h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Packing heat?

Wow, I heard it was cold in Canada, but I never knew you had to buy your heat pre-packed.

Gif

It's looking pretty good.

A very good piece I think that has gone through quite a lot of review and revision and such already.

First, we have heard all the excuses about how boys were just being boys or whatever. That boys on both sides were just being boys as well. But some of those boys made treaties that they subsequently failed to honor. That is the crux of the issue.

It doesn't matter if the Lakota drove anyone from the Black Hills. It matters that the Unites States government in an effort to get relief and mercy from the Lakota, made a treaty in 1868 ratified by the Senate of the United States of America and therefore carrying the same authority as the law of the land, the Constitution.

To date the provisions of that treaty have not be adhered to by the United States government. The best that government has done is to offer money, under duress of a judgment of the Supreme Court, for the Black Hills at their "original" or 1870s value.

The Lakota people do not want the money. They want the land back. So the money stays "in trust" for them on the assumption that sooner or later they will come to their senses and take the money, just as sooner or later they will assimilate or starve or expire from the effects of advanced alcoholism or drug abuse, or all be murdered by South Dakota Rednecks one at a time or whatever.

The Lakota people can say to this, we have a treaty. The government of the United States needs to understand the obligations that this treaty confirs on it. The government needs to understand what sovereignty means and honor it. The government, which obstensibly represents the American, needs to keep its word.

The government prefers the term Native American, it's a census classification, because it implies that these people are just like any other hyphenated immigrants, but that isn't true. Therefore, I am of the Lakota Oyate, the sacred Lakota Nation. My friend, Shane, is Weminuche. We are both indians as in La Gente in Dios, the People of God, as are all the people of the earth.

But some would have us believe that the earth and sky were only made for them to use however they want, that anyone getting in the way is a savage or a hostile or a terrorist, that they can by the power of the Christian God or the coercive power of the formally Christian, now Secular, State compel compliance with their whims. This has been known as Colonialism. Now it is called Globalization.

The monuments of their arrogant tyranny exist in many places in the world. Mount Rushmore is only one of the more conspicuous examples of this tyranny. The World Trade Center was another. The Roman Coloseum is yet another more ancient manifestation of this arrogance of tyranny.

The Crazy Horse Monument not far from Rushmore is meant to assuage our resentments by dishonoring an otancun, a shirtwearer, of the Lakota people, in his time one of the first in many generations to hold that sacred office, who died fighting for freedom as assuredly as any patriot of the American Revolution, or the ANC in South Africa, or Solidarity in Poland or wherever. Nothing any mere man can carve in a rock can remotely honor this man who's true monument is in the hearts of his people.

I am very impressed with the Canadian as I'm very impressed with the author of this proposed entry. Both have at the very least come to admit the offenses without reservations or excuses and, in Paulie's case, made concrete and reasonable proposals for making amends.

If this is ever taken seriously, it might finally break the cycle of violence that began in Europe 500 years ago with the religious wars that sent many to prison or the gallows or to somebody else's country so they wouldn't inconvenience the ruling classes or their lackeys.

All who live today and have benefited from the violence and duplicity of their forebears share the responsibility by virtue of accepting the loot. If they accept title to the land then they should accept the obligations placed on them by the treaty by which the land taken. It's no more complex than that, but some would have us believe otherwise.

This message is implicit in Paulie's piece. I hope that the reviewers will consider that.

It is a message documented even by the perpetrators themselves. It is a message that needs to be published here and elsewhere so that as many people as possible can finally be exposed to what some of us have known for centuries.

Then, maybe, we can finally realize the dream of living together in peace and tranquility showing respect for >> ALL << our relations. And that's about as "objective" and "balanced" as you can get I think.

I have a friend from Oregon who objects strongly to the term Native Americans - she argues that she was born American and is a native of the country. Is First Americans more acceptable?

Your points about colonialism and globalisation have a great deal of truth. The consequences are for the whole world!

Who was it who said 'When white men have burnt the last tree (I know it's not that - it was *much* better expressed), they will realise that they cannot eat money'.

