History And Its Discontents

As y'all probably already know, if you're following this Cat's annual Book List & Review over at the sisterblog, we've been reading a lot of history over the past few years, and it has been extremely — extremely very — educational, indeed. We are shoved into schools, as children, not necessarily so much for the purposes of educating our eager young minds as to function as a sort of childcare-cum-penitentiary in which we are prepared for our future as obedient tools of the state. Learning to function in 50-minute segments, to slice-and-dice our attention into suitable spans, to absorb unquestioningly whatever the school system and our local school board shall deem it fit in their infinite lack of wisdom to shovel down our youthful throats.

No one questions this pablum, this feeding-tube of culture and knowledge that is piped directly into our veritable livers of learning, fattening us like those unfortunate foie-gras geese on things that mold our minds and early impressions, but travel under the radar, placing seeds in that fertile soil that are never questioned again.

Some of us are fortunate enough to be raised in homes that value education and the written word for its own benefits. But what about the hundreds of thousands of us who are lucky to complete twelve years of basic education, if that? Those individuals are wandering around with a worldview that is not even close to what those of us fortunate enough — or determined enough, or lucky enough — to educate ourselves further have developed.

Hell, even those of us who are educated better sometimes slip into the easy language of that early pablum. What have Americans been taught about the foundation of this country?

Tonight, PBS will be screening a documentary on General Custer, the stupid schmuck who has come down to us through the ages as the "hero" of "Custer's Last Stand." It's good to know that there are many white (and Black) Americans who have educated themselves on the true nature of this country's founding, and on the genocide of the Native tribes. But the local fishwrap carried a TV review column today by one Dave Weigand, who we must presume is an educated American. Educated sufficiently to find employ with the local fishwrap, in a time when nearly ten per cent of the nation's employable individuals are struggling to find employment. Here, for your enjoyment, are some gems from his recent review.

"After the war, Custer and his wife, Libbie, moved to Fort Riley, Kan., where Custer would head the 7th Cavalry as part of the government's effort to deal with the growing problem of Indians."

No, seriously. This is what passes for an educated reviewer's comment. What, exactly, does the writer mean by "the growing problem of Indians"? Were Indians suddenly becoming taller? Fatter? Experiencing a population explosion? The writer doesn't bother to explain what the term means. You, the reader, are left to figure it out for yourself, to ask your own questions, find out your own information, come to your own conclusions.

But this is a film/tv review, not a history examination or a job interview. We read movie reviews to be entertained, to be amused, to enjoy ourselves in a moment of leisure, slouched in our favourite chair. We're not going to bother to ask questions about what we're reading. So what do we do with this phrase, "the growing problem of Indians"? We file it away in our mental cabinets and the next time we're talking to someone or writing email or writing in our journals or blogs or FB walls, we might mention that "a growing problem with Indians" caused Custer's last stand. Suddenly, we've gone from being killed for killing other people and trying to steal their land to having "a growing problem with Indians" causing the death of an American hero. And this piece of information continues to colour anything we read or hear or see about Native Americans. We "know" that "the government" had a "growing problem" with "Indians." Even though we really don't know anything at all. No facts have been imparted to us, our store of knowledge about the Native people, or the white Americans of that day, the number of protagonists and antagonists, is richer by not one iota. Instead, what we have is an assumption that masquerades as fact. One of that family of statements that lives in the land of "Everyone knows" and "they say."

"While, in general, politicians in Washington hoped that the Indians could be contained, the sentiment in the West was to eradicate them, especially after gold was discovered in the Black Hills, on the Sioux reservation."

Again, we're not actually being given any information here. "In general" is a nice way of saying "I'm not going to tell you how many." Not that we need to know. And what does it mean, to "be contained"? Is that the same as being "killed"? Eradicated? Rounded up on reservations? Why not just admit that the Americans of the time longed to seize the land of the Native people? Because that IS what we're talking about, you know. It's not as if he doesn't say that exact thing in the very next sentence, either.

"As civilization advanced the frontier towards the Pacific ..."

This one got to me. The assumption that the greedy people who were simply looking for new frontiers to exploit,new forests to cut down, new natives to shoot and steal the land from, that these wretches and scoundrels and flim-flam men had any right to be seen as the forces of civilization, is nothing short of ridiculous, and outright offensive. Mind you, I'm not arguing the concept of the Noble Savage, here. The nobility, or lack thereof, on the part of the savage has no bearing whatsoever on the civilization or lack thereof of those who would exploit, rape, and murder him.

