Baby, Are You Cold Inside?

While I can respect going after targets that represent a less than ideal situation "Baby, It's Cold Outside" should not be one of those targets. That's being attacked shows not only a fundamental lack of historical background, but a basic inability of reading comprehension. The song has eared its place as a winter classic, and there is no acceptable reason for it to have been slandered as much and as often as it has been, especially of late.

Here's the background for those not few not familiar: "Baby, It's Cold Outside" was first performed by a couple in 1944. In 1949, it became part of the movie "Neptune's Daughter", where it was performed twice. Since then it has become a perennial favorite to be sung around Christmas. The basic idea is that a woman is being hit on by a man, but is purposely acting coy so as to prolong the foreplay; eventually she relents and decides to stay the night with the gentleman. Overall, it's a fun, playful song that respects chastity while finding a loophole for a night's fun, especially as what they do is left strictly to the imagination.

Here's the problem: One of the more interesting aspects of World War II was that it was a major step forward for women. That is, because women had to take the place of men in factory in order to sustain the war effort and thus do something besides nurse, teacher, and secretary, it acted to liberate women in ways that had just never happened before. When the men came back there was just no putting that genie back into the bottle, but that didn't stop men from trying.

At the same time the Hayes Code was beginning to lose power. The Code acted to enforce conservative values, but its power was beginning to wane. In essence, it required the atmosphere encouraged by The Prohibition in order to exist, but once it had been repealed in 1932 the gloves started coming off. Production companies, many of which were about to face bankruptcy to the Great Depression, quickly noted that films with "racy" elements performed better and thus producing movies outside the usual framework began to become the norm rather than the exception.

What this all conspired to create was that, from the end of WWII to the late 1950s, the major productions were producing pretty much bland, non-challenging movies; this was the heyday of the musical and swashbuckling comedy as production companies tried to make money while adhering to a code that was becoming more outdated every year. It became an art form to slip "naughty" material into movies, risque material that threatened to cross the line (making the audience snicker as they caught the joke) but stayed well within the lines (making The Code's enforcers happy).

The end result of this was that movies were further and further removed from reality. They were forced to protect a conservative facade even as America became more liberal. Thus, while women were gaining greater freedoms off-screen, on-screen women were supposed to be demure and more damsels in distress and chaste lovers. While there were times this was flouted, it had to be done while allowing for The Hayes Code.

So, what does this have to do with the song? Well, a lot of the critics of the song have pointed out that the song represents mores of the time, and that it represents rape culture of the time, as she was unable to simply say "no"; after all, they argue, a woman had no choice when it came to sex and had to do what the man wanted. Women just weren't supposed to speak their mind and had to acquiesce to anything that men told them to; only by doing so could they be "real women", whatever that means.

There is a problem in basing your opinion of the times off a song in a musical, however. The reality is that women were able to say "no" and, in an era without reliable birth control, were expected to do so. This wasn't just some patriarchal stance based on the idea that deflowered women lost value; women of that era were just as promiscuous as the men. Rather, chastity prevented the spread of STDs and pregnancy; it's sort of interesting how many people forget that there was a serious interest in health at the time (one of the more interesting side effects of all that hygiene training in the military).

It also conveniently ignores that anyone forcing a woman into bed would have to deal with that woman's father and brothers, and possibly their friends. That applies double if she was impregnated by him (Roe v. Wade was still decades off, so abortion clinics were few and far between). That is, the woman has allowed to have sex as much as she wanted, but she did generally have a goon squad if she needed it. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to make it seem like the 1940s was an orgy by any stretch of the imagination, just that the movies weren't exactly portraying reality all that well.

And that ignores that the drinks of the era were usually watered down, so "What's in this drink?" was seen as more of an excuse than anything real. The drink could therefore be used as a signal for the other person to back off or to charge forward without either side being offended. Unless of course it was used too often, but that's another issue.

