Sovereignty's Sunset?

Evidently, there is to be no further protection for Americans from what purports to be "international justice" these days. On December 17, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama signed an executive order providing full diplomatic immunity for the actions of INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) within the borders of the United States of America (h/t DRJ at Patterico's Pontifications). According to the national security-oriented website ThreatsWatch.Org:

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing at National Review Online, explains further:

By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

Obama's reversal of Reagan's protections thus has the potential to expose Americans to arrest and detention by INTERPOL via charges filed through the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other Tranzi organizations which presume to exercise global legal authority. Last April, I wrote about an ongoing effort by a Spanish judge to indict several Bush administration officials for the alleged mistreatment of terrorist detainees at Guantánamo Bay:

Who is behind this move? None other than Baltasar Garzón, the same Spanish judge who ordered the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet back in 1998. The soon-to-be indicted American officials include John Yoo, formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who advised President George W. Bush had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, currently a federal judge and formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and finally former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

I don't doubt for a minute that Obama's executive order is a preliminary step in trying to encourage legal harassment against members of the previous administration. This is a man who has made a habit of apologizing for being an American and of giving the benefit of the doubt to our country's enemies time and again.

It is a shame that our country spent the better part of four decades fighting international communism abroad only to see it imposed at home.

Update:

In the Tuesday, December 29, 2009 issue of The New York Times, the aforementioned John Yoo - one of Judge Garzón's targets - gave a rather funny interview (h/t Ace of Spades HQ). Here's an excerpt:

NYT: Do you regret writing the so-called torture memos, which claimed that President Bush was legally entitled to ignore laws prohibiting torture?
Yoo: No, I had to write them. It was my job. As a lawyer, I had a client. The client needed a legal question answered.

NYT: When you say you had “a client,” do you mean President Bush?
Yoo: Yes, I mean the president, but also the U.S. government as a whole.

NYT: But isn’t a lawyer in the Department of Justice there to serve the people of this country?
Yoo: Yes, I think you are quite right, when the government is executing the laws, but if there’s a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other.

NYT: Were you close to George Bush?
Yoo: No, I’ve never met him. I don’t know Cheney either. I have not gone hunting with him, which is probably a good thing for me.

NYT: Weren’t you invited to the White House Christmas party during your two years at the Department of Justice?
Yoo: I don’t think so. That’s the way the government works. There’s the attorney general, then the deputy attorney general and then an associate attorney general. Then there’s the assistant attorney general, who was the head of my office.

NYT: So you’re saying you were just one notch above an intern, you and Monica Lewinsky?
Yoo: She was much closer to the president than I ever was.

Please, read the whole thing. Definitely one of the best interviews of 2009.

Christmas on the Western Front

On this Christmas Eve, I'm reminded of a story from World War I, when on December 24, 1914 - during the first year of the conflict - Allied and German soldiers along the western front spontaneously declared a temporary cessation of hostilities on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Here is the story as told by Stanley Weintraub, author of Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce:

...the Germans set trees on trench parapets and lit the candles. Then, they began singing carols, and though their language was unfamiliar to their enemies, the tunes were not. After a few trees were shot at, the British became more curious than belligerent and crawled forward to watch and listen. And after a while, they began to sing.

By Christmas morning, the "no man's land" between the trenches was filled with fraternizing soldiers, sharing rations and gifts, singing and (more solemnly) burying their dead between the lines. Soon they were even playing soccer, mostly with improvised balls.

According to the official war diary of the 133rd Saxon Regiment, "Tommy and Fritz" kicked about a real football supplied by a Scot. "This developed into a regulation football match with caps casually laid out as goals. The frozen ground was no great matter ... The game ended 3-2 for Fritz."

The moment was simply miraculous, and not repeated again as the war dragged on for nearly four more years with millions of additional casualties.

Back in 1996, country music singer Collin Raye released an album titled The Gift, which contained a song about the 1914 Christmas truce called "It Could Happen Again". Here is that tune, featuring an introduction by the late Johnny Cash:



There is much about human nature that is dark and evil, but events such as the aforementioned demonstrate that even so, there is a basic goodness amongst humanity which celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ can and has evoked. Could it happen again? I believe so.

