A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[seemslikeadream]

Lawrence O'Donnell wants to ask Daniel Snyder what are his favorite nick names for Jews

[OP ED]

The problem is in perpetuating a prejudicial epithet in nomenclature due to uncaring ignorance or indifference to the sensitivity of the First Nations objecting collectively to that derogative designation, and a blatant disregard for their dignity and respect.

If you truly “understand” and “get” that point, it is then utterly inexcusable to try to rationalize and sanction the continuation of the insulting offense as petty and overblown because the majority of society today has since allowed it to prevail.

Other attempts here to change the term’s connotation to its use for a different subculture is simply a diversion, changing the argument instead of addressing it.

indeed. why even back when wee OP ED was one of the Dark Overlords of the Universe we would've at least made anyone carrying the Derogative on their clothing or in their job title to sign a waiver accepting full responsibilities for their actions. specifically financial and otherwise karmic obligations to objectors.

[OP ED never sanctions unyielding censorship of whatever sort, say what you like, but only ever be perjorative on purpose]


[OP ED could give a fuck less about football]

[peartreed]

There’s a world of difference between any imaginative enforcing of censorship with punitive consequences and, in this case, appealing to one’s higher instincts of social responsibility and consideration for the dignity and respect of minorities.

[82_28]

Ted Smith I see had something to say about this. I really don't know where he gets it.

We will be switching names next week in order to honor all things with names. Research has shown that most everything the user comes in contact with has a “name”. This is why we will be observing this important holiday with full gusto. We don’t know yet, as the important research is still ongoing, what the names will be switched to and how this will affect you as a user for this celebratory week in which you are invited! The name tags are here and in the warehouse, the sharpies sit idle. We’re waiting on how to most accurately switch the names of everything, yes, you heard that right, all names will be switched for one week in preparation of the Parade of Magicians. So in the meantime, sit tight and know that Late Lies is doing its very best to supply the adhesive tags and choices the user demands in order to change the names of everything.

Enjoy the name switch this year. We are fumbling around with an idea next season to not only change names but go one better and go with silent rhythms when in water being brought to a boil. As always, your trusted Early Clues representative will have details at the number on the non-existent website where you can live-chat. Just bear in mind all names of things will be changed. It should be fun and we hope all users enjoy it!

Ted Smith FOIB, Early Clues, LLC

http://www.earlyclues.com/2013/10/15/switch-name-week/

Those guys at Early Clues. Totally making sense and not getting through. I think Ted here is making the point that history is stupid and that it is still our history and thus we must change all names in interest of forgetting history in order to remember it. That's just the way I took it. I agree with Ted. Every single year a week must be set aside where everything must be renamed.

[JackRiddler]

I don't know, the Ted Smith just seems like a bit of sarcastic reaction to me, like, oh woe is me, they wants to rename everything just when I felt at ease with all the names, whys do they wants to bother, where did all these peoples comes from who is all the time complaining, whys does everything gots to have so many names at all, call it cheessteak what do I care if you do, need to drink more beer now, etc.

I feel like this myself any time I see a sign for something purportedly called the "Koch Queensboro Bridge" (Jesus F. Christ, at least that doesn't seem to be sticking) or even the "RFK Bridge." And I do. See those signs, I mean. Cos I'm slow, but sooner or later I gets around this cities. Of course, these examples happen to be teeny-tiny bits of evidence that there is such a thing as hegemony.

But if it's meant the way you say, bring it on. It would serve us all greatly to switch up the names of everything regularly until we learn not only that signifier and signified aren't the same thing (and that confusing'em causes cancer) but also that signifieds are never just one thing, and often aren't anything at all. Hell, it's proof enough to me that there is no interventionist God that we never woke up one day with all of us having been assigned a new skin color completely at random. Reality is a construct, we should start seeing the construction.

[seemslikeadream]

But we need a President who will treat all races and classes as equals. That would be exceptional

Columbus Day Is the Official Endorsement of White European and US Conquest of Indigenous Peoples

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT


Mass grave for the dead Lakota after the massacre at Wounded Knee Creek
Columbus Day is a good day to consider American exceptionalism, in the broad sense of superiority. Columbus embraced the doctrine from the start, writing about the Arawak Indians in Haiti: "Great multitudes of men came to the shore, all young and of fine shapes and very handsome...I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men and govern them as I pleased."

Conquer them he did, forcing them to find gold for the Spanish explorers, cutting off their hands if they failed.

In the 1600s the Puritans also deemed themselves exceptional, justifying their beliefs with a quote from the Psalms: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." In the Pequot War they annihilated the Native Americans of southern New England.

Equality would be forthcoming, it seems, with the words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." But exceptions were made. George Washington's intentions for the Iroquois Indians in 1779 were to "extirpate them from the country." The Native Americans called Washington the "town destroyer." Washington was just the first of many, many Presidents who believed it was America's role to tell others how to live.

What Makes a Good or Bad President?

The same names generally appear on all the "worst President" lists: James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce. US News and Wikipedia, both of which use a consensus of experts, agree on these four, and both have Millard Fillmore, U.S. Grant, William Henry Harrison, and John Tyler in the 5th- though 8th-worst positions.

It seems reasonable to discredit an individual who is hateful toward another race or class of people. Based on this guideline, Civil Liberties sheds some light on the expert choices. Buchanan, Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson all supported slavery, and all deserve to be near the bottom of any 'worst' list. But this doesn't explain it all. Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and Andy Jackson an oppressor of Native Americans, but both are near the top of the expert consensus list.

According to Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, "If there is a common denominator in presidential assessments, it is a bias toward activism, unless the activism is viewed as misplaced, as in the instances of Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam and Nixon and Watergate."

