We've Met this Bully Before
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 06-26-2004 - 6:33am |
On the Verge:
We've Met This Bully Before
It's impossible not to be disgusted and outraged by the images of Iraqi prisoners forced to simulate sex acts, led around on a leash, handcuffed with underpants over their faces, and otherwise tortured by grinning U.S. military personnel. But frankly, it's also impossible to be surprised.
If I was surprised at anything, it was the insistence by politicians and pundits that they were, to borrow a Bush-administration phrase, shocked and awed that Americans could act in such a manner. Clearly history, congressional inquiries, and reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on abusive conditions endured by U.S. prisoners at home and abroad have had zero impact. For too many of the powerful in this country, the treatment of black and brown people isn't an issue until, as in the photographs from Abu Ghraib, technology makes the truth unavoidable.
I'm not a politician or a pundit; I'm Black in America. I've seen the tapes of the 1991 beating of Rodney King by members of the LAPD. I haven't forgotten the 1997 torture of Abner Louima by members of the NYPD, who forced a broken broomstick up his rectum. I've known enough people who were or are in prison to be clear that the humiliation and abuse of suspects and prisoners is as American as apple pie.
Such treatment, especially of people of color, has been going on in U.S. jails and prisons for as long as those institutions have existed--and before that, during slavery. Sexual abuse and humiliation, rape, beatings, the use of snarling dogs? Sounds familiar, whether you're talking about the maintenance of slavery in the 18th century or the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Black people in the 21st. (It should also come as no surprise that at least one of those charged in Iraq is a former prison guard.)
So, too, the leering, almost joyful faces of the army personnel as they pose, sometimes thumbs up, with those they torture should sicken and enrage, but not surprise, us. Take a look at the animated expressions of spectators at the lynching of Black Americans, or the snarling crowds participating in the humiliation of civil rights workers during the 1950s and '60s, or the smug police officers acquitted of brutal acts in recent years.
There are reports that military personnel refer to those brown people detained in Iraq and Afghanistan as "sand niggers." Surely, as African-Americans, we should be in the vanguard of those outraged by what is occurring both overseas and at home. We should then turn our outrage into action and get even by voting (a right for which many of our people were also tortured and killed) President George Bush out of office in November.
Of course, according to the current spin, higher-ups had nothing to do with what occurred. The Bush administration would have us believe that its disregard of the Geneva conventions in treating those it chooses to define as "stateless" hasn't created an atmosphere in which torture can flourish. We are similarly expected to accept that the commander in chief's contempt for virtually every other country as well as the United Nations has not fostered a sense of arrogance, abuse, and impunity that we see reflected on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not buying it. Just as when that curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz to unmask a scared, imperious bully, I can see that behind the rhetoric of lofty goals and the razzmatazz of military might is a pathologically secretive, mean predator with a frightening thirst for oil and world domination.
What's especially infuriating is when Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and others in this awful administration insist that somehow, when it comes to Americans, actions don't speak louder than words--that what we see isn't really who we are but, rather, a rare glimpse at aberrant individuals. These politicians express dismay at the photographs coming out of Iraq as if they were merely a small inconvenience in pursuit of the greater good. But there is no greater good in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Forget the double-talk. And actions, as most of us have known since we were children, speak louder than words.
Were you surprised to hear about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel? Do you think the behavior depicted in the photographs represents the actions of a few "bad apples," the policy of our current administration, or our national character? Share your perspective in the comments section below.
--Jill Nelson is the author of Straight, No Chaser: How I Became a Grown-Up Black Woman (Penguin USA; $12.95). Her first novel, Sexual Healing (Agate; $23.95), is on sale now. Nelson's NiaOnline column, On the Verge, appears semimonthly

Pages
Ordinary Iraqis killed: 11,500 and not counting:
America and Britain have not only declined to count the number of
civilians killed, but have obstructed any attempts to discover the
total. The Iraqi Health Ministry tried to collect data on deaths
several months ago, but was ordered to stop.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=523991
======================
Charley Reese: Better To Be Children:
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040517/index.php
We would do better if, instead of being sheep and complacently
accepting the words of politicians as edicts from God, we were like
children who always ask that innocent question, "Why?"
Over and over we hear the statement "The United States cannot afford
to fail in Iraq." Even John Kerry says that.
Well, why? What bad things will happen to the American people if we
told the Iraqis: "We knocked off your dictator. Here's a check for
what's left of the $18 billion to cover the damage we did. Goodbye
and good luck"?
