You can watch the video here:

David Duke Addressing the Tea Party

Comment:  Note that Dukes is upfront about saying the Tea Party isn't a political movement, it's a racial movement. He's also upfront about stating it was a response to Obama's election, even though Obama has reduced our taxes even more than Bush did.

Let's reiterate a key point:Teabaggers and Duke have idealized the late 1700s as the model for 21st Century America as if the past two-hundred years of progress did not improve America.Note that teabaggers never say, "Let's go back to 1900--after slavery ended but before the income tax was passed." They never talk about freeing the slaves and guaranteeing their rights as if that were a good thing. Indeed, they never talk about the Founders' bigoted belief that only white male property owners could govern the country.

In short, their talk about returning to the Founders' Constitution and values means eliminating the rights of women and minorities. It means returning to white Christian rule.

For more on the subject, see Teabaggers Seek White Christian Rule and Whites Feel Like a Minority.

Below:  He killed Indians and enslaved blacks. That must be why he's the father of our country and so many people revere him.

Boarding schools = "holocaust"?

Public outcry continues over Lawrence Joesph comparing the holocaust to the residential school experience

Jewish history prof. and journalist debate Joseph's comments

By Bre McAdamThere's been public outcry after Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River NDP candidate Lawrence Joseph compared the holocaust to the residential school experience, but a Jewish history professor and a Saskatchewan journalist think it depends on how you define holocaust.

"It means a burnt offering to the Gods," stated University of Toronto Jewish history professor Dr. Frank Bialystok. He says it all comes down to differentiating THE holocaust as a specific historical genocide, and A holocaust being any type of horrific event.

Eagle Feather News editor John Lagimodiere believes the residential school era is Canada's holocaust, and that it has left lasting effects.

"Parents had no choice but to have their children rounded up and taken. So there are comparisons," said Lagimodiere, who believes you can break down the definition of holocaust to mean widespread destruction. "You can make a fair argument that that kind of destruction did happen in the community from the policies in the residential schools and the outcomes."NDP candidate Lawrence Joseph defends residential school, holocaust comparison

Saskatchewan NDP candidate says similarities between holocaust and residential school experience

By Bre McAdamNDP candidate for Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River Lawrence Joseph is defending his comparison of the residential school experience to the holocaust made at a candidates forum in Meadow Lake Tuesday.

Joseph says he was responding to a specific comment made during a debate on compensation for residential school victims.

"Somebody made a comment to the effect that basically people should get on with their lives and forget. No they shouldn't. They should never do that."

Joseph stands by his comparison, telling News Talk Radio that in his opinion, there are similarities between the two historical tragedies.

"If you look at the dictionary at holocaust it describes an effort to clean-up a race. Without any doubt in my mind that was what the government wanted to do," said Joseph, who claims he wasn't trying to offend anybody but understands there will be some backlash.'Holocaust' comment not appropriate:  LaytonNDP leader Jack Layton says it's not appropriate for one of his Saskatchewan candidates to call the Indian residential school experience a "holocaust."

Speaking to reporters in Thunder Bay, Ont., on Wednesday night, Layton said he's glad Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River candidate Lawrence Joseph has apologized for using those words.

The Holocaust is a term commonly used to describe the systematic murder of six million Jewish people by the Nazis during the Second World War.

Some historians and former residential school students have likened the residential school system as Canada's own holocaust, referring to the abuse and systematic racism experienced in the schools during last half of the 20th century.

Layton said he understood where Joseph, a former chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, was coming from.

"There's no question that the residential school experience was devastating for a great many aboriginal Canadians. And emotions overtook him," Layton said.Comment:  I think Layton's position is a good one. Yes, we can understand why Joseph made the comparison, even though it's overblown.

Comparing the Native holocaust to the Jewish Holocaust overall is fair. But the boarding-school experience didn't result in the mass murder of millions of Indians. It was only one small part of the Native holocaust.

In that sense, Joseph's comparison misses the mark. Let's save the term "holocaust" for cases where it really and truly applies.

For more on the subject, see German Canadians Protest Holocaust Exhibit, Gover on Indians and Jews, and Jewish Politicians Want Indians to Disappear.

Jew who became Sioux

New frontiers in Wild West for Jew who became Sioux

By Orlando Radice and Jim WinnermanIf you thought the Wild West was no country for Jews, you haven't heard of Julius Meyer.

