Racist City Journal blames kids

Recently, drunken sports fans hurled beer and insults at 57 Native students at a hockey rink in Rapid City, South Dakota. That isn't necessarily a pop-culture issue, so I mentioned it only in my tweets. But an article in the Racist Rapid City Journal has elevated the story to a new level.



As another article explains:

Blaming the Victims: Witness Says Pine Ridge Reservation Students Did Not Stand Up for National Anthem

By Levi RickertThe students, who ages range from 8–13 years-old, were subjected to beer being sprayed on them and racial taunts of telling them to go back to the reservation from a corporate suite leased by Eagle Sales of the Black Hills, the Anheuser-Busch distributor for the region.

The Rapid City Journal’s story cited a person who was in the suite as claiming: “the incident was ignited when some members of the school group reportedly did not stand for the National Anthem prior to the start of the Rapid City Rush game.”

Justin Poor Bear, who was one of the parent chaperones who attended the game, denied the claim. He told the Journal: “We all stood up.” The newspaper reported two other officials of the American Horse School at Allen on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, indicated the students stood up for the national anthem.

The students were escorted out of the game by the adult chaperones who feared for the safety of the children, Poor Bear told Native News Online on Thursday.What this tells us

Along with the image above, Chase Iron Eyes wrote:The Racist City Journal, I mean Rapid City, calls out little Native grade schoolers for allegedly "not standing" for America's Nat'l Anthem, so I guess that means, if they didn't stand, that's justification for adults to racially attack kids with beer, frisbees, & beer cups whileyelling "GO BACK TO THE REZ." How about a story that they haven't arrested the perpetrator(s) even though they know his identity. We have our own Nat'l Anthem & we stand for yours, you stand for ours.More thoughts on this article from Last Real Indians:@RCJournal suggests Native Children could've deserved to be assaulted as they didn't stand for Nat'l Anthem ‪#‎FU‬And educator Debbie Reese:Rapid City Journal headline abt what Native kids did or did not do is irrelevant. Nothing justifies pouring beer on kids.Rob reacts

My snarky take on the subject:

Forget about climate change, poverty, or terrorism...the Racist City Journal has today's top story headlined on its front page!

Did the Native students also say the Pledge of Allegiance? Put their hands over their hearts? And sign a loyalty oath? We don't know the answers to any of these questions!

And if they didn't do these things, then what? I'd love to see the Racist City Journal spin that into a news story.

A news story that's more important than the racist assault on 57 Native kids, that is.

For more on Rapid City racism, see #NativeLivesMatter in Rapid City and Rapid City Board Rejects Sculpture Garden.

Phony "patriots" love American Sniper

Don't hate on critics of 'American Sniper'—criticize its flawed hero

By Matt RozsaFor far too many Americans, it is impossible to separate criticism of individuals within certain institution—or even systematic injustices perpetrated by those institutions—from the actual institutions themselves.

This was seen last year in the right-wing backlash against those who protested racial profiling among law enforcement. "If you read the liberal mainstream media," argued Ben Stein, you’d think "that the main problem with race in America was poor innocent black people being set upon and mistreated by the police." In his dismissal of the #BlackLivesMatter protests, Rudy Giuliani claimed that "they are tearing down respect for a criminal justice system that goes back to England in the 11th century." After a crazed cop-hater assassinated two police officers in December, New York Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch blamed it on those who "incited violence on the street under the guise of protest."

There is an obvious logical response to these attitudes. "You can truly grieve for every officer who’s been lost in the line of duty in this country, and still be troubled by cases of police overreach," argued Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. "Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can have great regard for law enforcement and still want them to be held to high standards."And:Of course, the reason we are seeing such reflexive rallying behind American Sniper and Kyle’s character is that there are Americans who wish to turn him into such a symbol. "Treating Kyle as a patriot and ignoring any other possibility," observes Dennis Jett of the New Republic, "allows Americans to ignore the consequences of invading a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no meaningful ties to Al Qaeda." Just as important, the canonization of Chris Kyle allows Americans to duck the morally thorny questions involving Kyle’s possible killing of innocent civilians, his dehumanization of both Muslims in general and Iraqis specifically, and his bloodthirsty attitude toward war itself. Because his supporters don’t wish to see these things (or, even worse, secretly condone them), they gloss over the inconvenient details and insist that drawing attention to them is un-American.