Rita,

Are you suggesting any specific change to this piece?

thanks Two Bit, and thanks Rita for checking out my entry. I am not quite satisfied with the lack of info on the Manypenny agreement, but to be honest I haven't been able to find much. I do want to offer all of the relavant facts I can. I don't have a problem with us having heroes if we must, but I wish we could be mature enough as a nation to have the guts to realy examine those heros we already have in place. Cetainly it's not like asking that the country abandon all it's grand ideas about what life should be like and how it can force that on everyone in the world. I don't think we are anywhere near ready to address that yet. I just think to return the Black Hills could be a turning point in how we all deal with those things we do out of what we like to consider need. Maybe some of us will see how addressing the needs of the world at large can better serve to secure our own needs. At any rate, thanks to everybody who has commented and offered advise. And especially thanks to Rita for making me aware how much of my own ancestory has been hidden from me or white washed to appear as something it is not. And once again to Rita, to any member of any tribe who might read this, I am sorry for what we have done. I do take reponsibility for my part in that, and I am trying very hard to find a way to make restitution. I have faith my efforts won't be entirely in vain, because I am holding on to that hope that deep down we are all basically good people with bad ideas sometimes.

Manypenny agreement @

http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1992-3/garcia.htm

Alji,{Guru}, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) {see the sun sign poll at A712595}{Member of The Guild of Wizards}

hi,

Rita, hi,

i must say i was somewhat unnerved reading your post. It was a strong political statement and this is peer review. not really a place for strong political statements. I'm not saying that what you have to say is 'invalid'... just that PR is not the place for it...

Paulie, hi,

i'm not sure where this piece is going, have you edited it?

er... um...
cya
spiff

Having reread Rita's entry, I think she is basically saying that the entry is fine. It's highlighting important issues which she feels strongly about, and quite understandably. There are similar issues in Australia and Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong, Rita.

Yes, I would agree with the description of how the white man has treated indiginous peoples as arrogant. It was also ignorant - in the sense of not knowing, beside the sense of not valuing. And yes, it's all about the great god, Money and the loss of spiritual values. Religious values are not necessarily the same.

Your critique is essentially accurate, Spaceman, however, you seem to ignore the fact that political statements have already been made in this forum relevant to the entry and political questions have been raised because the entry is a political statement, at least in part. In view of the subject matter, it would be difficult, if not impossible to present it otherwise.

And for the most part, I was answering those issues and in one case offering my opinions because someone has specifically addressed me by name. I cannot, therefore, concur with your assertion that this is inappropriate under the circumstances.

If peer review is to have any value, assertions and critiques ought to be addressed. That the process might be unnerving for you personally is unfortunate. It should be obvious that my purpose was not to unnerve you but educate the participants about the issues raised from my perspective.

You should make note that there is currently another question directed at me personally that may impact your notions of acceptable postings here, that being the question of the appropriateness of the term, "first americans". If I answer that question, am I to be further criticised? Should I tell the person I can't answer her/his question because it would constitute "a political statement" and, hence in the view of Spaceman, not be appropriate for this forum?

However, you might choose to answer that, I have an obligation to show good manners by answering the person to the best of my ability so I will do so by saying that "first americans" is no better than "native americans". It says essentially the same thing. First Nations is acceptable because it preserves the notion that we are sovereign nations not "americans", and, therefore, not to be trifled with as if we were disgruntled immigrants, former slaves, or some other marginalized minority that is regarded with annoyance by the ruling classes and essentially ignored because we don't have any significant political influence under the representational republican scheme of things.

The Black Hills issue is relevant to the Lakota Nation specifically but is also relevant to indigenous rights worldwide because it represents a rather clear case of the process of colonialization that has left all of us in a world divided into haves and havenots, rulers and slaves, rich and poor, developed and developing, and so on. It is a world currently racked by war and terror and starvation among other plagues. This is not a political statement but a statement of documented fact.

That's why it's important that it be discussed in this forum and any others that will allow such discussions. If we can't discuss it with our "peers", who shall we discuss it with?

Hiya

i just lost a whole post about this...