Meyer emigrated to America from Prussia, washed up in Nebraska in 1867 and became a frontier-land legend. Captured by Sioux during a buffalo hunt, he lived with the tribe for several years. A speaker of six Indian languages, Meyer was known by the Indians as "Curly-Headed White Chief with One Tongue" because of his honesty. Later in his life, he served as an Indian interpreter to Congress and as an Indian agent.

According to St Louis writer Jim Winnerman, who, until a few years ago, thought his grandparents were virtually the only Jews to strike out for the Wild West, such stories are missing from the American-Jewish narrative.Comment:  The article doesn't say whether Meyer became a member of the tribe. He could've, and other white people in his position did. It's a typical example of how tribal membership has always been a political and cultural distinction, not a genetic one.

For more on the subject, see "Swindians" Among the Sioux and White Man Leads Indian Tribe.

Below:  "Julius Meyer (top right), who lived with Sioux Indians for several years, photographed with (front, left to right) Sitting Bull, Swift Bear and Spotted Tail. Meyer went on to interpret Indian languages for the US Congress."

The last acceptable racism

A good posting suggests how our society uses stereotypes to keep Indians in their place:

The Last Acceptable Racism:  Native Americans

By David KimelbergTwo disturbing developments recently hit my radar. The first was an announcement from Washington's NFL team that it's planning to change its name and logo. Okay, that seems innocuous enough. Washington Politicos? Nope. The new name is the Washington Jews. The re-worked logo is equally alarming: it consists of a profile of what appears to be a stereotyped Jewish person, complete with the physical features exploited by Sasha Baron Cohen in his film Borat.

The second was the result of a New Yorker cartoon caption contest. Normally a source of great wit and cleverness, this one was just plain distasteful: the cartoon pictured an SS guard taking cover behind a desk against a barrage of "throwing stars" clearly in the shape of the Star of David. While avoiding the onslaught of Jewish-themed steel weapons hitting the desk and everything else around him, he's speaking to someone on the phone. In the New Yorker's caption contests, readers are asked to submit witty captions to accompany the cartoon, with winners announced in a subsequent issue. So, what was the winning caption? Get ready, here's the punchline: "Quick, give them the banks." Not only is the caption just not funny, its racist angle is obvious. Has the liberal and renowned New Yorker gone off the deep end?

Shocked by this news? Of course you are. And, of course, they're not true. If they were, both organizations would be dealing with a deluge of warranted criticism and outrage from all corners. What is truly shocking is that Native Americans are subject to analogous assaults and no one seems to care.

Of course, Washington's NFL team is actually the Washington Redskins. The term "redskins" is highly offensive to Native Americans and is equivalent to the "n-word" for African Americans. Not only is the team's name insulting, its logo is also a slap in the face for Natives. It attempts to depict a profile of an "Indian," complete with braids, feathers and a stoic gaze. It's pure stereotyping and nothing more. It perpetuates a caricature of Native people, and is another societal movement to turn Native Americans into a historical footnote, frozen in time as a cowboy western prop, and not allow recognition of us for who we really are. In the category of "irony of all ironies," the Redskins' owner, Dan Snyder, recently sued a Washington news outlet for including a picture of him with devil horns. His complaint? That, as a Jew, the news outlet depicted him in a blatantly anti-Semitic way, which caused him great harm. Really? Can you not see the clear racist parallels with your own NFL franchise, Mr. Snyder?

The New Yorker obviously doesn't get it either. Instead of my theoretical SS guard, a recent New Yorker cartoon caption contest actually depicted a cowboy seeking refuge behind a desk peppered with arrows. The scene includes him on the phone, behind the desk in an office overlooking a cityscape. The New Yorker, the de facto leader of liberal literary intellectualism, decided that the winning caption should be: "Quick, give them a casino." Instead of highbrow wit, the New Yorker decided that lowbrow overt racism should carry the cartoon caption day. The fact that only a couple commentators took issue with this (all Native Americans) speaks volumes. The message is that racism against Native Americans is acceptable and universally embraced under the guise of alleged humor.


Comment:  Critics have compared the Washington Redskins to the Washington Honkies, Coonskins, Chinks, Wetbacks, et al. many times. People haven't gotten the message yet.