This speaks to an issue even larger than questions about the Iraq War, America’s military presence overseas, or even racism among law enforcement (to refer to the earlier analogy in this article). If America is going to have an intelligent public debate on any political issue, it is essential that its citizens be able to participate without fear of having their motives baselessly attacked. More specifically, if we are to hold our government accountable for its actions, we absolutely must be able to criticize its most powerful institutions—particularly those who use violence, be it the military abroad or the police at home—without being intimidated into silence.

It's not un-American to question Chris Kyle and the military operation he worked for. In fact, it might just be the most patriotic thing you can do.Comment:  For more on the subject, see American Sniper = Indian Killer.

Middlebury students uproot 9/11 memorial

9/11 Memorial Uprooted in Midday Protest

By Kyle FinckA 2,977 flag memorial was ripped out of the ground in front of Mead Memorial Chapel shortly before 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 11 by a group of five protestors claiming that the flags were on top of a sacred Abenaki burial site.

The flags—meant to commemorate each of the 2,977 lives taken in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks—have been posted in the grass between Mead Chapel and the Davis Family Library annually in a joint effort between the College Republicans and Democrats for nearly 10 years.

Ben Kinney ’15, president of the College Republicans, spent two hours putting the flags outside of Mead Chapel on Tuesday night, and happened to be walking up the hill towards the chapel when he saw four females and one male stuffing the miniature flags into black trash bags.

“I got there just as they were taking the very last of them out of the ground and putting them in piles,” he said. “At first, I the group was comprised of College Democrats helping put the flags away before the rain rolled in, but then I realized what they were doing.”

Kinney said the protestors told him they were “confiscating” the flags in protest of “America’s imperialism.”9/11 flag vandalism shocks Middlebury College

By Zach DespartHarris asked why they were tearing up the flags. When he told the individuals the memorial was commemorating those who died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., during the attacks, he said one of them responded, “You’re commemorating the wrong deaths.”

The person continued, “This monument stands for American imperialism and we’re confiscating it.”

Middlebury College senior Julia Madden also witnessed the vandalism and approached the protesters at the same time Harris did.

“They said it was disrespectful to the Abenaki (native American peoples),” Madden said. “I told them they were being disrespectful to the victims of 9/11.”And:A second person also spoke about her involvement in the vandalism through an online post and in an interview with the Independent.

In an article posted on climate-connections.org, Amanda Lickers stated she was also involved in the vandalism.

Lickers said she is a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, another name for the Iroquois, a group of tribes in New York state.

According to her statement, Lickers said when she saw the 9/11 memorial, she made the decision that “the lands where our dead lay must not be desecrated.”Native American tribe calls protesters who destroyed 9/11 memorial ‘disgusting’

By Robby SoaveThe protesters who uprooted a 9/11 memorial display at a liberal arts college in Vermont claimed they were defending Abenaki tribal lands and taking a stand against U.S. imperialism.

The Abenaki tribe’s response? “Disgusting.”

Don Stevens, chief of the Nulhegan Abenaki Tribe, said his tribe did not approve of the actions taken by five people–including one student–at Middlebury College last week.

“We didn’t know anything about this and if we had we certainly wouldn’t have sanctioned it,” he said in a statement to The Addison Independent.

The 9/11 memorial display consisted of 2,977 flags placed in a field on Middlebury’s campus. The flags represent the nearly 3,000 people who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The College Republicans and Democrats have cooperated to erect the display annually for years.

But this year, liberal activists uprooted all the flags on the pretext of defending the Abenaki tribe’s rights. The field is tribal land, they claimed, and Native American beliefs prohibit disturbing the earth on hallowed ground.

But Steven said there’s no evidence that the field is an Abenaki burial site. And even if it was, the flags would be a welcome presence.

“Our burial sites honor our warriors and their bravery,” said Stevens. “Putting flags in the earth to honor bravery would not be disrespectful.”Comment:  I can't tell who muddled the story, but it's not clear what the students are claiming.

For starters, what land are they referring to? The particular patch of ground with the flags? The entire campus? The whole state or country? Or what?

And what are they claiming about this ill-defined piece of land? That it's literally a burial ground--with identifiable human remains in it? That it's some sort of "hallowed" land--hallowed by whom? That it belongs to the Abenakis, or to all Indians?