Activism. Even the two most highly rated Presidents, Lincoln and FDR, are heralded in part for their activism in wars considered necessary and just. But expansionism and intervention are oppressive forms of activism. From that perspective, it's easier to arrive at the four worst Presidents.

1. Andrew Jackson

As a hero of the War of 1812 and an advocate for the common white man, it's easy to understand how our seventh President (1829-1837) was so admired. But in Native Americans he saw only 'savages' standing in the way of progress. For ten years Jackson arranged 'treaties' with Indians in the American southeast, setting up his own friends as land agents, traders, and surveyors while encouraging white squatters to take over the land. Eventually recognizing Florida as vital to "national security," he initiated raids on Seminole villages, burning down homes and forcing out residents, all in the name of the "immutable laws of self-defense."

Indian removal, according to Jackson, would help the Native Americans to "cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community." He hypocritically added, "Say to the chiefs and warriors that I am their friend...[their land] they shall possess as long as grass grows or water runs."

A few Americans, including Henry Clay and Ralph Waldo Emerson, tried to defend the rights of the land's original inhabitants. But a great many more believed it was their country's right to take what it wanted. Even today textbooks rely on euphemisms like "Florida Purchase 1819" rather than acknowledge the military massacres of Seminole villagers. Best remembered is the Trail of Tears that led thousands of sick and starving Cherokees across the Mississippi in the middle of winter to unfamiliar and unproductive land far from their home. By 1838 President Van Buren was proclaiming, "It affords sincere pleasure to apprise the Congress of the entire removal of the Cherokee nation of Indians to their new homes."

2. James Polk

Our eleventh President (1845-1849) campaigned on an expansionist platform. The media reflected his sentiments, with the Democratic Review promoting the Mexican-American War, arguing that it was "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." The New York Herald said of Mexico, "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

In his inauguration speech, Polk proclaimed, "Foreign powers do not seem to appreciate the true character of our Government. To enlarge [our Union's] limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our Government."

U.S. citizens protested the "immoral war." Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes that might support the war, and while in jail began formulating ideas for his famous essay, "Civil Disobedience." Former slave Frederick Douglass wrote that "Mexico seems a doomed victim to...love of dominion."

The battles seemed a preview of the bloodshed to come in the American Civil War, as "men from both armies screamed and groaned in agony from wounds...By the eerie light of torches 'the surgeon's saw was going the livelong night." Yet unlike the Civil War, much of the violence in 1847 was directed toward the Mexican people. A U.S. colonel wrote, "I shall never forget the horrible fire of our mortars...going with dreadful certainty and bursting with sepulchral tones often in the centre of private dwellings." Another American wrote, "Such a scene I never hope to see again. It gave me a lamentable view of human nature...and made me for the first time ashamed of my country."

After the war, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million for half of its country. Polk said, "Our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world."

3. William McKinley

This could be a four-way tie among McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Native Studies researcher Zoltan Grossman lists the U.S. interventions in foreign countries since 1890. McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft/Wilson had 36 foreign interventions in 24 years.

On the domestic front, Roosevelt and Taft and Wilson ushered in the Progressive Era, which greatly improved the status of working people. But exceptionalism steered the foreign policies of all three men. In 1901 Woodrow Wilson wrote, "Our interest must march forward, altruists though we are; other nations must see to it that they stand off, and do not seek to stay us." Roosevelt carried his big stick through Central America. President Taft declared in 1912: "The whole (western) hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally." McKinley, though, seemed to 'accomplish' the most, picking up where Jackson and Polk left off, and doing it in just four-and-a-half years (1897-1901).

When the Cuban people were fighting for independence from Spain in 1898, McKinley initially did not want war. But he wanted control over the Caribbean and the Pacific. By the end of the 19th century, our growing nation was beginning to share Indiana Senator Beveridge's assertion that "the Pacific is our ocean," and the Washington Post was observing that "the taste of empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle." The mysterious sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor provided a reason to take action. In the end, the three-month encounter called a "splendid little war" by Secretary of State John Hay would open sugar and mineral and timber markets to the U.S., as companies like American Tobacco, Bethlehem Steel, and the infamous United Fruit took over millions of acres of land.

Cuba wasn't the end of it. In December 1898 a treaty signed with Spain gave the U.S. possession of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, the latter envisioned as the passageway to the limitless markets of the far east. McKinley agonized over the proper course of action for the Philippines. He "walked the floor of the White House night after night," praying for the right course of action. He decided, finally, in his own words, that "they were unfit for self-government," and that America's role was to "civilize and Christianize them."

Three years of brutal fighting followed. The mismatch of U.S. battleships against Filipinos lined up in trenches caused a British reporter to call it "massacre and murderous butchery." Still, the people of the Philippines held on. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Philippines War, marveled at the "complete unity of action of the entire native population."

McKinley also set a new precedent in foreign intervention by bypassing Congress to send 5,000 troops to China to defeat anti-imperialist rebels in the 1900 Boxer Rebellion. Historians consider this the origin of modern presidential war power against established governments.

4. George W. Bush

This could again be a tie, including everyone from Truman through Obama, with over 75 foreign interventions in 68 years. The "Truman Doctrine" helped to begin the Cold War. The 'Carter Doctrine' asserted that anyone else's attempt to control the Persian Gulf would be "an assault on the vital interests of the United States," and would be "repelled by any means necessary, including military force." A 1992 Pentagon statement declared "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." And, ironically, from the same report: "It remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region."