Merry Christmas.

Update:

As posted by Tom Kratman in the comments, here is another song about the event: "Christmas in the Trenches" by John McCutcheon (1989)

Restore the Republic?

Such is what filmmaker Ladd Ehlinger suggests that Texas do in his latest blog entry, "Dear Texas, Please Secede" (h/t Robert Stacy McCain). As regular readers of this blog know, that is a suggestion I fully endorse, especially since the election of the socialist scoundrel Barack Obama. The restoration of the Republic of Texas would surely warm this ninth-generation Texan's heart.

However, as an academic historian, I am bound to correct Ehlinger on this point:

Dear big beautiful Texas with all your gorgeous pageant women and crappy food: you are the only state that joined our Union with a treaty allowing for legal secession.

Of course, Ehlinger is wrong about "crappy food" - I'll put up San Antonio's fine Tex-Mex cuisine against that of New Orleans any day - but let's stick to the matter of secession and the non-existent treaty. Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845 not by an annexation treaty, but by a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States of America. President John Tyler signed the American joint resolution on March 1, 1845 offering Texas admission to the Union. On June 16, 1845 President Anson Jones of Texas called the Texas Congress into session and on July 4, 1845, a convention of elected Texan delegates met - both to decide whether or not to accept the American offer of annexation. Both bodies voted to accept annexation, with the convention then drawing up a state constitution for Texas that was approved by the Texas electorate in October 1845. The Congress of the United States then formally voted to admit Texas to the Union on December 29, 1845. The formal transfer of power took place at a special ceremony on February 19, 1846, when President Anson Jones handed control of the Texan government to the state's newly-elected governor, James Pinckney Henderson. At that time, Governor Henderson proclaimed: "The final act in this great drama is now performed; the Republic of Texas is no more."

At no point during the annexation proceedings was the issue of the legality of secession addressed. However, secession is certainly a viable option for Texas, as it is for any state. Secession is, legally, a gray area - it is neither legal or illegal. But that is a moot point. Our present union of states is a voluntary one, and as such any state has the implicit right to leave if it so chooses. I fervently hope that Texas does so in the near future - there is no need for the liberty-loving citizens of this state to remain tethered to the collectivist leviathan in Washington, D.C.

Although a majority of Texans favored annexation, one who was dead-set against it was former President Mirabeau B. Lamar (1838-41). A strong Texas nationalist, Lamar believed that nothing good would come of annexation. There is a connection between Lamar and my family. In 1847, during the Mexican-American War (1846-48), Lamar was serving as captain of the Texas Mounted Volunteers and was based in Laredo, Texas - my birthplace. In 1847, he helped organize Laredo's first municipal government as an American city and on April 29, 1847 he formally inaugurated my great-great-great grandfather, Juan Francisco Farias, as a citizen of the United States. Farias went on to serve as mayor of Laredo during the Civil War.

Farias's brother-in-law (and my great-great-great grand-uncle) was a man named Santos Benavides, who during the Civil War became the highest-ranking Hispanic to serve in the Confederate Army, attaining the rank of full colonel. In April 1865, Benavides was up for a promotion to brigadier general, but the Confederacy disbanded before the Confederate Congress in Richmond could approve the promotion.

Juan Francisco Farias - Mayor of Laredo, Texas during the Civil War

Col. Santos Benavides and his wife, Agustina

As for Benavides's exploits during the Civil War, here's a snippet from a write-up at the Handbook of Texas Online:

Commissioned a captain in the Thirty-third Texas Cavalry (or Benavides' Regiment) and assigned to the Rio Grande Military District, Benavides quickly won accolades as a fighter. He drove Juan Cortina back into Mexico in the battle of Carrizo on May 22, 1861, and quelled other local revolts against Confederate authority. In November 1863 Benavides was promoted to colonel and authorized to raise his own regiment of "Partisan Rangers," for which he used the remnants of the Thirty-third. His greatest military triumph was his defense of Laredo on March 19, 1864, with forty-two troops against 200 soldiers of the Union First Texas Cavalry, commanded by Col. Edmund J. Davis, who had, ironically, offered Benavides a Union generalship earlier.

