Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:48:01 -0700
From: Andre Cramblit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pay Attention To History (Yellow Bird Musings)
DORREEN YELLOW BIRD COLUMN: Abuses of the present recall atrocities of
the past
As pictures of the Iraqi prisoners unfolded across the nation like some
salacious sex or sadomasochism magazine, the public is appalled and
dumbfounded.
Not in America or by Americans, people say. But that's not true. We, in
this country, have a history of killing for selfish and misguided
reasons. A few days ago in heated conversation about the Iraqi prisoner
abuses, I couldn't help but drift to an image of the massacre at Sand
Creek on Nov. 29, 1864. Five hundred to 600 Cheyenne and Arapaho were
killed by U.S. soldiers. Many of the victims were children or women. The
soldiers scalped some of the victims. The men knocked the brains out of
babies, and many women were cut into pieces and their bodies mutilated.
Correspondence from the massacre report that women's private parts were
taken from dead bodies and carried into Denver for a gory "show and
tell." The trophies were greeted with cheers and praise by the community.
Col. John M. Chivington, commander of the unit that attacked the
Cheyenne and Arapaho, said this was an act of duty to themselves and to
civilization. Chivington and his troops felt justified in killing
innocent woman and children because the community thought of Native
people as savages - people who stood in the way of their way of life. So
renegade warriors in that region retaliated by attacking settlers,
killing and scalping them.
From reports, we now know the Native people at Sand Creek were
innocent. They were living where the military told them they should
live. John Smith, a U.S. Indian interpreter and special Indian agent,
also lived with them. His testimony before Congress gave a vivid account
of the massacre.
In the wars between the Native people and white soldiers, the U.S.
troops had the advantage with more men and guns. When the tribes
defended their land and retaliated to protect themselves, the military
responded with force.
These people - the Native tribes - had offended them. So awful acts such
as the Sand Creek massacre seemed justified. These people, after all,
were "savages," as they were called by the government.
Has this kind of thinking pervaded some of American troops? The soldiers
in this war constantly are reminded of the Sept. 11 attack, in which
more than 3,000 people were killed. One of the barracks at the Abu
Ghraib prison is named after a firefighter who died in that attack. Did
the guards put the face of the attackers of the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon on the Iraqis they detained?
During a Minnesota Public Radio broadcast Monday, a caller, responding
to a conversation about the "abuses" in the Iraqi prison, said this is
war. To get information about further attacks, this is the way it is
done and the United States shouldn't have to apologize.
Hmm, I thought. I wonder what kind of information they gleaned from the
female prisoner while they were raping her?
Treating your fellow man with justice and dignity is something we should
have learned from the past atrocities committed against Native
Americans. Those who have the authority and control need to be vigilant
and remember these are our fellow men, regardless of the color of their
skin.
If full attention isn't given to what happened at the Iraqi prison Abu
Ghraib, the effects on America may be devastating. This administration
needs to pay attention to history.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:13:01 -0700
From: Andre Cramblit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: R We = (Yellow Bird Musings)
DORREEN YELLOW BIRD COLUMN: All people are created equal -- or are they?
On June 19, 1964, just 40 years ago, Congress passed the Civil Rights
Act. The Act gave some very simple rights to all people. Strangely,
these rights were prominently featured in the Declaration of
Independence of the thirteen colonies way back on July 4, 1776. The
words are: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights ..."
And then, it seems, people gave their own interpretation to these words
that perhaps some men are more equal than others.
It seems, in this age, where our footprints can be seen in the desert
sands of the Middle East, snowdrifts of Siberia or the lush forest of
Africa, these words should hold more meaning for all people.
The Civil Rights Act was one of President John F. Kennedy's legacies to
our nation. It wasn't easy to get the act through Congress, with an
especially difficult fight with legislators from the South. It was the
mastery of parliamentary procedure of President Lyndon B. Johnson who
finally got the bill signed July 2, 1964.
As I read and reread the act, some parts amazed me. All people,
including ethnic people, shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of places and activities. They are such simple words that we
take for granted today. Were they really necessary 40 years ago?
From conversation with my older brother, who fought in the Korean
conflict in 1950, I learned there was a whole different world outside
North Dakota. Neither of my brothers talked much about their war
experiences - the other brother fought in Vietnam. My older brother told
me of his experiences in boot camp in a city in the South. He said black
people were treated like animals. He remembered an incident where a
black soldier was killed or murdered because of his race. It was
shocking to that North Dakota soldier.
When the soldiers who were training were allowed to go to town, my
brother was surprised to find that restaurants were divided into white
and colored sections with big signs on the doors. Water fountains and
bathrooms were the same way. He could go to either side of the
restaurant - he was brown, he told me. He opted to sit on the colored
side of the restaurant.
When he came back from the military, I was wide-eyed when he told his
stories about whites and colored people. In North Dakota, there were few
black people and on the reservation, the only discrimination or poor
treatment usually came from the federal government and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and usually because of their ineptness.
The periphery of the reservation and reservation towns was a different
story. There was racism.
Things have changed for the better for Native people. I agreed with some
of my colleagues about that, but it is not all that great, I tried to
tell them. There still is discrimination; maybe it's whispered, but it
still is there.
As I reread the Civil Rights Act, "All persons shall be entitled to the
full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages ...," I also realized that doesn't seem to include gay
people. Gender discrimination isn't included in the act. Consider the
number of people who have been murdered - one hanged on a fence in
Wyoming - merely because they were gay. Consider, too, those who have
been beaten and certainly ostracized because of their sexual preference.
Recently, two men were not allowed to receive communion in their church
where they were longtime members. I guess that crosses the line from the
state to church, but it seems unbelievable and short-sighted of people
who are ancestors of people who wrote and supported the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution and those who conceived and fought for
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In this month of June, the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Civil
Rights Act, it seems we need to take another hard look at those wise
words " ... all men are created equal" and not some are more equal