Not all tribal lands are "hallowed," of course. And not all "hallowed" lands are burial sites. It's a rhetorical flaw to confuse these things.

If the students are saying the entire country once belonged to the Indians, so no one should ever put an American flag in it--well, I don't think many Indians would agree. They're not that possessive about every square inch of America. They stand by their treaties, in which they ceded some of their land in exchange for peace.

If the spot was a burial mound or other sacred site, that would be different. One could argue that the college itself shouldn't be located there. But the Abenakis have had decades to make such a claim, and I don't think they've done so. It would be a major story if they had.

In short, non-Abenakis shouldn't be making claims on the Abenakis' behalf. Especially when the Abenakis disagree. The Abenakis are fully capable of telling us what they consider sacred or hallowed, so let's wait until they protest a flag ceremony.

For more on Indians and 9/11, see Alcaraz's "Twin Tipis" Cartoon and Native Artists Commemorate 9/11.

Cherokee Patriot Day celebrates Ned Christie

Ned Christie to be celebrated during ‘Cherokee Patriot Day’

By Will Chavez“Cherokee Patriot Day” on Aug. 19 will celebrate the life of Ned Christie while raising money for the cemetery where he is buried.

“Nations celebrate their legendary patriots, honor their memory and the enduring love they had for their Nation. The Cherokee Nation has such a patriot in Ned Christie,” Hamilton said.

According to CN historical documents, Christie is considered a patriot not only because of his service to the CN as Cherokee senator but also because of his stand against the U.S. government.Comment:  For more on Ned Christie, see Greg Burgas Reviews NATIVE HEART and Mock Trial for Ned Christie.

Palin: Racism is a ploy

Palin's Dangerous Race Game

In her new book, the former Alaska governor questions the patriotism of African Americans who point out the country's imperfections.

By David KaufmanHer most unflinching comments ... center on race--specifically, the racial dynamics surrounding the Obama presidency and the increasing suspicion by many progressives that Palin, the Tea Partiers and the entire anti-Obama establishment are motivated by racism.

Palin clearly thinks not. In fact, on Planet Palin, racism essentially does not exist but is merely a misanthropic by-product of African Americans' refusal to shut up, toughen up and truly become American patriots. This question of patriotism versus racism has been tackled by both white and black leaders since before the Civil War.

Back then, Frederick Douglass rightfully asked, "What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?" during his legendary Independence Day speech of 1852. More than 150 years later, Douglass' desire to rectify the triumphs of American history with the tragedies of African-American history still resonate for many descendants of his enslaved brethren.

Yet in the prose of Palin, any race-based frustration expressed by African Americans is proof positive of dubious patriotism and questionable allegiance. Racism is a ploy, a canard, a smoke screen by "opponents of this new American awakening" to impede intellectual debate and castigate conservatives as "evil … [and] just bad people."

The real "bad people," however, are Palin's anti-patriots, such as First Lady Michelle Obama, whose now infamous 2008 quote, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country," is resurrected yet again in America by Heart. This is Palin's "Gotcha!" moment, confirmation that the Obamas "think America--at least America as it currently exists--is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country."

I suspect that this thought may have crossed the minds of both Obamas--much as it has millions of Americans of every color, every day. Indeed, at a time when increasing poverty on Main Street contrasts with stratospheric salaries on Wall Street, how could it not? And why not?

Demanding justice by refuting the status quo has been a hallmark of American politics ever since those original Tea Partiers were polluting Boston Harbor. Acknowledging fundamental injustices and inequalities has been the first step in every American civil rights movement--from ending slavery and enshrining women's suffrage to establishing worker-protection laws, as well as current efforts to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."Comment:  Needless to say, Palin's insinuations about blacks apply to Indians and other minorities too.

This is a continuation of Palin's attempt to paint white voters as "real Americans" and minority voters as something else. With rhetoric like that going unchallenged by other Republicans, it's no wonder so many conservatives think Obama is a Kenyan and a Muslim. They believe Palin because she's one of them; they don't know or care that she's a liar.

For more on the asinine claim that racism no longer exists, see Talking About Race Perpetuates Racism?, White Conservatives "Angry About Racism," and Mentioning Race = Dwelling on Past?