In short, Weigand appears to conclude that Custer was done in by "manifest destiny," without ever bothering to explain that "manifest destiny" is that doctrine that justifies the bloody imperialistic genocide of the Natives, the First Nations of this land, and the theft of their land, as well as the war with Mexico to take by force that land that now constitutes the whole of the present-day United States of America. I guess it sounds a lot less appealing to say that Custer died because he believed that Native Americans should be exterminated and their lands stolen by force. I can't imagine why.

Stumble It!

Indians Need To Ask "How Hateful Can American Conservatives Get?"

My, my, my. It would appear that the Wall Street Journal, under Rupert Murdoch's guidance, is determined to alienate any Indian readers thereof. Since a substantial number of Indians in America, especially those born and raised in India, tend to be very conservative, pro-Republican readers of the Wall Street Journal, I sincerely hope any of you reading this, who might have friends or in-laws or neighbours of the Indian persuasion, take this issue up with those benighted souls. I'm well aware that many Indians, especially of the educated class and wealthier class, did not much care for Gandhi (I, personally, have plenty of issues with the guy). But something this outrageous cannot be allowed to pass.

Unless, of course, Indians revel in the thought of being spat on by the likes of Andrew Roberts. In which case, what can we say, except "Carry on, doods."

As for Roberts himself, sheesh, the guy is a closet case if ever there was. What IS the conservative fascination with other people's sex lives, anyway? Doods, aren't you getting any? Because if you are, it's either not enough, or not kinky enough. Normal people don't sit around fantasizing about other people's sex lives, honest. Because normal people are too busy, as a rule, indulging in some healthy slap-and-tickle themselves to worry about whether anyone else is getting it on.

Normal people with normal sex lives and friends and families and jobs and homes to look after barely have enough time to brush their teeth and match their socks, on a given day. Most of the people I know who have partners and healthy rolls in the hay are too exhausted after a good healthy bout of sweaty rogering to give a shit whether someone else is getting any, and if so, of what variety. Shit! Fuck me blind if I give a good goddamn about whether anyone else is knocking boots, as long as I'm getting some sweet, hot, slippery between-the-sheets action.

So, Mr. Roberts? Your fellow conservatives are pretty damn kinky, whyn't you ask *them* for some pointers on getting your knob nibbled? You could try George "Rentboy" Rekers, for some hot young purchasable action. Mark Foley can give you some tips on staying out of jail if you cross the line between "young" and "actionably young." If you'd rather blame it on "teh CULLUD," try FL Republican Bob Allen. If you'd prefer to assault children of the female persuasion, upstanding Republican congressman, whoops, ex-congressman and felon, Ted Klaudt can give you some, uh, tips.

No? Too tame? Don't worry! Former conservative candidate for Republican governor of Georgia, Neal Horseley might be just the thing for you! Neal doesn't deny charges of bestiality, and is quick to point out that "everybody did it," while eying the closest mule. Then there's David "ShittyVitty" Vitter, the Republican Senator with a diaper fetish whose Madam mysteriously "committed suicide" after threatening to reveal her client list. You, too, could probably find a prostitute to powder your freshly diapered bottom, if you just want to swim in shit for a bit. If you'd rather dress up and cavort around with teenagers, contact this bright and shining Young Republican star.

But for the love of deity, you worthless fecking eejit, keep your grubby, shitstained paws off the people who have done *some* good for the world, unlike yourself. You know, as in, more good than you will ever do, you worthless flaccid rump-pumper.

Stumble It!

Happy Kamehameha Day!

Day late and a dollar (or more) short, as usual.

La Casa de Los Gatos and Ms. Manitoba and FoTPC (who rarely shows up anymore, dammit) would like to wish all our peeps a very happy Kamehameha Day.

King Kamehameha the Great is remembered, says Wikipedia, for:

the Mamalahoe Kanawai, Law of the Splintered Paddle, which protects human rights of non-combatants in times of battle.

How'dja like them apples, Dumbya-who-will-be-remembered-for-taking-a-crap-on-human-rights?

Stumble It!

International Women's Day

Today we celebrate International Women's Day and wish women everywhere success in all their endeavours. From its humble beginnings at the turn of the century, the commemoration of the struggle of women for basic human rights has grown into a truly international event.

Here, for your enjoyment and edification, we present snippets from famous speeches made on the status of women:

The laws given on Mount Sinai for the government of man and woman were equal, the precepts of Jesus make no distinction. Those who read the Scriptures, and judge for themselves, not resting satisfied with the perverted application of the text, do not find the distinction, that theology and ecclesiastical authorities have made, in the condition of the sexes. In the early ages, Miriam and Deborah, conjointly with Aaron and Barak, enlisted themselves on the side which they regarded the right, unitedly going up to their battles, and singing their songs of victory. We regard these with veneration. Deborah judged Israel many years—she went up with Barak against their enemies, with an army of 10,000, assuring him that the honor of the battle should not be to him, but to a woman.

