You're right my punctuation was wrong, mine is commentary not publication, and you cannot validate someone's idealisms and writing style by correcting another's punctuation. If you could, you's rule yourself out of the debate since baby steps is a two word phrase. Has your error automatically invalidated your comment or your criticism of my punctuation? No. I stand by my criticism of that last article's verbosity, overuse of words, and grandiloquence, using pompous or bombastic diction. It and Mr. DeLaune's rebuttals were truly awful they created vicarious embarrassment: discomfort when watching someone else embarrassing themselves, which is intensified when the person embarrassing themselves is not aware of how embarrassing their behavior is. You do him a disservice by reenforcing his choice to writ dribble. However, I find your description of 'vibrant detail' of my comment as proof that concise language and valid argument carried the day since it caused such a visceral reaction from you and it was easily quotable. I challenge you to ask another to read the last and this article and judge which is superior. Yes, Mr. DeLaune is taking baby steps. I also disagree that the conduct wasn't congruent with racism since whoops and the 'tomahawk chop' isn't associated with anyone other than Native Americans. These are a portrayal of indians as butchers wandering the country attacking without cause whooping and collecting scalps. This stereotype of a violent culture who needed to be ethnically cleansed for the good of all, including themselves, was successfully used to justify Native American slaughter and to keep indians from organizing, self governing, and gathering for religious and cultural purposes. It became a tool used to create biased federal laws to limit and over-regulate tribal sovereignty over tribal lands and later on reservations. The indian who stood up for himself was trapped by this stereotype, as it easily exaggerated him into a motiveless criminal killer. It was used to sell newspapers and dime novels and was believed by settlers and soldiers who were consequently motivated to kill first. It was a precursor to other negative stereotypes, after used as an excuse to heard native into dependence upon the state, it birthed another stereotype that indians are an entitled lazy burden of moochers upon tax payers. Which has recently evolved into the misconception that we live in luxury with free educations, gas, and have money rolling in from the casinos, therefore if any live in poverty it must be because of their own misdeeds. Created since Jamestown and still existing, it has been the most pervasive, enduring and believed stereotype of or role in history and in media throughout the world. Scott and Warren did say her heritage was about looks, they stated 'high cheekbones' and 'clearly doesn't look it.' Don't dismiss or justify bad behavior, willful ignorance helps those who want to manipulate you. Accept it if you choose but with the eyes wide open. Both have offended Native American groups, so the indian vote will have to decide who to vote for based upon the a candidate's stance on other issues and how those correlate with their interests. This isn't new, life hardly ever hands us clearly cut correct choices. Managing consequences of choice is best done with the most accurate information possible. You say Brown is a better candidate for native people because he has admitted and taken partial responsibility of offending indians, yet how his policies have affected native people would be misleading the point. I say have a higher standard. Asking what has Scott Brown done for Native American's is misleading how? He's Mr. DeLaune's candidate and this is a publication geared toward Native American issues. It's better to vote and keep on voting, than get discouraged with choices and not. When faced with two unappealing option why not take a third or fourth. Yes, there are leftist grassroots organization, and there are Libertarian organizations(conservative yes, grassroots yes) which will happily take your vote. And the main two parties do notice those votes. If one were faced with a medical situation and had two choices in which neither were favorable would one seek out information about other possible treatments? Sure, information doesn't rule options out. One would look at all the options and be watchful and wary of the undesirable elements of that option, not willfully blind of the possible effects of said option. One would want accurate information based on facts and results and wouldn't give credence to an over-reaching argument based upon deflection.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 12:40