You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Native Americans" (Page 3)

The Path to 9 11

In defense of ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11. Near the beginning, when the terrorists were taking responsibility for the 1993 WTC bombing, "Ramzi Youssef - Palestinian Terrorist" explained why they had done it: because of America's military and economic support of Israel. The subject of Israel and Palestine never came up again, and never came up at all on Ted Koppel's counter-ABC-straw-man The Price of Security. We've got our boot on Palestine's windpipe, they're flailing their arms hoping to dislodge us, and we declare a war on arm flailing. Our media runs through what options America has to be safe from arm-flailing without looking at our boots to let American citizens consider how we might tread the earth with more humanity. The US and Israel, it's hard to say who is the master of whom, are actively killing Palestinians in a genocidal program every bit as calculated as the Holocaust or the extermination of the Native Americans. The US supported the recent slaughter of Lebanese peoples, also considered by the international community as genocide. The US accuses Syria or Iran of backing Hizb'Allah. Those links are sketchy compared to our sending weapons and aid to Israel and other false authorities in the Middle East. When Israel was stepping up its bombing Lebanon in advance of the nearing ceasefire, we had to speed our resupply of Cluster Bombs lest Israel run out of time to use them. The US arms and defends the self-proclaimed kings and sultans who amass great wealth from the sale of their countries' oil while at the same time subjecting their peoples to abject poverty. Bin Laden opposed our propping up of the Saudis. Youssef decried our support of Israel in Palestine. Arabs have cause to reject US strong arm policies in Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and of course Iraq. Muslims have very good reasons to reject US policy in Afghanistan, Indoneasia and the Philippines. The least ABC could do in its mockudrama was to set the scene with the Muslim extremists' motives, and that was it. Even though the rest of the program was re-edited because of the criticism, there followed closely law enforcement characters endlessly lamenting they needed authority for warrantless searches, domestic eavesdropping and inter-departmental information sharing. Filipino police were depicted heroically for not waiting for warrants, female border agents were lauded for using their intuitive -read racial- profiling, suggestions were made of an FBI coverup, even that Clinton's people were helping Osama. The irrationality-mongering was so egregious it would take forever to enumerate. The good news is that the Stephen Bochco style shaky camera, the endlessly tight closeups, the jump cuts unto incongruous details lacking context, and the frenetic action going every direction, serve really like an alarm bell going off next to your ear. It's not conducive to critical thinking, but it's also painfully and obviously contrived. I draw one fundamental conclusion. The 9/11 truth seekers have been right all along. We must diffuse the 9/11 lie because the establishment yahoos, both Republican and

White Native Americans

A branch of our local library is hosting a discussion about a recent work of popular fiction, One Thousand White Women by Jim Fergus. I'm thinking of stopping by to puke. The novel begins by alluding that its unspeakable historical premise has factual merit. ALLEGEDLY the author's great great aunt, a "May Dodd", left a journal about her life experience, hidden all these years in shame by her family. The author takes it upon himself to tell her repressed tale, and because it is the untold fate of 999 nameless more, we infer it to be one of the dark secrets of the American national identity. The story concerns 1000 white women who were traded to the Indians in exchange for resettlement and peace. One thousand white women. The title does grab you. It has undeniable where-the-white-women-at? appeal. The phenomena also shares something with the White Indian Series by Donald Porter. That's a western series for readers who couldn't be bothered to know about the lives of the Native Americans unless they were WHITE Native Americans. These readers can't sympathize with Indians as victims, unless they are white Indian victims, and then preferably of course they should be white Indian victims of Indians. The mythic white Indian abounds on film, and it's not just Indians. The story of The Last Samurai had to be about a white man in Japan (Tom Cruise) or who would care? Here you have the fate of 1000 women sold, sacrificed or let loose down the river to become Indian squaws. One part romantic fantasy, several parts feminist grudge, (1000 parts rape fetish?), all at the hands of red heathen. To be fair, the author does provide a disclaimer that 1000 white women never changed hands. Fergus implies however that an original Cheyenne proposal to be given 1000 white women was real and asks readers to ponder, what if? If true, it's a piercing lesson on the embarrassing legacy that can come from sarcasm. How deeply insulting is it to suggest that Indian tribal leaders would have asked the army negotiators for white women? And as a condition of laying down their weapons? I think it's indescribably racist to be susceptible to thinking that Indian fathers and braves sought white mates with whom to raise new generations of their tribe. Neither in-breeding nor poor education are excuses enough for this prevalent self-centered bigotry.