My Uncle Santos was no dirty scalawag, that's for sure.

Deo Vindice, amigos. And God bless the once and future Republic of Texas!

Tom Kratman Puts It All in Perspective

For the latest on the Robert Stacy McCain-Patrick "Patterico" Frey racism debate, check out McCain's "Dear JSF", Patterico's "Must One 'Intend' to be Racist to Say Something That is Racist?", Jeff Goldstein's "'Unintentional Racism' and the failure of formalism", and "Scandal - Why it is Bad" by Enoch_Root at Piece of Work in Progress.

There really isn't much more I can say that I have not already said in my previous two entries, "The McCain Defamation" and "The McCain Mutiny". If anything good comes of this, hopefully it will be an end to the "Robert Stacy McCain is racist" meme and a realization that allegations of racism should not be made cavalierly. A forlorn sentiment, I know, but a man can dream.

As to the title of this entry, last night Tom Kratman - military science fiction writer, author of The Tuloriad (his latest book, reviewed on this blog two months ago), and a regular reader and commenter of mine - posted a comment that succinctly sums up what conservatives face when dealing with the charge of racism:

This is my standard answer to a charge of racism:

The Left's 20 Rules of Racism:

1. If you believe that general intelligence exists, is heritable and at all testable for, you're a racist.

2. If you point out that liberal philosophies and programs intended to have a good impact have had a disproportionately bad impact on the ethnicities targeted by liberals, you're a racist.

3. If you notice that other cultures have some problems, you're a racist.

4. If you notice your own culture has had some successes, you're a racist.

5. If you try to identify subcultural problems, you're a racist. If the problems existed or got worse under liberalism, see item 2, above.

6. If you're mainstream American culture, and don't hate that culture, you're a racist.

7. If you're capable of noting unpleasant facts about subcultures and discussing them without your brain fogging, you're a racist.

8. If you won't kowtow and grovel as soon as someone accuses you of racism for one of the reasons above or below, you're a hopeless racist.

9. If you do not believe that mankind is a tabula rasa for liberals to make whatever they think would be good to make of man, this week, you're a racist.

10. If you don't take personal responsibility for all the evils of slavery, you're a racist. This is true even if you only arrived from Poland last week.

11. If you're white, you're a racist.

12. If you're white and just arrived from Poland last week and don't accept that you're a racist, you're a racist.

13. If you try to interject logical thought into a discussion of culture, you're a racist.

14. If you refuse to admit culture is a racial matter, and a liberal wants to conflate the two, you're a racist.

15. If you believe that race and culture are indistinguishable and a liberal decides that you shouldn't conflate the two, you're a racist.

16. If you believe that black or Hispanic girls who are paid by liberal inspired programs from the age of 13 to have babies will have babies, you're a racist.

17. If you believe that _any_ girls of whatever color who are paid to have babies will then have babies but then, insensitively, observe that a smaller percentage of white girls do, certainly because they haven't been targeted for as much "help" from liberals, you're a racist.

18. If it doesn't bother you that the truth offends liberals, you're a racist.

19. If your name is Tom Kratman and you write and in your writing your heroes and heroines tend to be from minorities while your villains are white liberals, you're still a racist.

20. If you read The Bell Curve, you're a racist. On the other hand, if you didn't read it but wrote a scathing review on Amazon anyway you might not be a racist provided you take personal responsibility for 300 years of slavery even if you just arrived from Poland last week.

The left flings the charge of racism with reckless abandon not because they care about eradicating its existence, but because they want to silence conservative dissent. As conservatives, we must never allow that to happen.

***

In other news, Robert Stacy McCain is asking readers to hit his tip jar so he can do some in-person reporting from the BCS Championship in Pasadena, California next month. I hope he's able to make the trip, though I can't imagine why he's so eager to see the Alabama Crimson Tide get stomped like a roach at a clog dance by the Texas Longhorns...