And in the interest of the debate we never had when President George
Bush took us to war under false pretenses (we must disarm Saddam,
remember?), what will happen if we stay? It costs us nearly $5
billion a month, you know. And, more importantly, American lives, day
in and day out, are lost. Perhaps both Kerry and Bush should answer
the younger Kerry's famous question: "How do you order a man to be
the last man to die for a mistake?"
Going to war was a mistake. The answer to that other political
question, "Aren't we better off with Saddam in prison?" is no. The
Iraqi people are — or at least will be if they can ever get us off
their backs. But the American people are worse off. We've lost blood
and treasure and credibility. There is more terrorism, not less,
directed at us and our allies. The Middle East is in turmoil. North
Korea and probably Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. The budget is
out of whack, and our civil liberties are threatened.
All this was to disarm a man who had already disarmed and was no
threat to us. Incidentally, I haven't heard anyone apologize to the
Iraqis for calling them liars every time they said — truthfully, it
turns out — that they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.
It's true that if we withdraw there might be a civil war. On the
other hand, there might not be. Either way, it's no skin off our
nose. It seems clear to me that it would better for us if the Iraqis
were shooting each other rather than all of them shooting at us,
which is likely to be the outcome of further wearing out our already-
threadbare welcome.
But to suppose that the Iraqis cannot govern themselves unless we set
up their government for them is, of course, racist and patronizing.
Besides, wanting to establish democracy in Iraq is another lie. What
we want is a puppet government that will give us permanent military
bases, not mess with the contracts the occupational government has
already handed out, make peace with Israel and reopen the oil
pipeline to Haifa, Israel.
The Iraqi people are not stupid. Their civilization is lot older than
ours. They know exactly what the game is. That they will go along
with this scheme is another grossly mistaken assumption by the
ideologues in the White House and at the Pentagon.
It's also claimed that if we leave prematurely, Iraq will become a
haven for terrorists. That's not likely. The Sunnis and the Kurds
have no great love for al-Qaida, and al-Qaida hates the Shiites. Once
we exit, I predict that life spans will grow exceedingly short for
any leftover terrorists.
But, the politicians say, we have to establish security. Well, my
grandmother's doily — we've been there a year and have failed
miserably to establish security. What makes the gods on the Potomac
believe that we will suddenly be successful in the future? The fact
is, the Iraqis, if left to themselves, can probably establish
security much more quickly than we ever could. They have had zilch
experience with democracy but lots and lots of experience with
security.
The American people ought to wake up and realize that maintaining a
world empire with the dopes and nerds we have elected is impossible
and can lead only to national ruin. Running our own country is job
enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Gilad Atzmon
May 30th 2004
http://www.gilad.co.uk
Now the Iraqis are truly liberated..... Some of them have been lucky
enough to practice the most advanced forms of western bondage
practice. Those Iraqis could never even dream of the possibility
before the blessed American came and opened their minds. This is what
liberation is all about. Toppling Sadam was just an excuse. From its
very beginning, it was all about introducing the Arab people to the
advance and beauty of American female domination and general S&M.
As matter of fact I am pretty confused and not just because of these
images.
I have seen worse. I do find it pathetic that no one has yet come up
publicly, to confront us all with the obvious fact that, at the
centre of images of torture of Iraqi detainees, we find young females
in uniform. The image of a giggling female soldier pointing at the
pines of naked hooded prisoners is, no doubt, a novelty. In our
western wars, women in uniform always had kept the most precious
position. They were providing the fighting men with care, love, mercy
and calmness. In their white nursing uniforms they were often
described as an instance of sanity and humanity in the midst of a
masculine flesh-mincing machine. Not anymore, under the command of Mr
Donald Rumsfeld, Private Lindy England and her comrade, Specialist
Sabrina Harman are serving as angels of death. Women in the American
army have a new role, they are providing the enemies of America with
sexual humiliation. They are providing all of us with the ultimate
pornographic image of war.
Let's face it, Private England didn't invent the notion of sexual
abuse. Abuse has been here since time began. More than one victorious
army celebrated its triumphant moment raping the defeated nation.
Usually it was women who were the first to pay the price. We all know
about Nazi platoons who brutally raped Soviet women all the way to
Stalingrad. Soviet soldiers were not different when arriving on
German soil. American GIs did it in Nam, Serbs did it in Kosovo.