The cartoon comparison is a fresh one, and many people might not think of it. That makes it worth posting.

Kimelberg also makes the intent behind these images clear:This type of verbal and pictorial violence has only one goal in mind: to dehumanize the subject group so they're viewed as a subclass not worthy of respect or acknowledgment as a distinct people.Yes, that's it, all right. By keeping Indians in their place, we don't have to acknowledge the moral crimes of our white Christian ancestors. We can go on thinking we deserve our wealth and power because we earned them. Truly acknowledging what we did to the Indians would mean overturning centuries of white privilege, the foundation of our society. It would mean putting sovereign Indian nations and their treaty rights at the center of political debates, which would decimate the present liberal/conservative playing field.

Since the white Christian powers-that-be aren't going to give up their power, they encourage or allow the stereotyping of Indians. Portraying them as primitive people of the past is America's way of keeping them out of current affairs. If we treat them as a joke, we don't have to take them seriously.

For more on the subject, see:

Stereotypes drive racism in South Dakota
Stereotypes as mental maps
Indians shouldn't act uppity?
"Broken windows" theory of racism
Stereotypical thinking causes racist results

Critics slam Snyder's hypocrisy

Snyder Tackled for Redskins Hypocrisy

By Rob Capriccioso“[S]hut the fuck up Dan Snyder, you own the most sickeningly racist relic of a brand in all of professional sports,” wrote Hamilton Nolan for Gawker in a piece titled, “Rich Idiot Thinks He Deserves $2 Million for This ‘Anti-Semitic’ Picture.” “How do you even sleep at night, you whore?” The blog also highlighted the following comment in a special post later in the day: “How would I feel if someone--nay, an entire organization--insulted my people by using a racist epithet and caricatures of Native Americans like me? And then refused to do anything about it when repeatedly asked to change it and even sued to do so? Huh. Let’s see. I think what I’d do is tell the jackass who owns the organization to go fuck himself.”

Over at The Nation, usually knowing for its complex policy pieces, Dave Zirin continued the theme: “Also, lest we forget, Dan Snyder owns a team whose name and logo are a celebration of the genocide of our Native American brothers and sisters. Every Sunday the Redskins take the field, their namesakes’ memory is slandered and suffering celebrated. If Dan Snyder was really an opponent of genocide, he’d change the name of his team. Until that happens, this incident reveals him to be worse than an insensitive dullard. It marks him as a hypocrite.”

Barry Petchesky, writing for the popular Deadspin sports blog, added another dimension to the hypocrisy of it all, noting that Snyder’s Six Flags company was alleged to have used stereotypes when recruiting Asian actors to work at its parks, asking for “Charlie Chan”-like behavior in a casting call. However, as the blogger noted, Snyder’s lawyer brushed those complaints aside in a letter to the City Paper, indicating the complaints from Asians were not as important as his charges of anti-Semitism. “No! You can’t put that aside!” admonished Petchesky. “That’s a hell of a lot more racist that doodling Devil horns on your photo, and you can’t cry foul on one and ‘put aside’ the other!”

The calls of support for Native Americans seemed to be everywhere. NPR, The Huffington Post, and many Facebook and Twitter messages lit up with a common message to Snyder: Change the name of the team, and quit being such a hypocrite.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Redskins Owner Sues Over "Anti-Semitic Imagery" and Redskins Make Children Cry.

Redskins owner sues over "anti-Semitic imagery"

Daniel Snyder sues local newspaperWashington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has sued Washington City Paper over a column he says defamed him and had anti-Semitic references.

Snyder filed the lawsuit against the weekly paper and its parent company, Atalaya Capital management LP, in New York State Supreme Court on Wednesday. The suit seeks at least $1 million in damages for each of the two causes of action, plus punitive damages.

The cover story entitled "The Crazy Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder," has an altered photo of the owner with horns and a beard drawn in pen. The suit claims the weekly newspaper used "lies, half-truths, innuendo and anti-Semitic imagery to smear, malign, defame and slander" Snyder.But:In a post on the City Paper's website Wednesday, managing editor Mike Madden asserted the image "is meant to resemble the type of scribbling that teenagers everywhere have been using to deface photos for years," he wrote. "The image of Snyder doesn't look like an 'anti-Semitic caricature'--it looks like a devil."