For more on Palin's attempts to marginalize minorities, see Palin's "Real America" vs. America and "Real America" = White? For other conservative attempts to marginalize minorities, see:

Obama smeared as Luo tribesman
Beck:  God ordered Indians killed
Ron Hart is a racist
Sherrod incident shows conservative tactics
Tea Party leader posts racist "satire"
New Hampshire Republican = racist
Didier:  Stop protecting the weak
Arizona's laws = manifest insanity
Rand Paul's pro-racist libertarianism

No turkey at first Thanksgiving?

The first Thanksgiving

In the fall of 1621, 90 Wampanoag Indians and 52 English colonists gathered for a three-day harvest feast. How did Americans get from that celebration to the Thanksgiving 'traditions' we observe today?

By Elizabeth ArmstrongThere are many myths surrounding Thanksgiving. Here are nine things we do know are true about the holiday.

1. The first Thanksgiving was a harvest celebration in 1621 that lasted for three days.

2. The feast most likely occurred between Sept. 21 and Nov. 11.

3. Approximately 90 Wampanoag Indians and 52 colonists--the latter mostly women and children--participated.

4. The Wampanoag, led by Chief Massasoit, contributed at least five deer to the feast.

5. Cranberry sauce, potatoes--white or sweet--and pies were not on the menu.

6. The Pilgrims and Wampanoag communicated through Squanto, a member of the Patuxet tribe, who knew English because he had associated with earlier explorers.

7. Besides meals, the event included recreation and entertainment.

8. There are only two surviving descriptions of the first Thanksgiving. One is in a letter by colonist Edward Winslow. He mentions some of the food and activities. The second description was in a book written by William Bradford 20 years afterward. His account was lost for almost 100 years.

9. Abraham Lincoln named Thanksgiving an annual holiday in 1863.The Original Thanksgiving Day

The Surprising First Thanksgiving Menu--No Turkey, No Pumpkin Pie?

By Karla ReedFoods Included in the Original Thanksgiving Feast

In addition to the wild fowl, pumpkin and squash mentioned above, the following foods were certainly abundant and most likely were included in the “harvest” celebration:

Fish

Lobsters

Eel

Mussels

Oysters

Corn

Parsnips

Collards

Turnips

Spinach

Onions

Dried Beans

Dried Blueberries

Grapes

Nuts

1621 Thanksgiving Meal Details

The celebration lasted for three days, not one, and consisted of intermittent feasting and entertainment (games and shooting of muskets).

It was most likely held in October, not November.

There is no evidence that the Indians (Wampanoag) were explicitly invited.

It was not called “Thanksgiving.” It was a “harvest festival.”

It did not become an annual event.

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians Made Turkey Dinners Possible and Squanto the Con Man?

How Thanksgiving went national

The Christian Science Monitor notes how the modern Thanksgiving holiday came about:

The first Thanksgiving

In the fall of 1621, 90 Wampanoag Indians and 52 English colonists gathered for a three-day harvest feast. How did Americans get from that celebration to the Thanksgiving 'traditions' we observe today?

By Elizabeth ArmstrongUntil the early 1800s, Thanksgiving was considered to be a regional holiday celebrated solemnly through fasting and quiet reflection.

But the 19th century had its own Martha Stewart, and it didn't take her long to turn New England fasting into national feasting. Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of the popular Godey's Lady's Book, stumbled upon Winslow's passage and refused to let the historic day fade from the minds--or tables--of Americans. This established trendsetter filled her magazine with recipes and editorials about Thanksgiving.

It was also about this time--in 1854, to be exact--that Bradford's history book of Plymouth Plantation resurfaced. The book increased interest in the Pilgrims, and Mrs. Hale and others latched onto the fact he mentioned that the colonists had killed wild turkeys during the autumn.

In her magazine Hale wrote appealing articles about roasted turkeys, savory stuffing, and pumpkin pies--all the foods that today's holiday meals are likely to contain.

In the process, she created holiday "traditions" that share few similarities with the original feast in 1621.

In 1858, Hale petitioned the president of the United States to declare Thanksgiving a national holiday. She wrote: "Let this day, from this time forth, as long as our Banner of Stars floats on the breeze, be the grand Thanksgiving holiday of our nation, when the noise and tumult of worldliness may be exchanged for the length of the laugh of happy children, the glad greetings of family reunion, and the humble gratitude of the Christian heart."Comment:  It isn't just my impression that Thanksgiving is pro-American propaganda. Hale made this explicit. Instead of a quiet day of fasting and reflection, she wanted a big showy holiday where Americans could celebrate their virtues.