------------------------------


When a boy arrives at the age of twelve or so, the parents consult as to the kind of education that shall best fit him for all the purposes of life, to enable him to become a useful, respectable, independent member of society; and in accordance with the knowledge and means of the parents, and the capacities of the boy, so do they direct his education to make him a farmer, mechanic, merchant, lawyer, doctor, or,if the boy is not bright enough for any of these callings or professions, then he is destined for the ministry. But for what purpose is the girl educated? Do parents ever direct the education of a daughter for any such purposes? Oh! no! The rich man's daughter is taught to dance, to play on the piano, to draw and paint, (which she sometimes practises on her own face,) to speak a little bad French, c., c., not for the intrinsic value and beauty of these accomplishments, but to attract, and ultimately catch a beau and get married; for no sooner is she married than these things are all laid aside as some idle things to be thought of no more.

[...]

The working classes educate their daughters in accordance with what would now be required of them-namely, to cook a dinner good enough for a poor man, darn his stockings, sew on buttons, c. Now these things are a very good in themselves; every girl ought to know them, and know them well, yet it is not enough for a healthy, happy, rational, intellectual life, but then it is all man now requires of woman. When he will look for higher and nobler mental accomplishments and powers, she will possess them.

[...]

It has been said, that "The voice of the People is the voice of God." If that voice is on the side of justice and humanity, then it is true, if the term God means the principle of Truth and of Right. But if the public voice is oppressive and unjust, then it ought to be spurned like the voice of falsehood and corruption; and woman, instead of implicitly and blindly following the dictates of public opinion, must investigate for herself what is right or wrong-act in accordance with her best convictions and let the rest take care of itself, for obedience to wrong is wrong itself, and opposition to it is virtue alike in woman as in man, even though she should incur the ill will of bigotry, superstition, and priestcraft, for the approval of our fellow-being is valuable only when it does not clash with our own sense of right, and no further.

---------------------


That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

----------------------------------


Men complain that woman does not love home now, that she is not satisfied with her mission. I answer that this discontent arises out of the one fact, that you have attempted to mold seventeen millions of human souls in one shape, and make them all do one thing. Take away your restrictions, open all doors, leave women at liberty to go where they will. As old Sojourner Truth said twenty years ago, at the first Women's Rights Convention in Ohio, "Leave them where God left them, with their inalienable rights," and they will adjust themselves to their convictions of their duties, their responsibilities, and their powers, and society will find harmony within itself. The caged bird forgets how to build its nest.

-----------------------------------


The opportunity now given us to make the experiment of self-government should be regarded by every American citizen as a solemn and a sacred trust. When we remember that a nation's life and growth and immortality depend on its legislation, can we exalt too highly the dignity and responsibility of the ballot, the science of political economy, the sphere of government?

[...]

When woman understands the momentous interests that depend on the ballot, she will make it her first duty to educate every American boy and girl into the idea that to vote is the most sacred act of citizenship—a religious duty not to be discharged thoughtlessly, selfishly or corruptly; but conscientiously, remembering that, in a republican government, to every citizen is entrusted the interests of the nation.

[...] nothing can check our future prosperity but a lack of virtue in the people. Let us not, like the foolish prodigal, waste our substance in riotous living, and, through ease, luxury and corruption, check the onward march of this western civilization. Our danger lies, not in the direction of despotism, in the one-man power, in centralization; but in the corruption of the people. Is it not enough to fill any true patriot with apprehension, to read the accounts in our daily journals of the wholesale bribery that unblushingly shows itself everywhere?

Women of America! Your foremothers were arrested, beaten, tortured, and killed to earn you the right to vote. Now is your chance to show them, at the ballot box and beyond, that they did not suffer in vain.

Whoever you vote for, make sure you exercise that hard-fought right. Keep a sharp eye on politicians at every level, city, state, and federal, to make sure that they are working for YOU, not their paymasters the corporate lobbyists. It's time to take back the country. For yourselves, and your loved ones. Because the politicians have all shown that they are not to be trusted, that they will sell you and your children and your children's children unto the nth generation for whatever they can get.

Only you can make it happen. Yes, you can.

Stumble It!

LGBTQ: Yay Denise Simmons!