Another posting puts Snyder in his place:

Dan Snyder, Owner of a Team Named After an Ethnic Slur, Sues Over Perceived Anti-Semitism

By Elie MystalThis is rich. The owner of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder, has sued the Washington City Paper for a column he claims defamed him and used anti-Semitic imagery. That’s right, the man who has famously defended his right to name an entire football team after an ethnic slur is playing the ethnic card because a columnist made fun of him.

The kicker is that on top of this amazing execution of rank hypocrisy, Snyder manages to insult all Jews who have actually dealt with anti-Semitism by coming up with an ethnic offense where none existed. The columnist wasn’t making Jewish jokes or playing off of Jewish stereotypes. He was calling Dan Snyder a terrible owner and a shady dude. Saying he was a victim of anti-Semitism degrades the term and make this entire lawsuit look like the petulant reaction of a narcissistic millionaire.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians Should Challenge FCC License and Redskins Make Children Cry.

Below:  Good think Snyder is keeping people honest about offensive ethnic images...!

German Canadians protest Holocaust exhibits

Holocaust display criticized

By Kevin RollasonThe planned new Canadian Museum for Human Rights is under fire from an organization representing German Canadians, which objects to the museum's plan to single out the Holocaust for a permanent display.

"We shouldn't have a Holocaust exhibit as a permanent exhibit if no one else has one," said Tony Bergmeier, national president of the German-Canadian Congress.

The organization objects to having permanent galleries devoted to the Holocaust and Canada's aboriginal people when no other human-rights violation or human suffering is receiving a permanent exhibit, Bergmeier said.In response, museum officials state the obvious:Museum spokeswoman Angela Cassie said the Holocaust is getting a permanent area because it was the event that forced the issue of genocide onto the world stage.

The issue of Canada's treatment of aboriginal people is getting a permanent display because it is a Canadian human-rights issue, she said.Comment:  Don't tell me these protesters are worried about the exhibits sullying the image of their German people. As someone of German descent, I say that's ridiculous. The two acts of genocide are the most infamous in history. They deserve a special place in any presentation on the subject.

For more on the subject, see NMAI = Greatest Story Never Told and Wounded Knee "Delivered the Sentence."

Muslims killed thousands, Christians didn't?!

In his column titled Message to Muslims:  I'm Sorry, Nicholas Kristof begins with an apology to Muslims for "the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you." He then notes a controversy that proves my point: The protests against the Park51 interfaith center have nothing to do with the sanctity of Ground Zero. They're all about bigotry against Muslims in particular and brown-skins in general.I’m inspired by another journalistic apology. The Portland Press Herald in Maine published an innocuous front-page article and photo a week ago about 3,000 local Muslims praying together to mark the end of Ramadan. Readers were upset, because publication coincided with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, and they deluged the paper with protests.

So the newspaper published a groveling front-page apology for being too respectful of Muslims. “We sincerely apologize,” wrote the editor and publisher, Richard Connor, and he added: “we erred by at least not offering balance to the story and its prominent position on the front page.” As a blog by James Poniewozik of Time paraphrased it: “Sorry for Portraying Muslims as Human.”

I called Mr. Connor, and he seems like a nice guy. Surely his front page isn’t reserved for stories about Bad Muslims, with articles about Good Muslims going inside. Must coverage of law-abiding Muslims be “balanced” by a discussion of Muslim terrorists?

Ah, balance—who can be against that? But should reporting of Pope Benedict’s trip to Britain be “balanced” by a discussion of Catholic terrorists in Ireland?Hey, that's what we do here at Newspaper Rock. To balance our self-congratulatory praise of Anglo-Saxons, Christians, capitalists, Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, and so forth, we offer a reality check about America's bloodstained history.

Muslims bad, Christians good?

Kristof continues:And then there’s 9/11. When I recently compared today’s prejudice toward Muslims to the historical bigotry toward Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Asian-Americans, many readers protested that it was a false parallel. As one, Carla, put it on my blog: “Catholics and Jews did not come here and kill thousands of people.”

That’s true, but Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and in the end killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda ever did. Consumed by our fears, we lumped together anyone of Japanese ancestry and rounded them up in internment camps. The threat was real, but so were the hysteria and the overreaction."Catholics and Jews did not come here and kill thousands of people"? Well, except for the Indians.