Sorry, didn't realize my posts were screwing up the process. I'll refrain, then, and let you the others get your thoughts organized without distractions.

Rita, your posts are not screwing up anything.
The subject of the entry on Mount Rushmore concerns you directly.
Your point of view is both welcome and necessary to the discussion.
It's good to hear from you.
Especially if any of us palefaces ever hope to begin to understand the situation.

If the pedants of Peer Review don't see that, then please feel free to enagage me on any of the myriad topics our racial differences need to discuss, in any thread where-ever you see my name. I am a man of peace who seeks wisdom and understanding, although appearances often created by my acidic humour and existential silliness leave many with the impression I am a careless fool and trickster. So is Spacedman Spliff really, but Like Custer, he's just having a bad day.

It's strange how this notion of 'Good Manners' you spoke of, impells me to join paulie in offering some sort of apologies to 'all First Nations people'. But I can't bring myself to believe that my apology on behalf of all white-men would be either valid or acceptable.

Instead let me say again how much your postings are valued by myself and how necessary they are to this discussion. Not just for their First Nation perspective and honesty but also for your obvious intelligence, patience and literacy.

You earlier refer to me as 'the Canadian', so I hope you can understand why I feel obliged to take just one shot at calling you 'the indian chick'. There now, I've got that off my chest and let's call it even and look forward to chatting again soon.
Quite possibly elsewhere than this thread if we want the freedom to expand our conversation beyond the specifics of the Black Hills and the generalities of race relations touched on by the entry at hand.

Oh, the stories I could tell you about Spacedman Spliff!

jwf

I studied colonial america as part of my American Studies course, and was wondering what opinions Native Americans (or whatever term you would prefer me to use ) have on the term one of my lecturers used-Amerindians.

I always thought it was quite a clumsy term, but apparently it is seen as a way of combining the "Red Indians" term used by the colonists with the fact that they are actually Americans.

Opinions anyone?

hi Rita, jw is quite right to say that i had no intention of 'gagging' you.

keep on talkin'!

no, i lost a post coz of my own incompetence, and nothing you are doing here was giving me a problem.

meanwhile, i guess i'm sticking to my guns... while what you have to say is interesting and your perspective valuable, i never like to hear an account that comes so clearly from 'one side'...

what am i saying? not sure... it's 6am here, and i'm going to bed!

cya
spiff

Hi Rita,

Thank you for the clarification, although I will still admit to some confusion. Someone else had said as you have that 'First Americans' is no better that Native Americans. Is it the Americans bit? You have explaned beautifully about sounding like an add-on and emphasising your primacy of tenure, so to speak.

First Nations would have to be First Nations of America for someone from the UK, otherwise we would not be able to place geographically where the nations were. Does that make sense? And if it is the 'America' bit that causes offense, I'm not sure I can find a way round it.

As I'm a UK citizen, how would you like me to refer to you so that it's clear where you're from?

BTW, I also agree that I don't think you're holding up this entry. I for one value what you have to say and I've not read anything in the thread so far that suggests anyone else does not value it.

I'll admit to being a pedant at times (I'm a Virgo!), although I don't think that your comment was aimed at me this time. We Scouts are here to nudge along entries and encourage authors so that they comply with the guidelines and are able to be recommended, and then have their pride of place on the front page.

Hi all,

i just reread this entry and it has been completely and imo excellently overhauled!

great stuff; you've kept the pertinent facts, events, dates and names (i think) but given the whole a totally different focus. Indeed, simply given it focus.

btw, Rita, sorry if i sounded a bit aggy earlier no, not Aggy, jay dub, for one thing i hadn't reread the latest edit of the entry, and for another i felt that one of your postings in particular was quite strong on the rhetoric.

I didn't mean to say you shouldn't be able to air your views in this forum. Just trying to take the edge of it a little, i guess.

specifically, i know i'm not the only one who was *totally unaware* of this situation with Mt Rushmore. This entry has changed my perspective of those carved heads. The irony now positively (or rather 'not') radiates from this world-reknowned monument to the USA!