But George Bush (2001-2009) stands out for his administration's treatment of a largely innocent nation of people in the Middle East. The Downing Street Memo and CIA intelligence both make it clear that Bush had penciled in the Iraqi War before all the facts were available.

The western media portrayed the war as clean and precise, with the proud images of fighter jets skillfully vaporizing the military components of an enemy world. Actual statistics for the second Iraq War showed that 18,898 targets were hit from the air, but less than 10% were directly related to the Iraqi military or government. According to Iraq Body Count and a UN survey, US-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs killed nearly 25,000 civilians in just the first two years of the war. A Johns Hopkins study put the tally much higher, with an estimate of 650,000 Iraqi deaths.

For the first time in history, radioactive battlefields were created in the Iraq Wars. The pictures of children born in the DU areas are hard to look at. Babies with no arms, oversized heads, no brains, grossly deformed faces, organs outside their bodies.

And George Bush said, "The war in Iraq is really about peace."

We Need a Truly Exceptional Leader

In the "expert consensus" polling, Teddy Roosevelt came in 5th, Woodrow Wilson 6th, Andrew Jackson 8th, James Polk 10th, and McKinley and Taft both near the middle. Like Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama, they will be remembered as great believers in American exceptionalism. But we need a President who will treat all races and classes as equals. That would be exceptional.

[82_28]

Dude, Jack, how many times have I already alluded to "seeing the construction". My assertion is that this now becomes part of the history if the name of the team is changed. Thus, be proactive with what you have.

[Carol Newquist]

It Is Time to Recognize the National Sovereignty and Human Rights of Native Indians

Sounds too much like separate but equal. Sovereign but equal. Cake and eat it too. According to this guy, separate is equal....is not equal. FYI, I'm not saying I agree completely with this guy, but he does raise some good points.

http://www.lostinidaho.me/2012/01/separate-but-equal-is-not-equal.html

Separate But Equal Is NOT Equal

This post is about racism.

Specifically, how some races are perpetuating a 'separate but equal' message while still pointing the fingers at other people, with the balls to call them racist.

When dating, or looking at someone 'attractive' or not, I don't take race into consideration. I have dated outside my race from time to time, and would like to think the notion of "Jungle Fever" can be left in the 20th century.

60's, 70's, maybe even the 80's and 90's, dating 'other-skinned' people may have been taboo. But it's fucking 2012. Get over it.

This rant was mainly prompted by Blackpeoplemeet.com and their commercials.

From their website:

BlackPeopleMeet.com is the premier online black dating service. Black singles are online now in our large online black dating community. BlackPeopleMeet.com is designed for Black dating and to bring Black people together. Join BlackPeopleMeet.com and meet new people for Black dating. BlackPeopleMeet.com is a niche, Black dating service for single black men and single black women. Become a member of BlackPeopleMeet.com and learn more about Black dating online. Black dating works better with BlackPeopleMeet.com!

Ok, firstly. You're airing commercials in Eastern Idaho. There aren't a lot of African Americans over here, so spend your money a little wiser, ok? Secondly, how is this acceptable? You don't see any 'white people only' dating sites. God forbid if there were a whites-only dating site, it would be in the news almost immediately.



To me, THIS is what blackpeoplemeet.com looks like. However, unlike the Jim Crow days, these black people are doing it to themselves. Separating yourself into a 'we only congregate with our own kind' is exactly what the 60's generation and Dr. King fought against.

I asked a handful of people from all races if they would ever date outside of their race. Of the 60 I asked, one said she would only date people of the same race as her (and it was "more of a Catholic thing than a latin thing"). Everyone else said race was not an issue. Some were even mildly offended I asked in the first place.

"What is this, 1965?" they asked.

And I agree. I personally have only one discriminating factor when looking to date someone: They have to be female. Some people don't even discriminate on sex (props to the bisexuals, woop woop). We're now knee-deep into the 21st century. It's time to stop separating ourselves by skin color and just let racism die.

To blackpeoplemeet.com, fuck you. Fuck you for making a race-related website. All you are doing is feeding off the 'stick to our own kind' mentality and keeping racism alive.

To Kanye West, fuck you. Fuck you for pointing the finger over and over at whites, calling all white people racist, while keeping the word "Nigga" alive in any way shape or form. In your newest album, all but 2 of the 13 tracks have the word "nigga" in it, over and over. By keeping that word alive, and for playing the race card over and over, you're helping keep racism alive.

Personally, I think Kanye West is probably the most racist individual in the USA. But that's just me...

To anyone who discriminates or judges based on race or skin color, fuck you. Fuck you for being so petty and for thinking people with lighter or darker skin are somehow on a different level than you.

That means fuck you to the white people that do it, and fuck you to the black people that do it. I'm being equal-opportunity here, after all.

What do you think? Is a website like blackpeoplemeet.com a smart idea, or is it only perpetuating the 'separate but equal' mantra? I would love to get some opinions here from both sides, especially from non-whites.

Afterthought: Blackpeoplemeet.com is owned by People Media, who also run the following singles sites:

Big Beautiful People Meet
50+ People Meet
Democratic / Republican People Meet
and more
I guess keeping to your own kind is profitable? Lets keep all the geezers and fatties and liberals away from MY dating site... (please note the oozing sarcasm here...)

The following author makes a convincing argument that sovereignty is a charade, so no, I don't support a reformed sovereignty, I support full U.S. citizenry with all its attendant rights. Included and equal. The cake, but not eating it too....just like all the rest of us.

http://www.citizensalliance.org/links/pages/articles/Sovereignty_&_Civil.html

Sovereignty and Civil Rights

By Julie Shortridge

Many citizens assume that our federal and state governments support the basic American goals of freedom, fairness, and "equal justice for all." After all, these are founding principles on which our nation and constitution were established.