Not coincidentally, the Civil War and the Indian Wars were looming. We can almost imagine what Hale was thinking. "We white Christians have to stick together. We can't let the Negroes and Indians tear this country apart. Let's put aside our differences and unite as one nation under God."

For more on the subject, see Why Thanksgiving Pageants Are Wrong and Peanuts' Thanksgiving Propaganda.

Educating Stephen about patriotism

In Letter to a Fallen Marine's Children, reader Stephen took me to task for criticizing part of said letter.I can't see anything particularly right wing about this letter;You don't see anything "particularly right wing" about taking credit for defeating communism and fighting terrorism? In other words, you're completely ignorant of the conservative legacy claimed by supporters of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? Okay, but I wouldn't brag about it if I were you.

Apparently you're not only ignorant about historical facts, but about the political rhetoric of the last half a century. "The nay-sayers and cowards hid in the shadows sniveling that nothing was worth dying for" is a reference to liberals who sought alternatives to confrontations with Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and Iraq. If you disagree, name all the conservatives whom you think this line refers to. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.interesting how you label anything you disagree with as 'conservative'.Since I'm generally liberal in my views, I tend to disagree with conservatives. To anyone with a shred of common sense, that explains why my targets are generally conservative.

But you think I label things "conservative" whether they're conservative or not? Yeah, I've labeled Ward Churchill, Russell Means, and Barack Obama "conservative" because I disagreed with them...not. Clearly you're attacking me by rote because you're too dumb to come up with an intelligent argument.Try going a day without all that mindless dualism.Try going a day without all these mindless comments.

If you were clever, you would've noticed that I didn't attach the label "conservative" to Zembiec's whole letter. Many of the acts I listed, especially before the 1950s, were committed by both liberals and conservatives. My posting was primarily a critique of faux patriotism, which is why I wrote:Another mindless defense of American "patriotism" and conservative "values"...sigh.Shocker: Indians owned slavesAlmost every single people on earth have had slaves; including your beloved Indians, perhaps because of the slaves Indians owned, Native Americans shouldn't be proud to be native?You keep making the same point as if I haven't rebutted it already, although I have several times. Perhaps you're too dense to understand my response. For your sake, I'll keep repeating it until you get it: Indians Owned Slaves.

When you have something intelligent to say about the fact that Native slavery was much less comprehensive and cruel than European slavery, go ahead and say it. Until then, quit wasting my time bringing up Native slavery as if I've never addressed it."Incidentally, you can bet Mendoza was a Bible-toting Christian."

Thanks for the fine example of stereotyping.Thanks for dodging the issue of the conservative mindset in America. Apparently you're too inept or afraid to address the role of conservative Christians in American politics."You can tell by how proud he was about going to war and killing people."

Unless you have evidence that he killed noncombatants, he did nothing wrong.Estimates of noncombatant deaths in the Iraq war range from 100,000 to 1 million or more. It doesn't matter if Mendoza personally killed a single noncombatant if he was "proud" of those deaths. Someone who's a true Christian, or merely a moral person, would've been shocked and horrified at that death toll, not "proud."

Jesus loves a good war?"Jesus must be rolling in his grave at the thought of taking credit for millions of deaths."

Could you specify these 'millions'?Yes, although they should be obvious. World War II: 42-70 million dead. World War I: 15-25 million dead. Vietnam War: 2.5-5 million dead. Korean War: 2.5-3.5 million dead. Etc. (Source: Wikipedia.)

Obviously, the US wasn't directly responsible for any wartime deaths until it entered these wars. Even when it entered the wars, it obviously didn't do all the killing. But that's not the point.

The point is whether you celebrate people killed in war, as Zembiec did. Or whether you mourn them, as Jesus did. Zembiec's talk of saving and rescuing people is double-speak for glorifying war. To him, all American wars are good and anyone who opposes them is a naysayer and a coward.

Yes, some American wars are necessary, although Vietnam and Iraq sure as hell weren't. Even you agreed that WW I wasn't necessary. But Zembiec didn't distinguish between good and bad wars. He's promoting mindless, "love it or leave it" patriotism and you seem to agree with him. If so, you're as mindless as he is.

Any questions? Alas, you've lost another debate. Better luck next time, chum.

For more on the subject, see The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel and Patriotism Means Asking Questions.