Maybe Kristof meant that Catholics and Jews didn't kill thousands, they killed millions? That Carla's claim was true because the number was low by a factor of a thousand? Could be, but I doubt it.

My Facebook friends had some comments on Carla's claim:WTH? Yeah...thanks for always being on top of crap like that Rob. :) I mean, duh, Catholics had a nice huge hand (and I'm not just blaming the Catholics by any means) in killing MANY MANY MORE than the 3000 people (which included Muslims) on 9-11.

Catholics have killed more people than cancer.

Catholicism in the late 1700s and early 1850s turned an estimated California Indian population of 300,000 to approximately 53,000. Durrrr.Right. The entire history of the Americas from 1492 to the first Protestant (English) colonies was Catholics vs. Indians. That continued in Spanish America (the Southwest) until around 1850. It still continues in much of Latin America, where Euro-American Catholics battle indigenous Catholics over land, natural resources, political representation, etc.

Jews bad too?

One person asked, "Did the Jews kill Indians?" I don't know, but I can speculate.

Based on my stereotypical knowledge of history, I'd guess Jews were underrepresented among Western settlers but overrepresented among Eastern businessmen and financiers. They probably didn't kill many Indians directly. But by financing the railroads, the mining expeditions, the stockyards, etc., they contributed to the killing of Indians and the destruction of their way of life.

That was true of most Americans, of course, not just Jews. The only ones I'd give a pass to are those who spoke up and protested America's genocidal policies. Who voted against politicians who ran on an anti-Indian platform. Average Americans couldn't have done much to stop the Manifest Destiny juggernaut, but they could've tried.

For more on the subject, see:

Culture war over who's American
My visit to a mosque
Obama smeared as Luo tribesman
Bigots protest brown-skins on 9/11
Conservative bigotry against Islam
Muslim "tribes" = Indian tribes?!

Etc.

Below:  We're Americans! We're civilized! We don't fly airplanes into buildings like those cowardly Muslims!

Gover on Indians and Jews

Voices on Antisemitism—A Podcast Series

Kevin Gover
Director, National Museum of the American IndianThere certainly are places and times where what happened to Indians very closely resembles Jews in Europe during World War II. Everything from systematic killing—the hunting of them and their murder—to the use of propaganda to fire up the public to engage in that conduct. And so the Holocaust is something that we study and that we need to understand in order to really understand the Native American experience as well.And:By training I'm a lawyer and practiced law for a number of years in Washington DC and New Mexico, entirely representing Indian tribes in the United States. And one of the things that struck me, in my law career, was how many of the lawyers from the '30s, '40s, and '50s who were representing Indian tribes, when it wasn't a popular thing to do, were Jewish. And, in fact, everyone would agree that the greatest lawyer in our field in history was Felix Cohen. He wrote the Handbook of Federal Indian Law.

And Cohen actually readily drew the analogy between the treatment of Native Americans and the treatment of Jews in Germany. He's famous for a quote where he said: "Like the Jews in Germany, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere, and our treatment of the Indian, more than our treatment of any other minority, marks the rise and fall in our democratic faith." And, I mean, those are incredibly powerful words that always stuck with me from the moment I saw them. So, Cohen certainly had a very broad political consciousness and associated the treatment of German Jews with the treatment of Indians in the United States.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Bosque Redondo = Model for Auschwitz, Educating Tony About Genocide, and Teaching the Two Holocausts.

Jewish politicians want Indians to "disappear"

Indians Should “Never Forget”

By Harold A. MonteauIn 1996 I was invited to sit on a panel at a meeting of the National Association of State Legislators. Also speaking on the panel was a Jewish American politician from New York who has gone on to higher offices in his career and is still fighting a war of "containment" against the Indians in his state. When it came his turn to speak he proclaimed that the answer to the problems between the various states and Indian Tribes was "that Indians should take their rightful place in America and disappear into the mainstream." I stopped him, which I admit was rude, and told him that I was not going to sit there and let him state that the solution to Indian-State issues is that we Indians should "disappear." I told him that in taking that position he was advocating the genocide of American Indians. He became enraged, shouting "genocide!!…that's Buchenwald, that's Auschwitz! How dare you?" I responded that his position was a call to end the existence of American Indians, just slower than the murder of the Jewish people by the Nazi. He just could not believe that someone would equate his brilliant "final solution" for the "Indian Problem" to genocide.