But many state and federal court judges, the state attorney general, the governor, and Minnesota's members of Congress tolerate a policy that specifically denies American citizens their most basic constitutional rights.

Indian people living on reservations are not granted the same civil rights the rest of Americans take for granted, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, open elections, a trial by a jury of one's peers, legal representation of one's choice, and the right to due process in a court of law. Non-Indian people who enter onto a reservation or "tribal trust status lands" also give up these basic civil rights and constitutional protections.

"Tribal sovereignty," the notion that tribes are self-governing nations, and a concept that many people assume is beneficial to Indian people, actually benefits only a few individual tribal government leaders, and takes rights and freedoms away from Indian citizens.

Just like on a military reservation, there is no inherent, constitutional protection of speech, assembly and the press on Indian reservation land. Tribal chief executives and tribal councils get their authority from the Secretary of the Interior and the BIA, not from the voters who elect them. And because the tribal government controls all tribal businesses, services, housing and most employment, they are able to rule nearly all aspects of reservation life.

There are no checks and balances in the tribal system of government; no separation of the judicial, legislative and administrative branches of government. The Freedom of Information Act and Open Meeting Law do not apply on reservations. Neither does the Bill of Rights. In 1968 Congress enacted a separate "Indian Bill of Rights" in an effort to rectify this fact, but in 1978, a Supreme Court decision ruled that Indian tribal governments themselves could decide how and to what extent Indian civil rights would be applied, if at all.

The decision rendered the Indian Bill of Rights virtually worthless. A tribal chief and tribal council not only have full executive, legislative and judicial authority on the reservation, they also decide if and to what extent their citizens have any rights or freedoms. Tribal chief executives and tribal councils become dictators. They appoint and remove tribal judges as they wish, and can control the outcome of judicial decisions. Tribal chief executives and tribal councils can and do dictate if, how and against whom tribal laws are enforced.

One of this country's founding fathers, James Madison, wrote in the late 1700s, "The accumulation of all powers - legislative, executive, and judiciary - in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Madison was right, and tyranny is what we see today in tribal governments. Read a month's worth of Indian newspapers, such as Indian Country Today, News from Indian Country, and Native American Press/Ojibwe News, and it becomes evident that corruption in tribal governments is the norm, not the exception.

Tribal governments are not obligated to make their financial records available to the public, yet they control who on a reservation gets a job, a house, and health care services. This lack of accountability allows tribal officials to hide criminal conduct, incompetence, and corruption, and has resulted in tribal dictatorships. Several federal convictions of tribal leaders for theft, fraud, money-laundering, vote rigging and other crimes have barely scratched the surface of tribal government corruption. A full 80% of Indian people have left the reservation to escape these conditions.

Congress and federal courts must take the blame for this corrupt and abusive system. They are the ones who created it, and they have the legal right, power and authority to end it at any time. But instead the federal government currently claims that over 550 Indian tribes are "sovereign nations," with the right to have separate governments, separate courts, separate laws, and independent control of land and resources without state regulations and exempt from many federal regulations as well.

How is it that the United States maintains separate "homelands" for a race of people where they are not protected by the same constitutional rights, receive unequal protection under the law, and are subject to different regulations? How did this country, a nation so vocal, so active in condemning South African apartheid, come to create a similar apartheid situation for millions of its own citizens?

Tribes are not sovereign at all. The United States government owns reservation land, not tribes. Tribal lands are federal territories, owned and controlled by the United States government, which has been put in reserve, similar to a military reserve, for the use of an Indian tribe. Based on our system of law, land is what sovereignty is based upon. Tribes are not "sovereign nations" because they have no sovereign control over any land holdings; there is no "nation."

Indian tribes rely almost entirely on federal government support to continue to exist, and on federal government permission to do almost anything. Tribes exist not as independent governments, but as an extension of the federal government.

The federal government has what's called "plenary" power over land that is in trust status, which means they can literally do anything they want with it, and the people living on that land have no direct control or constitutional protections. Indians and non-Indians who live on reservations actually have no control over their lands, and people living near reservations are at risk too, because the federal government is expanding reservation land holdings at an amazing rate.

Tribal members are U.S. citizens, and as such, are eligible to serve in state legislatures, run for Congress as representative of a state, be appointed to state and federal constitutional offices, hold judgeships at all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and run for president of the United States. These rights and privileges are not extended to foreign nationals of sovereign nations. They are extended to Indians because they are, in fact, U.S. citizens, and have been since Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. Many non-reservation Indians were U.S. citizens in the 1800's as well.

Off the reservation, Indians are free and equal citizens. Ironically and tragically, only on reservation soil do Indians lose their civil and constitutional rights.

The policies of tribal sovereignty and tribal sovereign immunity have hurt tribal members, impaired businesses trying to contract with tribal governments, stifled economic development on reservations, and denied basic rights to Indian and non-Indian patrons and employees of tribally-owned operations.

Our state courts, federal courts, state attorney general, governor and members of Congress do little to defend the rights of Indian and non-Indian people who are harmed by this federal policy.

Unfortunately, many judges, state officials and citizens carelessly assume that tribal sovereignty and tribal sovereign immunity are somehow righting past wrongs done to Indian people. Without careful analysis, many people assume that the "right" side of the issue, the "pro-Indian" side of the issue, is to support a policy of sovereignty and separate laws and governments for Indian tribes. But some officials are beginning to raise crucial questions about the policy of tribal sovereignty. A Minnesota Court of Appeals judge is one of the leaders of this new trend.