Sept 11 – America Reaps What It Sows!

By Black Liberation Army prisoner of war Jalil Muntaqim. U.S. International Warfare Initiates World War III Human Rights During Wartime By Jalil A. Muntaqim In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Americans have displayed their true colors of jingoism, a militaristic spirit of nationalism. Similarly, it was witnessed how the people of Iraq rallied in support of their President, Saddam Hussein, after the U.S. bombed to death 250,000 Iraqis, and continued devastation of that country with collateral damage of 1 million dead women and children. Hence, people rallying in support of their government and representatives is a common phenomenon when a country is attacked by an outsider. The U.S. has been foremost in the world extending foreign policy of free-market economy, to the extent of undermining other countries cultures and ideologies expressed as their way of life. Such conflicts inevitably positions the U.S. as the centerpiece, the bulls-eye for international political dissent, as indicated by demonstrations against the U.S. controlled IMF, WTO and World Bank conferences. The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon did not occur in a vacuum. The people that carried out the attacks were not blind followers or robots with an irrational hatred of the U.S. peoples. Rather, this attack was part of an overall blowback to U.S. imperialist policy in support of zionist Israel and opposition to fundamentalist Islam. There are essentially three primary world ideologies or world views: the capitalist free-market economy/democracy; the socialist production economy; and Islamic theocratic government, of which has been in competition for many decades. However, in the last 20 years the socialist economies has been severely subverted and co-opted by free-market economies, the ideals of American style democracy. This isolated, for the most part, Islamic theocratic ideology and system of government as the principle target of the U.S. in its quest for world hegemony. This reality of competing world views and economies is further complicated due to religious underpinning of beliefs that motivates actions, especially as they are expressed by U.S. and Western European christianity and Israel zionist judaism in opposition to Islam. From the struggles of the Crusades to the present confrontation, the struggle for ideological supremacy reigns, as the faithful continue to proselytize in the name of the Supreme Being. When geopolitics are combined with religious fervor in the character of nationalist identity and patriotism, rational and logical thinking is shoved aside as matters of the moment takes historical precedents. It has often been said that "Truth Crush to the Earth Will Rise Again". Since truth is relative to ones belief, can it be safely said that America has reaped what it has sowed? The American truth of capitalist christian democracy and its imperialist hegemonic aspirations has crushed both socialist and Islamic world views. It has extended its avaricious tentacles as the world police and economic harbinger of all that is beneficent, in stark denial of its history as a purveyor of genocides, slavery and colonial violence. The U.S. was

Ahmadinejad and Hamas not denying Holocaust

No one is suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that six million Jews weren't killed by the Nazis. The mythology surrounding the Holocaust has to do with its aftermath: how the murder of six million Jews became justification for the creation of a Jewish state on land which belonged altogether to someone else.   That is the mythology about the Holocaust which natives of the Middle East would like the rest of us to contemplate. Western media seems intent on perpetuating a distortion of the Muslim position. So intent are they to avoid questioning the legitimacy of Zionism that anyone who does is painted as a "Holocaust denier." No one is denying the Holocaust! And no one is calling for killing any more Jews! "Wiping Israel off the map" is a truncated translation of what the Muslim voices have expressed. It does not mean "off the face of the earth" or "eradicate" or "exterminate." Right to exist Hamas is often described as not believing in Israel's right to exist. It sounds so unreasonable. Everyone has a right to exist. But Israel is not a person, it's an entity. Try this on for size. Does Jewish occupied Palestine have a right to exist? Did French occupied Algeria have a "right to exist?" Algeria had a right to exist, and the French there had every right to exist, as a minority. And as we've seen with all former colonies, the majority population has an inclination to rise against its upper class oppressors. The west has of course the inclination to try to prop up those embattled regimes. Israel was a nation created in 1949, carved out of the land of the Palestinians to make a home for European Jews. Israel is regarded by many as a last example of colonialism. White settlers laying claim to the lands of another people. Now the Israelis are erecting a wall to separate themselves from the darker skinned Arabs. It's an apartheid wall, and we've seen apartheid before. The Boers of Dutch ancestry no longer rule South Africa because the world wouldn't stand for it. Israelis have as much right to exist as anyone, as the Boers for example, but they don't have a divine right to exist on the backs of their native brothers.   Israelis call it a "fence." To construct it required demolishing entire Palestinian neighborhoods, often separating Palestinian farmers from their fields and orchards.     Off the map When the Iranian president says he would like to wipe Israel off the map, he's not saying he wishes to kill anyone. He didn't say he wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, he's saying he'd like to see Israel off the map OF THE MIDDLE EAST! Ahmadinejad even suggested that Israel relocate itself to Europe. If Europeans feel so bad about the Holocaust which they inflicted upon the Jews, why shouldn't it fall to Europe to

