Purpose of Wounded Knee posting

In Controversy in Wounded Knee, readers Anonymous and Stephen questioned my questions about the PBS documentary. Anonymous started it off with:Your reality check needs a reality check.No, Anonymous, your reality check needs a reality check. As does Stephen's.

Apparently neither of you understood the point of this posting. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the claims in Wounded Knee. If I had wanted to do that, I would've done so. Unlike you, I would've cited and quoted a variety of sources.

In other words, I would've done what Stephen didn't do. Apparently you don't know jack about what happened at Wounded Knee, pal. All you've got are your daffy definitions and your cockeyed claims about what's "obvious." Pathetic.

Here, let me help you with a word you seem unfamiliar with:

army–noun, plural -mies.

1. the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.

2. (in large military land forces) a unit consisting typically of two or more corps and a headquarters.

3. a large body of persons trained and armed for war.

4. any body of persons organized for any purpose: an army of census takers.

5. a very large number or group of something; a great multitude; a host: the army of the unemployed.The fourth and part of the third definitions apply to Wounded Knee II. And don't bother wasting my time saying the number of occupiers wasn't "large." That word is completely relative. Depending on the context, it could mean any number greater than five or 10.

As for your assertion about AIM supporting the IRA and the PLO...so the hell what? Can you say "non sequitur"? I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive report on AIM, bright boy. I was questioning the specific claims made in Wounded Knee. The film didn't address AIM's activities beyond the occupation so neither did I.

Similarly, I don't discuss our role in overthrowing Central American countries every time I mention the US. Nor do I discuss Reagan's role in supporting right-wing dictatorships every time I mention him. I don't mention any of these things unless they're relevant to the topic in question.

The point, again

Back to the main point. We can all read the conflicting books and reports on Wounded Knee. You're free to write about them in your own publications and blogs. I didn't try to summarize them here because that wasn't my purpose.

My purpose was to act as the viewer's advocate. To ask the questions the viewers might've asked the filmmakers and the filmmakers might've asked themselves. To ponder whether Wounded Knee constituted objective reporting or biased propaganda.

Again, if I had wanted to answer the questions I posed, I would've done so. But that would've meant relying on information that wasn't in the film itself. Information the viewers didn't have when weighing the film's objectivity.

In other words, it would've meant addressing a different point than the one I addressed. Not "Is what the filmmakers did tell us believable and reliable?" but "What should the filmmakers have told us instead?" These are two related but different questions leading to related but different postings.

Answering the second question would've meant going beyond the purpose of this blog. I don't have the time or inclination to judge every historical controversy involving Indians. I weigh in only when there's a pop-culture question involved--such as whether a PBS broadcast on Indians was objective or biased. My judgment based on the film itself: It was biased.

Do you get it now? Or do I have to spell out what should've been obvious again? Sheesh.

For more on the subject, see Review of Wounded Knee and Native Documentaries and News.