Judge Randall Challenges the "myth of tribal sovereignty"

A growing number of citizens and judges in the state are taking a critical look at federal Indian policy, questioning its constitutionality, and analyzing its effect on Indian people.
Most notably, Judge R.A. (Jim) Randall of the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrote a thoughtful dissent about the issue in the case of Cohen v. Little Six, Inc. (1996 WL 56477 Minn. App.). The case involves Sylvia Cohen, an elderly casino customer, who was seeking compensation for medical expenses after she broke her hip when the chair she was sitting on at Mystic Lake Casino broke underneath her. The tribe successfully argued that Mrs. Cohen cannot seek damages in state court because Mystic Lake Casino is on tribal trust status land, and is therefore on sovereign soil, and the tribe cannot be sued except in their own court which is set up under their own rules, which the tribe establishes and changes as it sees fit. Judge Randall disagrees, and writes:

"Reading. . . federal cases solemnly discussing Indian sovereignty, as if it were a viable issue, I feel as if I am in a time warp, reading Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson, as if these cases were still the law of the land. ... Any argument that American Indians are different from the rest of us and therefore, are sovereign or quasi-sovereign, and reside on sovereign or foreign land, is put to rest by our actual treatment of them, and by the fact that in 1924 by the Citizenship Act, we conferred full U.S. citizenship on American Indians. We are individual citizens of a state that is part of a highly organized federation of states, comprising one indivisible sovereign, the United States of America. ...Thus, what is strange to me, is that despite the overwhelming, undeniable fact that Minnesota Indians are full Minnesotans and full U.S. citizens, we still persist in treating American Indians on some sort of parallel tract, some sort of "separate but equal" treatment which we denounced in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. ...What I am talking about is attempting to formalize a parallel Indian tribal court system purporting to have equal, and at times paramount, jurisdiction over state and federal courts. ... [There are] insoluble incongruities, ...[and] justice denying anomalies that abound when we attempt to interject a third parallel race-based court system along side our two historical court systems. ...Why do we not have "African-American courts," "Hispanic courts," Chinese courts," or "Korean courts?" ... I suggest that if we tried to establish "racially based courts," the constitutional issue of the denial of due process issue, the race-related and race-baiting issues, and the ill-will and divisiveness that would follow would serve to overcome us as a country. ...Why here, are we tolerating segregating out the American Indians by race and allowing them to maintain a parallel court system and further, subjecting non-Indians to it? To me, this is red apartheid. I believe this entire issue of 'sovereignty' rests on true red apartheid. The American Indian will never be fully integrated into this state, nor into this country, until we recognize this 'dual citizenship' for what it really is, a pancake makeup coverup of Plessy which allowed 'separate but equal' treatment."

Judge Randall continues:

"[W]e have the power, the right, and the precedent to allow Indian economic enterprises such as gambling casinos and other businesses to operate within the framework of existing state and federal law. Do we have the will? ...[T]his state, this country, has the power and the legal right to protect any and all parts of Indian identity, culture, tribal assets, self-determination, religion/spirituality that needs to be protected, and yet do it all within the framework of treating American Indians like we treat ourselves, as normal citizens of this state, of this country. The real issue is, do we have the will? ...We should have learned by now that this duality in America is so intrinsically evil, so intrinsically wrong, so intrinsically doomed for failure, that we must grit our teeth and work through it. ...For some reason, we continue to insist that American Indians can be the last holdout, a race that is not entitled to be brought in to the fold, can be left to shift for themselves as long as, from time to time, we pat them on the head like little children and call them sovereign. 'Sovereignty' is just one more indignity, one more outright lie, that we continue to foist on American citizens, the American Indian."

Judge Randall goes on to say that the important goals of protecting Indian culture, spirituality, self-determination, freedom, and way of life can best be done within the state and federal systems, in which we protect these same freedoms for all citizens of all colors. He points out that the Amish, and other sub-groups with diverse cultures, thrive within our state and federal jurisdictions.

Free the Indians

With all the billions of dollars our federal government spends each year for Indian rights -- be they treaty rights, aboriginal land rights, sovereignty rights, rights to remain in trust status, etc. -- why are few government officials talking about true Indian rights as U.S. citizens? The right to a fair trial, the right to legal representation, the right to free speech, free press and freedom of assembly, the right to own land and a home, and to be free from dictatorial governments -- these are the rights that will free Indian people from the oppression and widespread poverty they now live under.

And giving reservation Indians these rights would require no costly lawsuits or expensive attorneys. We should simply grant them these rights, as they deserve as American citizens. But doing so would mean an end to their separation on federally controlled racial "homelands," and an end to this charade of "sovereignty." The federal government, who owns and controls tribal land, does not appear ready to give that up. Neither do Indian government officials who enrich themselves off of misguided federal policies.

[peartreed]

The issue of the “Redskins” name has nothing to do with segregated dating nor with the sovereignty or self-government of natives and native reserves.

The technique of reframing an unwinnable argument into a separate, broader and unrelated issue, and arguing that separate issue instead, is known as creating a straw man. When you can’t win an argument create a straw man and attack that.

You may have noticed this thread is still being littered with straw. Despite the approach of Hallowe’en with scare crows abundant, it’s still a cheap trick.

[Carol Newquist]

The issue of the “Redskins” name has nothing to do with segregated dating nor with the sovereignty or self-government of natives and native reserves.

