Azpark, I would hope this would be obvious, but I guess not if it disturbs you enough to post a comment, and one phrased in a manner that cannot be ignored. When ICT was in print, I had a hard 800 word limit if I did not want to be confined to on line. Now, I can get away with more like 1200 words. This limits the narrative arc. In the case of the narrative arc that concerns your comment, you have dropped your comment on part 1. Part 2 will be up on the anniversary and will end with a direct connection to what is going on today. Part 3 will be about organizing. Part 4, if it happens, will give an example of what a tribe could do today. As you know, a major theme of Sequoyah Rising is doing what we can with what we have. I think I demonstrate in that book that tribal governments have lots of power they are not using at all or are using ineffectually. That is extremely unwelcome news, and the narrative arc to it is long. If I fail to genuflect to the Indian-as-victim meme, nobody will read to the end. Any political commentary lacking that genuflection is taken to be a "white point of view" and Cherokees start out with the "white Indian" canard around their necks. I take your point, but (1) op-ed has limitations and (2) I could use some help out here on this limb where I've knowingly placed myself. See Chad Smith's recent attempt to saw it off.
Thursday, August 22, 2013 - 11:18