PageOneQ, source of all news about the Queer Community, reports that the progressive city of Cambridge in Massachusetts has elected its first black and openly lesbian Mayor. Denise Simmons, a city Councilwoman since 2001, is the first black lesbian Mayor in the U.S.

We regard this with a mixture of pride and shame. We're proud that an American city regards competence as more important than a person's private business. If we had behaved that way during the last Presidential elections, we'd have something other than an anthropophagous troglodytish buffoon who can't talk in a straight line in charge of the country.

We're ashamed that it took so long for us to come this far, and that although we can apparently elect a black lesbian Mayor, we still quibble about electing a black President or Vice-President; and we still refuse to grant full equality to folk who happen to be queer, female, or black (or brown, for that matter).

And, to our disgrace, we have yet to elect a transgendered person as Mayor. Unlike the city of Cambridge in England. Ms. Simmons replaces former Mayor Ken Reeves, an openly gay black man.

However, this is a new and healthy trend. If we elect enough Councilmembers, Mayors, Governors, legislators, judges, school board members, and other administrative officials who are openly gay, perhaps we will eventually move towards granting queer (and female and black and brown) people full human rights.

Throwing the current administration of crooks, liars, and bigots out of office and replacing them with progressives like, oh, Dennis Kucinich, or John Edwards, or Barack Obama, or even Hillary Clinton (caveat: we don't consider her a progressive, but she's still an arm, a leg, and a beating heart better than any of the louts on the Republican side of the fence) as our next President would be a good start.

Stumble It!

World: Pakistan - The Beginning Of The End

Raw Story reports that "Islamic militants" overran Sararogha Fort in Pakistan, close to the Afghanistan border, killing seven soldiers. The military claims that, of troops in the fort, 20 are missing, while 15 managed to escape to another military outpost some 22 miles away.

Of course, the Pakistani military is famous for its assertions of success in the face of defeat. The veracity of the military and governmental spokesweasels is such that anyone betting money on them will be lucky to come home in a barrel, sans shoes, at that. The "Islamic militants," for example, could be resurgent Taliban. They could equally well be Balochs or Pathans in revolt against the hideous oppression that's been meted out to them for some three or four decades. Oppression that has intensified recently, as witnessed by clashes in Balochistan.

In a poignant quote, the reporter states about the military spokesweasel's announcements:

It was not immediately possible to verify the army's claim that 50 attackers died in the assault; in the past the rebels have given much lower figures for their own casualties.

With the recent expulsion of an American journalist, it appears other writers must be more circumspect than to outright call the various apparatchiki liars, as such.

Now Musharraf's spokesweasels announce that he is leaving soon on a trip:

... Pakistan's Foreign Ministry announced Musharraf will travel next week to Belgium, France, Switzerland and Britain to meet with European leaders and attend the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

Meanwhile religious extremist and corrupt tinpot Nawaz Sharif waits in the wings. Sharif's primary claim to fame is that he made Pakistan a nuclear power. That should be real reassuring to the idiots in the West who schemed and plotted and pushed Benazir Bhutto into returning to Pakistan so she could be assassinated, even as they propped up their good friend and "gentleman" Pervez Musharraf to the tune of billions of dollars.

A pertinent quote about Sharif's relationship with Musharraf:

There was personal bad blood between General Musharraf and Mr Sharif, added Hussain. The President was angered that Mr Sharif once refused to allow his plane with 200 other passengers on board to land, until it was forced to make an emergency landing with five minutes of fuel left: while Mr Sharif resented General Musharraf for ousting him from power and throwing him into jail.

Will Musharraf suffer the same fate as other unpopular heads of state who have been deposed in absentia?

Pakistan's fractured condition is the definitive pronouncement on Bush's failures in foreign policy.

Stumble It!

Bringing Democracy to Wounded Knee

Image from http://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistorydecember.htm

Here's what the column "2day in History" in today's Oakland Tribune says:

In 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took place in South Dakota as an estimated 300 Sioux Indians were killed by U.S. troops sent to disarm them.

Well, that's kind of a sanitized description of what happened. And, yes, there's disagreement about what happened. But here are some things that aren't mentioned and are agreed upon:

• The troops were sent to disarm AND move the Sioux to Omaha, Nebraska.
• It's not agreed what started the shooting. Some say it started with the Indians; others say it was the soldiers. But what is agreed is that chaos and cruelty followed. It left 290 Sioux men, women, and children dead. Approximately 25 soldiers were killed and historians agree that most of these were killed from "friendly fire."
• The soldiers fired on non-combatants.

Can you imagine yourself raising your rifle and aiming at an unarmed woman or a child ... perhaps many children? And your comrades are doing the same thing?

Stumble It!