The McCain Mutiny

As you can see from the updates to yesterday's entry - "The McCain Defamation" - the imbroglio between Robert Stacy McCain and Patrick "Patterico" Frey has resulted in most conservative bloggers siding with McCain and questioning Patterico's intent in pursuing his line of questioning. The simple fact is the Stacy is not a racist and the implication that he is has angered those of us who are sick of defending ourselves against the baseless charge over and over again. It's bad enough when coming from liberals, but when one conservative effectively calls another a racist (even if he may not have intended to do so) - and when the evidence does not support the allegation thereof - those of us conservatives observing the situation will inevitably side with the aggrieved party.

Today, Stacy has posted a new entry titled "Let's Parse that Sentence Again, Dan", wherein he addresses the statement from 1996 that is at the core of the present controversy. In the entry, Stacy writes:

As I explained in a comment at Little Miss Attila's blog, my object in that 1996 e-mail debate was to isolate the white separatist Wheeler (and any of his ideological soulmates) on very narrow grounds. Fully comprehending the subtext of his argument, I didn't want Wheeler to win sympathizers on the basis of such a "litmus test."

In other words, just because someone had personal issues about interracial relationships, there was no need for them to endorse a white separatist political agenda. "The personal is the political" is an identity-politics slogan popularized by feminists, and we see how it not only leads to feminist nonsense, but to racialist nonsense and gay-rights nonsense. Here I was, in 1996, confronted with Dennis Wheeler's argument that all whites must adopt a Politics of Whiteness -- an evident fulfillment of [Kent] Steffgen's 1966 prophecy [from a book titled The Bondage of the Free]:

Americans will be told, in effect, that they must make a choice between their own heritage and prejudice toward Negroes. That is the way the Communists have it rigged. Ten thousand interracial themes will not beat a path to brotherhood but into the moral sewers which, in turn, will open up a market for the advocation of pure race doctrines from coast to coast and border to border for the first time in U.S. history. (Emphasis added.)

Steffgen's reference to "Communists" as instigating agents of such a development strikes us as bizarre in 2009, but that was written in 1966. Steffgen's perceived the likelihood of a Newtonian pendulum-swing reaction in racial politics, with militant advocacy of integration provoking a militant opposition. And who can say that Steffgen was not prophetic in this passage?

Go and read the whole entry. After doing so, it is simply impossible to claim there was racist intent behind what Stacy wrote back in 1996.

The "Dan" referred to in the title of McCain's entry is Dan Collins, another favorite blogger of mine who publishes the blog Piece of Work in Progress. The specific entry of Dan's to which Stacy is referring is "The Recent Unpleasantness (and happyfeet)" in which Dan conveys a sentiment, with which I concur, regarding this whole matter:

...it’s disappointing to see people playing capture the flag with one another’s integrity, yet again. I don’t particularly want to be a part of it, but as Stacy says, he’s compelled to join battle, because if one does not refute the charge of racism, one assents to the slaughter of one’s reputation in the public sphere. It is a death sentence (think about that expression) in the world of ideas.

Indeed. The charge of racism is so deadly that not responding at all just isn't a viable option. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate what Baldilocks wrote today in her entry "Say Goodbye":

What the flock is up with the Right side of the Blogosphere?

LGF is gone. Charles Johnson is gone. Face it.

He was never ours. How about we let him take his delusions and slanders and paranoias and obsessions and falsehoods with him? How about we stop looking for racists under every bed or behind every computer screen the way he seems to? How about you all stop flogging yourselves and each other for his loss and for being fooled by him?

I'm over it.

I am over it as well, if only because I was never a reader of Charles Johnson's to begin with. Even before the beginning of his break with the Right which started in 2007 when he attacked Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, I always found his writings and those of his commenters to be considerably off-putting. But Baldilocks's larger point - that the McCain-Patterico controversy is largely the instigation of those on the Left - is a valid one. Carol Minjares of Missoulapolis made the very same point in my comments yesterday:

I see it as a measure of the left's success at this tactic that they've gotten the conservatives to try to denounce and purge each other. I was catching heat myself over some commenter's remarks.