The Ward Churchill problem

Why does Ward Churchill make everyone so upset? Let's see. He's advocating that what was done -what is still being done- to Native Americans be recognized as genocide., and he's being called a anti-semite because of it. Why? Well, because the jewish people suffered under the Holocaust and as recompense were given Palestine. And just like someone who's been granted maybe too special a favor, they have to make sure that no one else feels like they can begin lining up for similar treatment. For example, what if Native Americans, who may have suffered 100 million deaths under a systemic program of genocide, what if they decided that their religion had prophesied a return to their native lands, and that -out of guilt- the powers that be should grant them their holy lands, irrespective of who may be presently living there. There's an ugly untold story to the Holocaust. Six million jews died; not American jews, not for the most part wealthy jews, but the poor jews. And it is becoming known that world leaders knew about the German programs of extermination. There is doubt now that those jews who were not under threat of extermination may have known about what was happening to their poorer cousins. As unthinkable as was the Holocaust, why can we not stretch our mind to grasp the also unthinkable idea that deaths of millions of poor jews may have been expended to further the cause of Zionism, the notion of a jewish entitlement to the holy land. When there is talk of genocide in the Balkans or Africa or Southeast Asia or the Americas, Jewish scholars are always at the forefront of the argument against calling it genocide. To them it is some lesser-cide, and certainly no Holocaust. Because the Holocaust by their definition is the worst inhumanity to have been visited upon a people ever, past or future. The resistance to acknowledge genocide is particularly damnable when it comes to the UN trying to intercede and prevent it. After Bosnia, nations of the world passed a resolution that mandated their intercession in cases of genocide. Could anyone have imagined that their determination to take action would be stymied by having to bicker over the definition of genocide? The uninterrupted ethnic cleansing in the Sudan is the most recent tragic example. And so no other group of people may lay claim to being the victims of genocide, lest it detract from the genocide suffered by world jewry, lest anyone question the jewish claim, after a 2,000 year absence, to Palestinian lands. This is why Ward Churchill is so unpopular. And should be I suppose, if you are a zionist. May I say that I don't believe that I should be considered an anti-semite to say that by definition a Zionist is a bigoted, white-supremist jew. If you believe that the Israelis are the only qualified caretakers of Jerusalem, do you also believe that the white man has been the best custodian for the holy lands of the American continent's previous peoples?

COINTELPRO report presented to UN

Report presented to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in September 2001. Authored by Paul Wolf. COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story By Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert Boyle, Bob Brown, Tom Burghardt, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas Wilson, and Howard Zinn. Presented to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus attending the conference: Donna Christianson, John Conyers, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and Diane Watson, September 1, 2001. Table of Contents Overview Victimization COINTELPRO Techniques Murder and Assassination Agents Provocateurs The Ku Klux Klan The Secret Army Organization Snitch Jacketing The Subversion of the Press Political Prisoners Leonard Peltier Mumia Abu Jamal Geronimo ji Jaga Pratt Dhoruba Bin Wahad Marshall Eddie Conway Justice Hangs in the Balance Appendix: The Legacy of COINTELPRO CISPES The Judi Bari Bombing Bibliography Overview We're here to talk about the FBI and U.S. democracy because here we have this peculiar situation that we live in a democratic country - everybody knows that, everybody says it, it's repeated, it's dinned into our ears a thousand times, you grow up, you pledge allegiance, you salute the flag, you hail democracy, you look at the totalitarian states, you read the history of tyrannies, and here is the beacon light of democracy. And, of course, there's some truth to that. There are things you can do in the United States that you can't do many other places without being put in jail. But the United States is a very complex system. It's very hard to describe because, yes, there are elements of democracy; there are things that you're grateful for, that you're not in front of the death squads in El Salvador. On the other hand, it's not quite a democracy. And one of the things that makes it not quite a democracy is the existence of outfits like the FBI and the CIA. Democracy is based on openness, and the existence of a secret policy, secret lists of dissident citizens, violates the spirit of democracy. Despite its carefully contrived image as the nation's premier crime fighting agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has always functioned primarily as America's political police. This role includes not only the collection of intelligence on the activities of political dissidents and groups, but often times, counterintelligence operations to thwart

Top