Jewish people do not own the term "genocide." They certainly have every right to invoke their mantra, "Never Forge" when reminding the world that the Nazi tried to murder every Jew in Europe. However, the Jewish People must recognize that we American Indians also experienced murder our holocaust with some putting the casualty number at 20 Million or more. We have as much right to remind the world to "Never Forget" the holocaust that was perpetrated on the American Indian People and how, in this day and age, we still must fight off attacks on our homelands, our sovereignty, our people and our "race" that are meant to bring about our "disappearance."Why this isn't just one person's problem:I wrote in this column several years ago about how the Jewish politicians from the State of Connecticut were inflicting their own "Final Solution" on the tribes in that state by attacking the right of the Schagticoke and Eastern Pequot Tribes to Federal Recognition. Connecticut's Senior Senator, Joe Lieberman, is an Orthodox Jew who remained in silent "complicity" while it happened. The Jewish Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal (who insults all our Veterans when he lied about his mythical Vietnam military service) now is seeking the Democratic nomination to run for the U.S. Senate. Having made a name for himself as an Indian Fighter, he just may be elected. No tribe should support him. To do so might be good politics but morally, it would be an aberration. He has been successful in "disappearing" Indian Tribes that had every right to Federal Recognition. His actions against the Connecticut Tribe represented an unprecedented state interference in the Federal-Tribal relationship. He used the backdoor influence he had with the Republican Party to get President Bush and his Interior Secretary to "de-recognize" two tribes that had just received Federal Recognition after decades of petitioning. In doing so he put those tribes "under such living conditions as are designed to bring about their disappearance as a distinct people."

The quoted language is the from the "Conventions against Genocide" that were put in place after the Jewish Holocaust during World War II. The Conventions recognize that murder is only one way to achieve the "disappearance" of a people.Comment:  A nastier response to the unnamed Jewish politician might be:The solution to the "Jewish problem" is for Israelis to take their rightful place in the world and disappear into the mainstream. I.e., disband the country of Israel and disperse. After you do that and prove it works, we'll consider disbanding our Indian nations. Until then, no.A commenter on Facebook adds:Rob and Harold: to be at all fair, the article should mention the countless Jews, including politicians, who have supported Native nations and causes over the years.Good point. Consider it mentioned.

I think Monteau is criticizing only the politicians who demand support for Israel but won't provide equal support for America's Indian nations. That applies to non-Jewish as well as Jewish politicians.

Incidentally, it's hilarious seeing anti-Indian crusader Blumenthal caught in a bald-faced lie. Yeah, I cured the common cold...or had a common cold...or whatever. I hope the Democrats can find a better candidate who isn't a DINO (Democrat in name only).

For more on the subject, see Should Indians Cling to Reservations? and Genocide By Any Other Name....

Greedy Jews and noble savages

The Racialicious blog brings another good posting to our attention. This one is about the "positive" stereotype of the miserly Jew, but it also applies to the "positive" stereotype of the noble Indian savage.

A controversy started when two South Carolina Republicans wrote a response to a previous newspaper item:Recently your newspaper published a letter from state Rep. Bakari Sellers attacking U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and his opposition to congressional earmarks.

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed.Blogger G.D. tells us the problem with this:

Racism as Backhanded ComplimentIn trying to flip the script, those two S.C. Republicans miss the point that their “compliment” starts from a position that the money-hungry, penny-pinching Jew stereotype is true and valid. Trying to untether that stereotype from this history, as the guy defending these two Republicans does, takes a lot of arrogance, ignorance or both.

If you scratch down just below the surface, you’ll find this kind of Othering in all “good stereotypes.” The well-worn trope about black men being strong and athletic with huge dicks is supposed to be some kind of compliment, even as it directly recalls the myth of violent, animalistic black male sexuality to which so much of America’s long history of racist terrorism has been a response. The “positive stereotype” of the smart Asian is based on the old idea of Asian folks as crafty, untrustworthy possessors of secret knowledge—an idea whose assumed validity makes it easier to round folks up en masse during wartime and shove them into detention camps.Comment:  It's easy to see how this applies to Native people. The "noble savage" is still a savage. There's no way you can spin "savage" as a compliment.

For more on the subject, see Positive Stereotypes Are Negative.