Fair enough. I was responding to what seemslikeadream posted in this thread above. Here's the link in case you missed it. Apparently, seemslikeadream thought it was somehow related and you don't. Who's right? How about a coin toss?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37290&start=45#p524273

The technique of reframing an unwinnable argument into a separate, broader and unrelated issue, and arguing that separate issue instead, is known as creating a straw man. When you can’t win an argument create a straw man and attack that.

You may have noticed this thread is still being littered with straw. Despite the approach of Hallowe’en with scare crows abundant, it’s still a cheap trick.

This is great advice to seemslikeadream for posting that strawman article about american indian sovereignty and equal rights. I hope it's well-received.

[Carol Newquist]

Sorry, but I think this is applicable, and it's not a strawman. This is dirty and deceitful business afoot. It speaks to the article American Dream posted in the Collapse Culture thread. Here's the link and the applicable excerpt.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37274&start=15#p524635

But the point cannot be to force revolution on these movements as a content; in other words, it matters little whether protesters say they want revolution, the question is always whether they are doing revolution, whether the measures they take in the heat of the moment aid or abet the ruling order. For example: Does a movement support or negate the laws of property and private ownership? Does it accept or refuse the money economy? Does it propose labor as the solution or the problem? Does it fraternize with or antagonize the forces of order, i.e. the police and the army? Does it admit or repulse the homeless and jobless and infirm? Is the movement led by men? Is the movement white? Is it straight? Is it reproduced by the unremunerated labor of women, or is its reproduction public and collective? Does it treat the issue of its own reproduction, its own continued existence as a movement, as a private matter or as a political matter? If the latter, does it respect the sanctity of the family, the de facto sphere of private reproduction, or does it inveigh against patriarchy, abolishing private reproduction and expropriating private wealth? Does it respect the sanctity of capitalistownership, including factories, farms, warehouses, mills, docks, sweatshops, hospitals, apartment complexes, and on and on—and if not, in what manner does it call workers and tenants to its side? Does it offer slogans only, or does it rush in bearing bread and wine and song? Does it leave the infrastructure of the city intact or does it dismantle the machinery of urban capital, tearing up and ripping down whatever is contrary to the needs of the movement? Does it attack or defend the political and administrative systems of the city, region, or nation? Is the revolution content with the veneer of autonomy, or does it smash the seat of enemy power? Does the revolution arm itself?

Here's what I'm talking about. Ray Halbritter....a Harvard-educated businessman, what do you know? Well, I'll be. Don't you know he's all about American Dream's excellent article, especially the highlighted excerpt above.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/casino-kingpin-and-fake-indian-chief-targets-redskins/

Casino Kingpin and Fake Indian Chief Targets Redskins

Ray Halbritter is suddenly everywhere, giving interviews denouncing the Washington based team, even though his own base is in New York. He’ll even meet with the NFL to begin the process of pressuring the Redskins into changing their name.

Media accounts dub Ray Halbritter a representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. The reality is a good deal more complex.

The Oneida, Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, and Seneca nations are autonomous members of the Six Nation Confederacy (the Haudenosaunee). The Oneida are about 1000 people (450 adults) in central New York.

And that’s with a blood quantum level requirement of 1/4 so that you only need 1/4 blood to be a member of the Oneida tribe. Which is to say that most of the Oneidas are probably more white than Native American.

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the Oneidas were the rightful owners of 872 acres that they had claimed in a test case.

According to Haudenosaunee tradition, the Oneida clan mothers of the wolf, bear, and turtle clans select the chiefs who represent the Oneida nation on the Grand Council of Chiefs, which oversees the Six Nation Confederacy.

But during much of the 1970s and 1980s, the New York Oneidas were beset by leadership conflicts. In the mid-1980s, in an effort to reestablish a traditional form of government, wolf clan mother Maisie Shenandoah selected three Oneida men as temporary representatives to the Grand Council of Chiefs. By the mid-1990s, two had died, leaving only Ray Halbritter, a talented Oneida businessman trained at Harvard.

In 1993, Mr. Halbritter negotiated a gaming compact for the Oneidas with New York governor Mario Cuomo and consequently built the highly profitable Turning Stone Casino in central New York. This casino became the cornerstone of an expansive Oneida business enterprise that now includes a chain of gas stations, a textile factory, and a luxury hotel. The business is incorporated as the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Inc. with Ray Halbritter as its CEO.

So yes, Ray Halbritter is a representative of the Oneida Indian Nation. But it’s the Oneida Indian Nation Inc. It’s a company with gas stations, a hotel and a casino.

How legitimate is Ray Halbritter’s leadership considering that he basically stepped into a leadership vacuum and cashed in on legal gambling?

Not very.

Mr. Halbritter’s initiatives have been criticized by some Oneidas, who say he has violated the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee by embracing gambling. They also fault him for selecting his own clan mothers and for creating a “men’s council,” both unheard of practices in Haudenosaunee tradition.

In 1993, the Grand Council of Chiefs removed Mr. Halbritter as the Oneida wolf clan representative and notified the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that he no longer represented the Oneida people. The decision was accepted by the BIA, only to be reversed 24 hours later, reportedly under pressure from Sherwood Boehlert, the U.S. congressional representative for the area and a casino supporter.

Today the U.S. government but not the Grand Council of Chiefs gives official recognition to the Oneida Indian Nation with Ray Halbritter as its representative.

So Ray Halbritter is the head of a company recognized not by a tribal council, but by the United States government. This entire thing wound its way through the courts…

On February 13, 1996, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and local counsel filed suit on behalf of the Oneida Nation of New York against the U.S. Department of the Interior, charging that the government violated the Oneidas’ national sovereignty.