Apparently war is a horny event. The confrontation with death and
blood leads the active participants towards a vivid and extreme
realisation of the notion of life. More than a few London grannies
would enthusiastically share their hot juicy blitz tales. Apparently,
the engagement with young fireman in action, as well as young off
duty American pilots, turned WW2 Britain into an explosive libidinal
setting. War, as it appears, has some positive erotic connotations.
But yet, `strategic sexual humiliation' is very new to us all.
Moreover, it seems to be a `well orchestrated' new American
doctrine. The Americans have always proved to be innovative in
introducing evil strategies and destructive weapons. If they do
something they do it big. But yet, it is hard to realise how they got
so far this time. Thinking about the subject in military terms leaves
me pretty puzzled. The story of 20th century wars does not provide us
with any sort of historical background relating to tactical sexual
humiliation. I cannot recollect images of naked Soviet soldiers
sexually abused, neither by sporadic female SS officers nor by male
Panzer platoons. We can neither remember any form of such abuse
conducted by any Allied soldiers. True, Jews where stripped of their
clothes before they where pushed into gas chambers but again those
scenes had nothing sexual, erotic or pornographic in them, just a
devastating practice.
No doubt, these new American images are a complete revelation; and
yet no one points out that we might be confronting an unprecedented,
new image. No one points out that it is a female soldier at its very
centre. No one dare say that the notion of femininity might have gone
through a serious metamorphosis. We might confront here a newly
devastating feminine role and yet hardly anyone stops to reflect
about it loudly. This is probably the beauty of political
correctness. Willingly, we are becoming slightly blind; imposing on
ourselves a form of foolishness. It is a cheerfulness that is
coupled with stupidity. This very idiocy is the ultimate condition
of the post colonial western democracy. We would politely blame Blair
and Bush for dragging us into wars; we will democratically protest in
the centres of our big cities; we would raise questions about WMD;
but we will turn a blind eye to the evident fact that the women
around us, the core of our innermost libidinal desires, might change
their spots. Somehow, they appear to be far more cruel than we have
ever pretended to acknowledge.
***
It took more than a while for Women's Groups to generate enough
pressure to persuade orthodox Generals to allow their young sisters
to become combatant soldiers. Those resistant orthodox Generals were
always repeating the same laconic silly argument. A female soldier,
they used to say, would confront some severe risks of sexual abuse
when falling into enemy hands. In fact, they where completely wrong,
it is very much the other way around. It is the male POWs who find
themselves bare, naked, confronting relentless humiliation in the
hands of those young enthusiastic armed ladies who entertain the joy
of power beyond any recognised measure.
Using those orthodox General's arguments, it would make sense to
argue that men should be left out of the battlefield just to save
them from the chance that they would fall in the hands of devoted
female combatants. As it appears, both Private England and Specialist
Harman enjoy the colour of war to the very limit. It might be that
those Women's Groups were right all the way through. Women are far
more qualified for the battlefield. Men tend to complain all the
time, some of them prove to be cowards when asked to kill. It is more
than likely that we should leave wars for women, for sure the food in
the front lines will improve a lot.
***
But the issue is slightly more complicated. Since, one should agree,
that the sudden appearance of sexual humiliation in military life is
a real novelty, we should ask ourselves what really went wrong?
I can think of two possible answers:
1. That American society is going through a severe process of
moral and intellectual regression. Sexual humiliation of Iraqi
detainees is just a single symptom.
2. The introduction and presence of the female combatant in the
firing zone turned the battlefield into a theatre of erotic
domination.
The former is pretty obvious; America is going through a rapid
process of moral and intellectual deterioration. The fact that
America is the last country on earth to back Israel is enough to
prove that something has gone dramatically wrong on the other side
of the Atlantic. But again, leaving the Zionists aside, it is clear
that the war in Iraq is involved with more than one immoral aspect.
Actually, it is pretty impossible to find anything moral about it.
For more than a while we are facing an endless stream of
pornographic images. To start with real-time images of mass
destruction and murder of innocent civilians - and to end with
explicit images of brutal sexual abuse. The Internet is flowing with
images of Iraqi women being raped by American GIs. Many of those
images have now been found to be forged. They were commercially made
just to satisfy the thirsty American market demands. The brutal rape
of a defeated nation is transformed in Bush's America into
hard-on-cash. This is no doubt a new form of a collective
masturbation.