In short, a very interesting and informative (not to mention... well, ok then, yes to mention - well-written) entry that i foresee being Front Page Pick of the Day in the not-too-distant future.

i'd also guess that it won't be in the 'most neglected' list the week after, either. This is an issue that many could find quite inspiring.

so, great work on the entry, interesting discussion in the thread; h2g2 at its best, i'd say.

did everyone see this link from Alji:

http://www.crazyhorse.org/story/future.shtml

also interesting, though i don't know where everyone here may stand on the project.

gotta post this before i press the wrong button and lose it again!

well thank you all again. The most satisfying part is to hear someone say "I didn't know that". I didn't know it either before I met Lil, Pedro and Rita. I did look at that link about the Crazy Horse monument. I had looked at it before but apparantly not as closely as I should. So I see now the part about they wouldn't want to deface the mountain should be edited to reflect the reality of the situation. I don't think that will prove a major task. I still haven't found any publications that mention the Manypenny agreement more than in passing though. If anybody runs across any sources that actually spell out what the agreement says I could sure use them. I know my entry is not supposed to be here while I do major overhauls. I really hate to move it now, I think it is getting close, so I hope yall will be patient with me just a bit longer. I will work on it right now this morning, and possibly have it revised today. I can imagine a whole series of entries that the guide could use on this particular subject. While I am far from an expert on any of this, I do have some friends with a first person perspective, and I do have the desire to learn. I'm just hoping that will make up for my lack of intelligence

If that Mt Rushmore thing was razed, it wouldn't be no loss, it's not like it was the Parthenon, although the other way of letting it withering away is poetic, even though agonizinly slow.
It's great to see the change in comparison to the first version. I didn't say anything to that, being sympathetic to the issue and you , but i need to say to this one, that i think it's good and in my opinion about ready to go.
There's just one observation i'd like to make. I read that the Black Hills are holy ground for a whole number of other tribes beside the Sioux nations. You mention it, that tribes predating the Sioux have been ousted by them from the Black Hills. Kiowa and Crows are often mentioned. How do they feel about the one tribe's legal claim? Of course, as far as the US government is concerned, they made a treaty with the Sioux, so their obligation is to the Sioux alone, but they are in fact thus cementing a situation to which other tribes might object?
Maybe that is going too far where this entry is concerned, but i think one would have to keep that in mind, and maybe mention that the Black Hills are a place holy to several tribes?

hey Delicia, good to see you out and about

thank you for bringing up that point, I hadn't considered it. Perhaps now would be a good time for me to do that. any suggestions how I might incorporate that idea?

At any rate I have revised, yet again, and taken out all the remarks that seemed overly opionated or one sided to me. If it still has a "one sided" perspective as I believe someone suggested it did, I am open to ways to correct that. I guess it's hard to represent a point of view you don't share.

in response to what jdf said

"It's strange how this notion of 'Good Manners' you spoke of, impells me to join paulie in offering some sort of apologies to 'all First Nations people'. But I can't bring myself to believe that my apology on behalf of all white-men would be either valid or acceptable."

I don't offer my apology on behalf of anyone but myself, most certainly not any "men". Not to be snooty or anything, but I wouldn't have the first idea how any men would feel or white men in general. When I say "I'm sorry" I mean me. I think it has to be that way with each and every one of us. First we have to have remorse, then we have to make restitution. I'm not convinced many white people have the remorse, so it stands to reason they are not ready to make the restitution. I have apologized and declared my intent to every one I can, mostly to encourage others to do the same. I think we need to establish a aura of sincerity to open up communications in this matter. The natives of this land are accustomed to being lied to and fed false promises. All I am trying to do is counter act some of that effect. I never attempt to speak for any group at large, or classify any one based on what group they belong to.

So I guess what I am saying is, if you doubt the validity or acceptablitly of your apology, to offer one would do more harm than good. It only has to be valid and acceptable to you. Whether it is accepted as such or not is in the hands of those who receive it. And to be quite honest an apology in itself will not convince anybody of anything. It is the actions you take immediately following that apology that truly establishes it validity.