The suit alleged that the Department refused to recognize a legitimate decision by the Nation and the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, Six Nations Confederacy, to remove Arthur Raymond Halbritter from his claimed position as sole leader of the Nation and representative to the U.S. government.

The Oneida members requested an injunction ordering federal agencies to recognize the removal of Halbritter and to rescind any agreement made by Halbritter after his removal. The members also demanded an accounting of all its proceeds from 1987 to the present and an injunction that would prevent Halbritter from expending any Nation funds. Lastly, the suit asserted that the federal agency violated their civil rights guaranteed under the Indian Civil Rights Act.

That’s the same Arthur Raymond Halbritter who is now putting on a full court press against the Redskins on behalf of Oneida Indian Nation Enterprises.

Which Oneidas does he actually represent? He has more employees than tribe members and he’s vocally opposed by actual members of the tribe, including the family of the woman who appointed him.

Against the wishes of the Confederacy, and without knowledge of the Oneida people, a Casino deal was struck between ex-Governor Cuomo and so-called Oneida Nation “CEO” Arthur Raymond Halbritter in 1993. The compact was never ratified by the Oneidas. Using money borrowed by Halbritter from the Key Bank of Central NY ( the CEO mortgaged Oneida land without our knowledge) “The Turning Stone Casino” was built in Oneida, NY. The Casino was built on wetlands in violation of both US and Haudenosaunee laws. Because Halbritter violated Haudenosaunee rules he was removed from his position as an Oneida spokesperson in May, 1993…

The Oneida people were completely unaware that any transactions for land, a casino, or lawsuits against 20,000 land owners would ensue. To date, the Oneida people who have opposed these decisions continue to be threatened with on-going human, civil and religious rights violations and are in present danger of losing their homes on the Oneida Indian Territory.

Under the guise of a “beautification program”, the leadership has authorized a mock tribal court system to prosecute all those who stand up for their rights as Haudenosaunee.

A 54 man, completely non-Native “Oneida Nation Police” force acting on the direct orders of Halbritter has harassed, intimidated and physically assaulted Oneida people on their own territory.

That’s the creature heading up the shakedown of the Redskins.

This just keeps getting better and better.

[seemslikeadream]

The issue of the “Redskins” name has nothing to do with segregated dating nor with the sovereignty or self-government of natives and native reserves.

Fair enough. I was responding to what seemslikeadream posted in this thread above. Here's the link in case you missed it. Apparently, seemslikeadream thought it was somehow related and you don't. Who's right? How about a coin toss?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37290&start=45#p524273

The technique of reframing an unwinnable argument into a separate, broader and unrelated issue, and arguing that separate issue instead, is known as creating a straw man. When you can’t win an argument create a straw man and attack that.

You may have noticed this thread is still being littered with straw. Despite the approach of Hallowe’en with scare crows abundant, it’s still a cheap trick.

This is great advice to seemslikeadream for posting that strawman article about american indian sovereignty and equal rights. I hope it's well-received.

If you would learn how to post correctly here and use the quote button you wouldn't confuse people with your postings...it helps when people are trying to make sense of your inaccurate critiques, as usual ...and it would help if you stopped trying to twist my reasonings for posting articles....it was NOT a reply to YOU so maybe that's why you AGAIN got it WRONG

[seemslikeadream]

Sorry, but I think this is applicable, and it's not a strawman. This is dirty and deceitful business afoot. It speaks to the article American Dream posted in the Collapse Culture thread. Here's the link and the applicable excerpt.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37274&start=15#p524635

But the point cannot be to force revolution on these movements as a content; in other words, it matters little whether protesters say they want revolution, the question is always whether they are doing revolution, whether the measures they take in the heat of the moment aid or abet the ruling order. For example: Does a movement support or negate the laws of property and private ownership? Does it accept or refuse the money economy? Does it propose labor as the solution or the problem? Does it fraternize with or antagonize the forces of order, i.e. the police and the army? Does it admit or repulse the homeless and jobless and infirm? Is the movement led by men? Is the movement white? Is it straight? Is it reproduced by the unremunerated labor of women, or is its reproduction public and collective? Does it treat the issue of its own reproduction, its own continued existence as a movement, as a private matter or as a political matter? If the latter, does it respect the sanctity of the family, the de facto sphere of private reproduction, or does it inveigh against patriarchy, abolishing private reproduction and expropriating private wealth? Does it respect the sanctity of capitalistownership, including factories, farms, warehouses, mills, docks, sweatshops, hospitals, apartment complexes, and on and on—and if not, in what manner does it call workers and tenants to its side? Does it offer slogans only, or does it rush in bearing bread and wine and song? Does it leave the infrastructure of the city intact or does it dismantle the machinery of urban capital, tearing up and ripping down whatever is contrary to the needs of the movement? Does it attack or defend the political and administrative systems of the city, region, or nation? Is the revolution content with the veneer of autonomy, or does it smash the seat of enemy power? Does the revolution arm itself?

Here's what I'm talking about. Ray Halbritter....a Harvard-educated businessman, what do you know? Well, I'll be. Don't you know he's all about American Dream's excellent article, especially the highlighted excerpt above.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/casino-kingpin-and-fake-indian-chief-targets-redskins/

Casino Kingpin and Fake Indian Chief Targets Redskins

Ray Halbritter is suddenly everywhere, giving interviews denouncing the Washington based team, even though his own base is in New York. He’ll even meet with the NFL to begin the process of pressuring the Redskins into changing their name.

Media accounts dub Ray Halbritter a representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. The reality is a good deal more complex.

The Oneida, Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, and Seneca nations are autonomous members of the Six Nation Confederacy (the Haudenosaunee). The Oneida are about 1000 people (450 adults) in central New York.