But we do not have to go that far. The genuine photos of abused Iraqi
POWs that where shown repeatedly all over the American media say it
all. While most American commentators appear to express deep disgust,
we have a good reason to suspect their honesty. Dr. Susan Block, the
American sex therapist says in an article about the subject that many
of her clients "will say something to disgust them at first, only to
confess a few sessions later that it really turns them on" (Bush's
POW Porn, Dr. Susan Block , Counterpunch 14.5.04). While Block was
referring in her article solely to Bush, I would suggest we attribute
her diagnosis to the entire, allegedly devastated American media, and
the political world. America is full of contrasts: on the one hand,
an extremely conservative society and deeply sexually oppressed, but
on the other hand, it has the biggest porn industry and by far the
wildest one. In that very sense America, a place conceived on
opposites, these images serves as a snap shot of some very
devastating reality. I would say, a glimpse into the
Lacanian `Real'. A gaze at the reality of brutally deteriorating
society. An explosive image of volatile sexual domination. This
reality is so terrifying and hard to acknowledge, that most of us,
both men and women, cannot even articulate it verbally.
The later option is leading towards even further complications. The
fact that females, when protected with power, expose a completely new
form of sexual domination and abusive practice is rather alerting.
First, we have to ask ourselves whether we were mislead all those
years, assuming that our beloved women are caring and loving. If this
is the case, if women are in fact wild, brutal creatures, we must
believe that the female peaceful image we were so used to was just a
camouflage, or might even be a conspiracy. If women are brutal and
monstrous we must assume that the very attractive image of them, soft
and caring, is a direct outcome of the male patriarchal society. Now
that women are liberated we can see what they really are. While a
confrontation with the odd militant separatist feminist might
support such a wild assumption, being surrounded with men-loving
women makes it hard to take such an option seriously. As a matter
of fact, here I want to declare: women are generally great, we love
them all, in every shape and colour. Also, it appears, I am failing
to produce an argument. True, but then, after seeing Private England
in action I prefer to be on the safe side. The last thing I need is
to have the feminist women coming up against me and cutting off my
testicles in the middle of the night.
Another way around the loophole raised by Private England et al. is
to assume that there is something pretty particular about those
strange women who join the armed forces in the first place. I think
that many would agree that there is something unique about those
women who want to be 'man'. I myself find it bizarre, mainly
because `man' is a pretty vague concept. Most men do not have a clue
what being man means, they simply can't be bothered. All we know
about ourselves is that we like cars and computers. By the time
we know how to entertain women our biology turns against us. From
that stage, more or less, we are just running down the slope. We
usually enjoy the down-hill journey, mainly because our female
counterparts become sexually frustrated. Women are very amusing when
defeated by their desires. By the time our women buy their first pair
of stockings we are too tired to keep our eyes open after ten o'clock
news. It is great fun being in the centre of the desire of the other
without being able to do anything about it. Giving our pathetic
condition, thinking of all those young women who want to be us, is
really ridiculous. I assume that those poor militants, tom boys
probably, hold a rigorous, deloused, picture of what man is all
about. Mistakenly they endorse an awkward vision of man as a brutal
and violent creature while in fact, we are deeply romantic.
As we know, in most cases the impersonated version is far more
extreme than the real McCoy. Those kind of tragic amplified
misinterpretations can easily lead towards an radical strengthening
of evilness. It is typical for marginal political movements to fall
into this very trap. Zionism exceeded, far beyond most political
movements of its time, in its interpretation of the notion of
Nationalism. The result is devastating. A notorious bloodthirsty
nationalistic society entirely occupied with daily murder of
Palestinian civilians. Militant separatist feminists are no different
at all. Like the Zionist they went too far in their demand for rights
and equality. Unlike Zionist they are yet to assassinate their
opponents. When one is stressing the importance of equality, the
image of equality is often replaced with a claim for supremacy and
even an appetite for hegemony.
In general most marginal political movements fail on this very
particular issue. In the long run those opposing tendencies leads
towards a clear intensification of unbearably vulgar behaviour. I
assume that Private England fail right there. She tried to be a man,
but found herself exercising a brutal amplified version of her
original prototype. We must admit that we have never seen a
photographic image of a male soldier standing staring at a naked
hooded woman, ridiculing the shape of her clitoris. It might be the
right time for women to ask whether being man-like is a very clever
choice. But yet, we should give some justice to Private England and
Specialist Harman. We should mention that they were not acting
alone; as a matter of fact they were surrounded by perplexed men,
who very much like these two women tried to pretend to be men. Not
that hard to understand, since it is almost impossible for one to
impersonate oneself. In a social environment, where women are
supposed to be "as man", men tend to forget what "man" ought to be.