Sure there are racists on the far right (I guess) but those people are so beyond the pale I don't know anyone who links them or associates with them. They are not mainstream at all.

On the matter of linguistic intent as it concerns this debate, Jeff Goldstein today posted "More language lessons, revisited", in which he writes:

The fact of the matter is, and pace the assertion made by Frey, calling a statement racist and calling the speaker racist ARE the same thing, because a statement can’t be racist if the intent behind it was not; and if there’s no racist intent, there’s no racist statement. Conversely, if a statement is deemed racist, one must commit to the idea that it sprung from racist intent, and having racist intent is the very definition being a racist. It simply makes no sense to call a statement “racist” without first attaching it to some locus of racism. And where that locus lies is at the heart of this ongoing “debate” over how language actually functions vs. how it can be made to function.

What Frey is doing when he says now that he doesn’t know if McCain is racist, is essentially admitting that he doesn’t know McCain’s intent; but in lieu of that, he’s privileged the fact that HE feels the statement is racist-sounding to him in order to declare the statement racist, while leaving the question of McCain’s culpability open.

In other words, Frey himself is supplying the intent — in that he intends to see the statement as racist, regardless of whether it was intended as such by McCain — and it is Frey’s intent to signify the marks in a certain way that provides the statement its “racist” component.

Linguistically speaking, you simply can’t have it both ways. Saying “the statement seems racist to me” and then attributing that racism to McCain (Frey says he’s on the fence about this) is odious — and is precisely the maneuver used by progressives to suggest that right wing speech is rife with hatred, even if that hatred is hidden in “code words,” and even if those engaging in said hate speech are unaware that they are doing so. Had Patrick learned anything more from our last exchange on these issues than how to ban me from his site, we might not be going over this argument yet again.

Once again, read the whole thing. Goldstein has a strong academic background in literature and linguistics, so he understands matters of intentionality quite well.

It is rather unfortunate that this matter has dragged on for so long, and such infighting amongst conservatives benefits only those who seek to ultimately transform what is still a democratic republic based upon the principles of liberty into a European-style socialist oligarchy. However, when someone is falsely accused of being or is implied to be something which he is not, it simply is not in my nature to stand by and say nothing. I am heartened to see that other conservative bloggers feel the same way.

Update:

Robert Stacy McCain asks: "Is Baldilocks onto something?"; Little Miss Attila says "Yeah, We Can All Get Along"; DaTechguy posts "My (hopefully) last post on the McCain Patterico business"; Jeff Goldstein wonders "Is there racism without intent?"

Update II:

Patterico's latest: "If You Make One Racist Statement, Does That Automatically Make *You* a Racist?"

The McCain Defamation

I refer not to John McCain, but to "The Other McCain" - as in Robert Stacy McCain, a favorite blogger of mine, first-rate journalist, Southern gentleman, devout family man, and once again the target of bogus allegations of racism. I've previously written about the scurrilous defamation of McCain here and here, but I feel obliged to do so once again in light of this post by conservative blogger Patterico of Patterico's Pontifications. Patterico followed up that initial post with this one on Monday evening along with two additional entries ("Racial Ratiocination" and "The Right Way, the Wrong Way, and the Buckley Way") by guest blogger Dafydd ab Hugh. McCain has responded with the following entries: "Fear and Loathing at Patterico", "I'd Rather be in Pasadena", "An Interesting Question", "Blog Commissars", and "Your secret racist buddy". I realize that is a lot to read, but it is well worth your time to click on all of the links provided and do so.

I do not know what motivated Patterico to engage McCain on this topic and I do not intend to speculate. This blog post by DaTechguy closely approximates my own opinion regarding McCain's writings from 1996 which are at the heart of this whole matter. The bottom line is that I consider Robert Stacy McCain to be upstanding individual with no racist inclinations whatsoever, and in the year-an-a-half I have been regularly reading his blog I have seen absolutely nothing posted there to make me think otherwise. If I knew McCain personally, I would be proud to be his friend.