And that’s with a blood quantum level requirement of 1/4 so that you only need 1/4 blood to be a member of the Oneida tribe. Which is to say that most of the Oneidas are probably more white than Native American.

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the Oneidas were the rightful owners of 872 acres that they had claimed in a test case.

According to Haudenosaunee tradition, the Oneida clan mothers of the wolf, bear, and turtle clans select the chiefs who represent the Oneida nation on the Grand Council of Chiefs, which oversees the Six Nation Confederacy.

But during much of the 1970s and 1980s, the New York Oneidas were beset by leadership conflicts. In the mid-1980s, in an effort to reestablish a traditional form of government, wolf clan mother Maisie Shenandoah selected three Oneida men as temporary representatives to the Grand Council of Chiefs. By the mid-1990s, two had died, leaving only Ray Halbritter, a talented Oneida businessman trained at Harvard.

In 1993, Mr. Halbritter negotiated a gaming compact for the Oneidas with New York governor Mario Cuomo and consequently built the highly profitable Turning Stone Casino in central New York. This casino became the cornerstone of an expansive Oneida business enterprise that now includes a chain of gas stations, a textile factory, and a luxury hotel. The business is incorporated as the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Inc. with Ray Halbritter as its CEO.

So yes, Ray Halbritter is a representative of the Oneida Indian Nation. But it’s the Oneida Indian Nation Inc. It’s a company with gas stations, a hotel and a casino.

How legitimate is Ray Halbritter’s leadership considering that he basically stepped into a leadership vacuum and cashed in on legal gambling?

Not very.

Mr. Halbritter’s initiatives have been criticized by some Oneidas, who say he has violated the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee by embracing gambling. They also fault him for selecting his own clan mothers and for creating a “men’s council,” both unheard of practices in Haudenosaunee tradition.

In 1993, the Grand Council of Chiefs removed Mr. Halbritter as the Oneida wolf clan representative and notified the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that he no longer represented the Oneida people. The decision was accepted by the BIA, only to be reversed 24 hours later, reportedly under pressure from Sherwood Boehlert, the U.S. congressional representative for the area and a casino supporter.

Today the U.S. government but not the Grand Council of Chiefs gives official recognition to the Oneida Indian Nation with Ray Halbritter as its representative.

So Ray Halbritter is the head of a company recognized not by a tribal council, but by the United States government. This entire thing wound its way through the courts…

On February 13, 1996, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and local counsel filed suit on behalf of the Oneida Nation of New York against the U.S. Department of the Interior, charging that the government violated the Oneidas’ national sovereignty.

The suit alleged that the Department refused to recognize a legitimate decision by the Nation and the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee, Six Nations Confederacy, to remove Arthur Raymond Halbritter from his claimed position as sole leader of the Nation and representative to the U.S. government.

The Oneida members requested an injunction ordering federal agencies to recognize the removal of Halbritter and to rescind any agreement made by Halbritter after his removal. The members also demanded an accounting of all its proceeds from 1987 to the present and an injunction that would prevent Halbritter from expending any Nation funds. Lastly, the suit asserted that the federal agency violated their civil rights guaranteed under the Indian Civil Rights Act.

That’s the same Arthur Raymond Halbritter who is now putting on a full court press against the Redskins on behalf of Oneida Indian Nation Enterprises.

Which Oneidas does he actually represent? He has more employees than tribe members and he’s vocally opposed by actual members of the tribe, including the family of the woman who appointed him.

Against the wishes of the Confederacy, and without knowledge of the Oneida people, a Casino deal was struck between ex-Governor Cuomo and so-called Oneida Nation “CEO” Arthur Raymond Halbritter in 1993. The compact was never ratified by the Oneidas. Using money borrowed by Halbritter from the Key Bank of Central NY ( the CEO mortgaged Oneida land without our knowledge) “The Turning Stone Casino” was built in Oneida, NY. The Casino was built on wetlands in violation of both US and Haudenosaunee laws. Because Halbritter violated Haudenosaunee rules he was removed from his position as an Oneida spokesperson in May, 1993…

The Oneida people were completely unaware that any transactions for land, a casino, or lawsuits against 20,000 land owners would ensue. To date, the Oneida people who have opposed these decisions continue to be threatened with on-going human, civil and religious rights violations and are in present danger of losing their homes on the Oneida Indian Territory.

Under the guise of a “beautification program”, the leadership has authorized a mock tribal court system to prosecute all those who stand up for their rights as Haudenosaunee.

A 54 man, completely non-Native “Oneida Nation Police” force acting on the direct orders of Halbritter has harassed, intimidated and physically assaulted Oneida people on their own territory.

That’s the creature heading up the shakedown of the Redskins.

This just keeps getting better and better.

YOU can bring the straw men to the party and then have the audacity to accuse others of the same?

Deflect much

and really..... truth be known

[Carol Newquist]

YOU can bring the straw men to the party and then have the audacity to accuse others of the same?

I accused no one. I never brought up strawman. peartreed did, and she specifically said american indian sovereignty and equal rights was not related to the "Redskins" issue and was a strawman. You brought it up first in the thread. You didn't preface the article with your own words, you just plopped it down in the middle of the thread with no explanation. I responded to it since it was presented. You broke the ice by first placing it. Truthfully, the "Redskins" discussion is a strawman to the OP, so peartreed's claim of a strawman at this point is like calling an aquarium a fish tank.

[seemslikeadream]

did you write this or not Ms. Carol Newquist?

This is great advice to seemslikeadream for posting that strawman article about american indian sovereignty and equal rights. I hope it's well-received.