***
So now the Iraqis are truly liberated. They all know what America
stands for. But then who is going to liberate the American people?
Who is going to sustain those women who want to be men? Who is going
to save the man who wants to be a man? Private England is probably
sorted, we shouldn't worry about her, for the type of services she
gave in Iraq for free she can make a fortune in down town Manhattan.
In the end of the day America is all about money.
God save America. Because if it is down to the Americans they don't
have much time left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I must say though that Jill Nelson is known as a bit of an American basher and a liberal-radical from way back. Americans hardly have a monopoly on bad behaviour during wartime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We certainly have our flaws as a country but in many ways, many Americans are also generous, decent and civilized people. To stereotype and generalize Americans, or American soliders as thugs and bullies as a matter of course is a bit much.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And I personally don't believe the majority of American soliders are sadistic. That is not excusing any bad behaviour by some of our soliders, but I've known too many decent American military veterans to assume that they are mostly bad people. I don't believe that, nor do I believe everything our government has done overseas is bad. I believe some of our overseas activity was probably justified and necessary.
Many honorable American soliders died fighting brutal Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. Americans also have created the Peace Corp, contributed food giveaways to poor countries, provided disaster relief to poor countries, and there are numerous American based charities that contribute worldwide. America has plenty wrong with it but much right with it as well.
I felt I needed to state this, to put some balance and proportion to this thread.
America, and Americans need to correct our flaws when possible but don't stereotype or generalize us as a bad society. I just don't buy that.
Edited 6/28/2004 12:47 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/28/2004 12:50 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/28/2004 12:51 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/28/2004 12:54 am ET ET by bayareajay
By Marty Logan
The Final Call
May 24, 2004
UNITED NATIONS (IPS/GIN) - The policy was to "kill the Indian and
keep the man."
The aim of a boarding school system established by U.S. officials in
the 19th century was to assimilate Native American children into the
dominant White society, speakers told a panel discussion at the UN
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on May 12.
That meant forbidding their languages, clothing, hair styles—their
culture, in fact—using as much violence as was needed, they said.
And now they are demanding restitution on their own terms.
"Under international human rights law, the U.S. is still accountable
for any continuing effects," which include the loss of indigenous
languages and the violence that today permeates many Indian
communities, said Andrea Smith from the University of Michigan at Ann
Arbor.
She and other women have started the Boarding School Healing Project
(BSHP), which has four main goals: heal the schools' victims; educate
people about the attempted genocide of the Native American; document
how that process worked, and build a movement that will demand
compensation from the U.S. government.
The residential school system began with president Ulysses Grant's
1869 "Peace Policy" and continued well into the 20th century, taking
100,000 Native American children from their homes to live and study
in Christian boarding schools.
Students, as young as two years of age, were placed in the schools
until the age of 18, many returning home speaking a different
language (English) than when they left. Many were also physically and
sexually abused.
"Some of my peers committed suicide, some drank themselves to death,
some died violent deaths. They don't know how many were abused, but
one thing we know: the oppressed became the oppressors when they
returned home," said one former student quoted in a short film about
a similar school system established in Canada on the U.S. model.
Among its impacts, the boarding school system in both countries
implanted forms of violence in native communities that still exact a
high cost today, said speakers at the UN.
"Sometimes I have to say I'm sorry to my children, because I have
behaved in the way the missionaries, the education of the residential
schools, made us," said Eulynda Benalli of the Crownpoint Institute
of Technology on the Navajo Nation in the U.S. state of New Mexico.
Among their impacts, the boarding schools replaced traditional
practices performed by women with patriarchal systems, which led to
the "devaluing of native women in our communities," said Ms. Smith.
The chairman of the Permanent Forum told the opening session of the
annual meeting that Indigenous men worldwide must do more to stem
domestic violence and ensure gender equality in their communities.
"Indigenous cultures rely on gender complementarity, a symbiosis that
values both women's and men's business, that affirms both with
respect and balance," added Ole Henrik Magga.
The Permanent Forum, the only full-time UN body devoted to indigenous
issues, meets until May 21, and focuses this year on Indigenous women.
During the two-week session, its 16 members will hear dozens of
submissions on human rights, environment, education, culture,
economic and social development and health, from some 1,500 delegates.
An advisory body only, the forum's recommendations will go to the UN
Economic and Social Council, which will decide which will be
forwarded to September's General Assembly of all UN member states.
While the Boarding School Healing Project is just starting, a group
of indigenous people on Canada's west coast have nearly finished an
eight-year process to help heal their communities.
