Seminoles demand Obama apology

Seminole leader writes Obama demanding apology for ‘racist, revisionist history’

Two leading Seminoles wrote Washington to protest a Guantánamo war court document that said the 19th century tribe fought like al Qaeda today

By Carol RosenbergThe chairman and the chief lawyer of the Seminole Tribe of Florida sent a pair of angry letters Friday to President Barack Obama and his Defense Secretary protesting an analogy by Guantánamo war court prosecutors that likened the 19th Century Seminoles to al Qaeda.

Seminoles Chairman Mitchell Cypress accused the military lawyers of a “backward dive into racist, revisionist history.”

He demanded that Obama apologize, personally.

In his letter, the tribe’s general counsel, Jim Shore, demanded that the U.S. remove portions of a legal brief defending the military commissions conviction of Osama bin Laden’s media secretary, a video maker.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Seminoles Compared to al Qaeda.

Seminoles compared to al Qaeda

A Miami Herald article demonstrates the near-constant racism and stereotyping against Indians. Indianz.com offers a good summary of this article:

Seminole Tribe 'offended' by military comparison to terroristsThe Seminole Tribe of Florida will ask the Department of Defense to withdraw portions of a brief that compared Seminole ancestors to the terrorist group al-Qaeda.

The comparison showed up in a case in the U.S. Court of Military Commissions Review. Government lawyers likened the situation to the treatment of two British men who were hanged in 1818 for helping the Seminoles resist the U.S. military.

“Not only was the Seminole belligerency unlawful, but, much like modern-day al Qaeda, the very way in which the Seminoles waged war against U.S. targets itself violate the customs and usages of war," the brief stated.

The argument drew an angry response from the tribe. “To equate the historic struggle of our ancestors in resisting General Andrew Jackson’s unlawful invasion of our homeland to al Qaeda terrorism is a vicious distortion of well-documented history,” general counsel Jim Shore told The Miami Herald.

“The Government’s strained comparison of Native Americans to al Qaeda is disrespectful to our Tribe, all American Indians and our American Indian military veterans, as well as those in active military service,” Shore added.

After the National Congress of American Indians complained, government attorneys submitted another brief in which they said they weren't trying to "equates" the behavior of the Seminoles to those of al-Qaeda. The brief also said the government “in no way questions or impugns the valor, bravery and honorable military service of Native Americans, past and present."In the original article, a professor rips the government's claims:

War court filing comparing Seminoles to al Qaeda stirs protest

By Carole RosenbergDavis, the history professor, calls the comparison “ridiculous.”

“One can make the argument that al Qaeda is the aggressors,” he told The Miami Herald from Gainesville, “but the Seminoles were the innocent targets.”

“It was Jackson invading the territory of a sovereign country, Spain, and he’s executing within that territory citizens of another sovereign country, Britain.”Some commenters on Facebook also ripped the government's claims:It is amazing that such terrible acts can be perpetrated against Native Americans and that rights and ways of life can be so profoundly reduced and yet the victims in such circumstances are portrayed as demons. It hurts my heart to think about it too.

Really? I don't get it. Ridiculous. I am less insulted by the blatant disrespect [than] I am by the brutal distortion of logic. A far more fitting comparison to al Qaeda is Andrew Jackson himself. Jackson, Kit Carson, and their compatriots...Manifest Destiny...wtf is that if not a campaign of terror?

Absurd how settler societies create discourses of criminality against those very same people they victimize. Israel constantly uses this same al Qaeda script against the Palestinians.

Interested parties are doing the same thing to the history of labor. When someone takes all your stuff and forces you into poverty, fighting back gets you labeled a terrorist. This is the logic of the folks in power in so many of our states now.Comment:  So the comparison isn't only insulting, it's factually wrong. Florida was part of a foreign country when Jackson invaded it in 1818. When you invade and occupy foreign territory (e.g., Israel in 1967, Bush in 2003), you don't get to dictate your foe's defensive strategy. You're at fault and you deserve whatever punishment you get for your aggression.

For more on Andrew Jackson, see Why No Bloody Jackson Protests? and Andrew Jackson Institute Fights Seminoles.

P.S. The "Indian country" tag on this posting is for any US reference to Indians or Indian country as a military enemy.

Indian reservation = "Wild West"?!

Indian reservations a land of the freebie

By Jennifer FerminoBargain-priced butts, cheap gas and gambling casinos get all the attention, but life on an Indian reservation includes other lifestyle elements that are as foreign as the Wild West to most New Yorkers.

Step onto an Indian reservation and you're leaving the United States and entering a sovereign nation that includes free health care, a tribal justice system with its own courts, jails and police--and even separate license plates and passports.Comment:  The headline and the first paragraph ("as foreign as the Wild West") are the problem here. They sound like race-baiting scare tactics.

The second paragraph and the rest of the article are reasonably accurate. They correct the initial impression created by the article. But if someone doesn't read the article carefully, the damage will be done.

Some specific problems with the article's language:

Some tribes didn't sign treaties and some don't have reservations, so I'm not sure every tribe gets free healthcare.

Free healthcare would be familiar to any New Yorkers who get it through their jobs or through the government (e.g., veterans). It's hardly a foreign concept.

"Free healthcare" is supposedly found in "socialist" societies, as thousands of screaming teabaggers have told us. It's the opposite of what you'd find in the Wild West, where rugged individualists had to help themselves or die.

The article states that an Indian tribe has "a tribal justice system with its own courts, jails and police." That sounds exactly like the US, not like a lawless "Wild West" environment.

Really, the article provides no basis for using "Wild West" to describe an Indian reservation. It's pure stereotyping. "Watch out if you step onto a reservation!" the message seems to be. "Indians are a wild, savage bunch, so they'll cheat you, rob you, or scalp you!"

And the so-called "freebies" (healthcare and no state income taxes if you work on the rez) aren't really free. That's like saying Americans get free police and firefighting services. No, they pay for them with their taxes.

And Indians paid for their "freebies" with their land. It's the same kind of arrangement: You give something to the government and it gives something back. There's nothing "free" about it.

For more on the subject, see Enemy Territory as "Indian Country" and The Essential Facts About Indians Today.

Online definitions of "Indian country"

The Native Appropriations page on Facebook brought this item to my attention:

Indian countryIndian country
 
–noun
(esp. during the U.S. westward migration) any region where one was likely to encounter Indians, esp. hostile Indians.

Origin:
1690–1700, Americanism

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Indian country or Indian Country
n.

1. Indian Territory.
2. Federal reservation lands under Native American tribal jurisdiction.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Comment:  Note that these are two different definitions from two different sources. Not a two-part definition from one source.

Native Appropriations had this to say about Dictionary.com's definition:"Especially hostile Indians"? Seriously? In 2010, the accepted definition of "Indian Country" is a place where one is likely to encounter hostile Indians? The use of past tense is nice too, since we all know Indian Country is a mythical place that only existed during westward expansion. Really?

Wow.The second definition is the more-or-less correct one. The first definition should be labeled "outdated" if not "offensive."

Of course, you still hear the phrase "Indian country" used in a negative sense. Often enough that I have a page devoted to the subject. The implicit definition is something like:Any territory where hostile forces are numerous, as in American's stereotypical view of the Old West, where murderous Indians were presumed to predominate.For more on the subject, see Enemy Territory as "Indian Country."

Below:  An old mural depicting an outdated concept of Indian country. Note the Indians skulking behind rocks on the righthand side.