As for the accusation-in-question, Stacy McCain is more than capable of defending himself and has done so with great alacrity and circumspection. The reason I feel the need to chime in at this point is to provide my own thoughts on this shopworn insult - a weapon repeatedly used by leftists against conservatives in lieu of the inability of the former to engage in meaningful political discourse. In short, crying "racism" is the first and last refuge of leftist scoundrels, and I will have no truck with it whatsoever.

Any outspoken conservative will, at some point, be called a racist. The intent of liberals in accusing conservatives of racism is not to condemn perceived bad behavior, but to marginalize those who dissent from leftist orthodoxy. Nowadays the mere accusation of racism is an effective conviction, the person accused being presumed guilty until proven innocent. To employ the charge of racism in this reckless manner is irresponsible and unacceptable, and it has the counterproductive effect of encouraging true racism by generating apathy toward the existence thereof.

I will also point out that nearly every public discussion of racism these days is fundamentally dishonest. At issue in such discussions is the racism of whites toward non-whites, but rarely if ever is the racism of nonwhites toward whites ever addressed. But it does exist. When growing up in a predominantly Hispanic South Texas bordertown many, many years ago, I found myself on a few occasions at the receiving end of such ignorant behavior, being called a "pinche gringo" (this translates as "fucking gringo" in English, "gringo" being a crude, disrespectful term for non-Hispanic whites) for the "sin" of having a father who is a non-Hispanic white (my mother is of Hispanic heritage). All too often liberals will excuse such idiocy, claiming that it must be understood within the context of historical wrongs and ongoing injustices. That is hogwash. Objectively, racism is either right or it is wrong, tolerable or intolerable - there is no middle ground. Racism is "natural" insofar as it is an unfortunate part of the human condition, but it should never be accepted or excused in any way.

As I see it, Robert Stacy McCain did not and has not exhibited racism, nor has he ever excused it. As Stacy himself likes to say, "there are facts and there are witnesses to those facts." The fact is that Stacy is a good man, and you may consider me one of the witnesses.

Update I:

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom weighs in with "On blogging and its discontents"; Stacy McCain expounds further with "Jeff Goldstein gets to the nub of it".

Update II:

Little Miss Attila adds her thoughts with "What Goldstein Said"; Donald Douglas says "Take It From Me. An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist!"

Update III:

Patterico's latest: "Please Do Not Put Words in my Mouth"; more from Jeff Goldstein: "Language lessons, revisited"; Stacy McCain adds: "A woman has the right to change her mind"; Donald Douglas at American Power chimes in again with "Patrick Frey Attempts Walk-Back of Racist Insinuations Against Robert Stacy McCain"

Update IV (12/10/2009):

See my new entry: "The McCain Mutiny"

Dana's (and Tom's) Thanksgiving Wishes

As I have done during the previous two years, for Thanksgiving I am posting an entry that was written by Dana, a regular commenter at The Festering Swamp back in the day and an occasional commenter here. For those who are unfamiliar with Dana, she is of American Indian descent. Below are her thoughts on the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

In addition, I am including a humorous prayer by Tom Kratman, which he originally posted on the Thanksgiving following the 2004 election - a time when the American people had made a much more sensible choice at the polls than they did four years later. - Mike LaRoche


Dana:

Let me be perfectly clear this Thanksgiving: as a card-carrying American Indian, I am unequivocally not suffering from Myth #11. Not one teeny-tiny little bit, because this Thanksgiving finds me as always with a heart overflowing at the gracious plenty in my life. So blessed am I, it would be easy to give thanks daily for all I have (gosh, what a novel idea…Giving Daily Thanks…). You ask, what is Myth #11? Is it contagious? Do I have it? Did I forget to wash my hands? Is there an antidote?

Let me explain. Myth #11 is one of 11 myths recorded in Oyate's Deconstructing the Myths of the "First Thanksgiving". Oyate is an organization dedicated to preserving an accurate historical record of American Indians. Myth #11 is what the Seattle School District referenced in a letter sent to all teachers and staff last week as a reminder that American Indian students and their families may be experiencing difficulties during Thanksgiving.

From Oyate - Myth #11 says: Thanksgiving is a happy time.