The native people of Haida Gwaii, officially known as the Queen
Charlotte Islands, have repatriated the remains of more than 400 of
their ancestors who were stolen from their graves for study in the
19th and 20th centuries and then stored in museums throughout North
America and beyond.
The Haida, who number about 4,000 people on their islands off the
coast of British Columbia, taught students to make blankets
and "bentwood" boxes from the cedar trees of their temperate
rainforests for each set of remains, which were then buried in a
special ceremony, the most recent on May 8.
After contact with White settlers, many Haida were sent to
residential schools, while their land, sometimes called the "Canadian
Galapagos" for its unique flora and fauna, was logged and mined
without their permission.
"Germ warfare" nearly wiped out a population that may have reached
30,000 at one point in the past, says Andy Wilson of the Haida
Repatriation Committee. The 1915 census counted just 588 Haida.
Repatriation "was a way to say, `were not taking this any more and
anything that you took from us, we're here to take back.'" Someone
said at the May 8 burial ceremony, talking about the repatriation
committee, that all the respect and honor they showed the ancestors
helped start the healing.
Ms. Smith said the BSHP would discuss how to take the United States
to account for the continuing damage to Indigenous communities caused
by the boarding schools. The options include approaching the school
system as a violation of international human rights or as a legal
wrong, to be put right in a U.S. court.
Unlike in Canada, though, the group will not recommend that
individuals receive compensation from the government. "We want to
approach this from a sovereignty framework, because what has happened
has happened to us as a whole people," Ms. Smith said.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1431.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------
That's why the Indians will never recieve reparations. In fact in many states the governments are trying to get Indians to pay higher taxes on their casino and entertainment complex earnings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You should see some of the Native Indians in my hometown of Minneapolis. The casino Indians drive porsches and live in mansions.
And most of these wealthy casino Indians do next to nothing to help the Indians who are still poor.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If the wealthy Indians don't care about their own people, it is very difficult to get anyone else to care about them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I might also add that most Americans had nothing to do with the killing of Indians, nor did our ancestors. Most of our ancestors were poor peasant and working class immigrants who moved to American cities and towns to find work.
------------------------------------------------
The "make Americans feel guilt about the Indians", that old routine, won't work nowadays.
Nice try though.
Edited 6/29/2004 12:59 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/29/2004 1:00 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/29/2004 1:02 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/29/2004 1:06 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/29/2004 1:09 am ET ET by bayareajay
Edited 6/29/2004 1:11 am ET ET by bayareajay
Only a portion of the Indian tribes are actually making money from casino's. I would not say most.
-- That's why the Indians will never recieve reparations. In fact in many states the governments are trying to get Indians to pay higher taxes on their casino and entertainment complex earnings.
I don't know if they have to pay any taxes as they are on Indian Reservation land. If someone has the legal answer, that would be a big help, but if I am not mistaken, in CT, the money that the state gets from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are not from taxes but from money that the tribes have agreed to pay the state for allowing the casino's to be built. Again I am not certain, but I thought that is what I read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say the majority of Indians are rich off of casinos, but a substantial number are. Also there is a small but growing Indian middle class. Native Americans are in much better shape now, on average, than they were. I doubt they will get reparations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt Blacks will get reparations either. In the case of Blacks, there are simple too many of them in America, they are 12% of the population. The rest of the population I'm sure are not willing to pay higher taxes to hand Blacks reparation money, especially since most of our ancestors were working class immigrants, not slave owners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese-Americans got some relatively small reparations for the W.W.II internment camps and loss of their property during that peroid, but the Japanese are a very small group in America, just a fraction of one percent. It didn't cost much to give them their small reparations.
I have never noticed any similar kind of reasoning "If the wealthy Indians don't care about their own people, it is very difficult to get anyone else to care about them." to non-native peoples. In fact, there is a definite tendency amongst the non-native community that people want to hold onto their money, to avoid paying taxes or at least pay a lot less taxes, especially if they are wealthy. Do you ever hear "the rich white people should share their wealth"?
Do some actual research into the subject and you'll find that native peoples, all across North America, have the highest unemployment, poorest education, poorest health care, highest birth mortality rates, poorest dental care...they rank at the bottom on every health issue. The problem is systemic.
Walk into any native cemetery and count the number of child graves.
Your finger of shame is pointing in the wrong direction.
Thanks for clearing up the taxation issue. I thought that I remembered it correctly.
Pages