Fact: For many Indian people, "Thanksgiving" is a time of mourning, of remembering how a gift of generosity was rewarded by theft of land and seed corn, extermination of many from disease and gun, and near total destruction of many more from forced assimilation. As currently celebrated in this country, "Thanksgiving" is a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship."

I don't have time to dissect Myth #11 in its entirety as I still have two pies to make and potatoes to peel but certainly we can all agree on the historical evidence that the American Indian got a very raw deal - as most aboriginal people throughout the world have. If you add up the obscenely forced submission and assimilation while ancient tradition and culture faced eradication, only to be followed by the ubiquitous reservations which were nothing more than forced segregated ghettos of the 19^th century, the sum total could be nothing other than a seriously raw deal.

With that said though it is good to remember that American Indians are no longer held captive, no longer forced to live on reservations, no longer denied the same opportunities as any other citizen of this great land, and no longer bound to live in the history of past. Opportunity abounds and knows no limits other than what one imposes upon oneself.

Wouldn't it have been great if the Seattle School District instead used this golden opportunity to send a letter to all teachers and staff asking them to encourage and inspire their students, no matter their ethnicity, and create their own lists of what they are thankful for?

Wouldn't it have been wonderful to see all students, no matter their ethnicity, be unified under the humble banner of Thankfulness?

It frustrates me to read a statement that American Indians in 2007 may feel that 'Thanksgiving is a time of mourning' and '…a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship'. To any who choose to be in mourning and choose to be bitter, I would like to share:

My List of What I am Thankful For

1. I am thankful my parents never spoke of, never offered, never suggested in any way, shape or form, that my ethnic heritage and history would or could be a viable excuse - for anything.

2. I am thankful that I know I have the glorious freedom to choose to make my life what I want it to be – no matter how hard and no matter how many obstacles to overcome.

3. I'm thankful for the freedom to worship without fear of persecution…or prosecution – no matter how much my faith offends or irritates anyone else.

4. I am thankful for the freedom to express my political persuasion, views and opinions, loudly – no matter how much it offends liberals.

5. I am thankful that I am guaranteed a right to vote for my elected officials… or to run for office myself if I choose to do so.

6. I am thankful that believers and atheists, Republicans and Democrats and everyone in between are all endowed with the same freedoms that I am.

7. I am thankful that I live in a country where it is the U.S. Constitution that is our framework for laws and context and what we strive to adhere to… and not Sharia Law.

8. I am thankful there are men and women who have been gifted with a great measure of courage and boldness that compels them to fight on the front lines to protect these freedoms we hold dear.

9. I am thankful that I have never had to go to be hungry nor walk miles to find food for my children.

10. I am thankful I have clothes on my back… in my closet… and in my dresser drawers.

11. I am thankful that every night when I lay my head down on my pillow there is a roof above me and I can once again whisper in the darkness my deep and heartfelt thanks to God for all that He has provided.

Who has time to be in mourning or be bitter for what took place ages ago? There is too much calling right here and now to be grateful for. I only have to look forward with hope and continue to give thanks. Happy Thanksgiving! And I mean it.

***

Tom:

Folks:

Though I am not a deeply religious sort it seems to me that this November [2004] we simply have so much more to be thankful for than usual…

Dear Lord, we thank you for the election. We thank you that that arrogant, orange-faced, wind-surfing buffoon will not be getting into the White House any time soon. We thank you, O’ Lord - sincerely and humbly, that Tom Daschle will soon be standing in the unemployment line.

We thank you, Lord, for showing the RIF in Fallujah whose side you are really on.

And Lord, we thank you for the little things, too: Ted Rall being fired by the Washington Post, Dan Rather being eased out the door by CBS. Even in your most trivial acts Lord - the Kerry supporter who removed himself from the gene-pool at Ground Zero, the nuclear protester in Belgium who has now learned not to argue with a moving freight train - your bounty showers down upon us.

We could, in our ingratitude, ask for more, Lord: Bin Ladin’s and Zarqawi’s heads on platters, that the four most left leaning members of the Supreme Court go down in a fiery plane crash, that New England sink into the sea…but that would be presumptuous of us.

And besides, that’s what Christmas is for.