So, what's this mean? It means that it was a cute song used to subvert a code seen as archaic and moronic; it was, in its own way, a protest against authority. Rather than trying to enforce rape culture, it was trying to show that women were in control. She could have shut him down any time, and if not she could have at least screamed for help. She was playing hard to get, and the two were having fun. If they weren't either could have called it off without fear of reprisal and if he didn't respect that it would have been seen as lacking civility at best and he would have faced severe repercussions, especially if her father and brothers lived nearby.

There's just no way it can be seen as the prelude to rape by anyone aware of the whole situation, and there was a lot going on. It's a great song that can be a lot of fun if done right, and the parts can be easily switched, as well as the level of aggression adjusted. It's just sort of weird that this song, which has some empowering elements, seems to come under attack every year. Sure, there are some things that should be attacked, but we need to start targeting those targets and enjoy some of the cooler things in life....

The Addendum to the Talk

"The Talk" used to be that embarrassing discussion between father and son about all those wonderful changes brought on by puberty. Now, however, urban parents have added an unfortunate appendix to that discussion that involves the local constabulary, and how to survive an encounter with them. While I agree that this discussion is important, there are some issues with the motivation that need to be noted first.

[Don't worry; I'll include some basic survival tips so as to make sure that necessary topics are covered!]

So let's deal with the first elephant: It needs to be noted that this is not just a "black thing". While it may seem like that because that's where the media focus has been, there are a lot of less than peaceful encounters between police and any ethnic group; just look at skateboarders and protesters if you think only blacks have problems with the police. As such, it's not a bad idea for all kids to at least receive some sort of breifing on how to deal with cops.

[It's worth noting that suburban and country kids already get a more thorough version of This Talk (suburban kids get a breakdown of different cops while country kids get more legal information), but that's mainly because they are most likely to deal with cops the most due to tickets, checkpoints, and emergency situations. It also helps that they are more likely to know people in law enforcement, so they are most likely to be comfortable with them in the first place.]

The other issue that needs to be allowed for is that you need to avoid making it seem like the police are THE problem. There are some parenting issues to be considered here: While you do want kids to question authority, at least to some degree, you also want to avoid out and out rebellion; it's a balancing act that you as parents need to master. The issue here is that, if you okay disrespect to one authority you oay disrespect to any authority, and they are unlikely to respect an emergency authority. This means that they will not only disrespect you (as the authority figure in their lives), but also teachers (making teaching them harder) and paramedics and firefighters.

You need to keep in mind that some urban youth already have an attitude issue when it comes to cops: Not only does an arrest record build street cred, but prison time is considered a rite of passage. To show you how bad it is, a rapper actually sued the NY Times for slander when they revealed that he hadn't even been arrested! His credibility as a rapper had effectively been based on his prison time and arrest record, and he had neither! So he sued. That's a mentality that needs to be changed; a kid that's not scared of prision time isn't scared of the police, and that can create a lot of problems. That's an attitude that needs to be backed down big time. Again, the kids need to be aware that authority can be questioned, but outright rebellion against authority should be discouraged.

[This is not to say that the police don't have to work on less violent means of apprehension, but I've covered that already. My concern here is that the lack of fear of authority, the downright "Screw you!" attitude creates a lot of problems in and of itself.]

With that said, here are some topics that need to covered in The Talk:

1) In any discussion with law enforcement, hands need to be kept visible to the person with the badge. Hands that keep disappearing or are kept in pockets will make the op wary and possibly paranoid, and a guy with a gun, who is trained in its use, and has license to use it that weapon to kill, is not someone you want on edge.

2) Keep an open stance and don't fidget. An "open stance" is one where the cop can see your entire front with feet place just below the shoulders. Hands should be kept in front, preferably crossed chest high. While a cop is going to allow for some nervous energy, the more motionless you can be the better. Eye contact is also good, but try to be as impassive as possible; glowering at the cops is not going to help matters.

3) Be respectful. Answer any questions quickly and without attitude; if you feel something will incriminate you, you do have the right to ask for a lawyer; if you are arrested, you definitely have the right to a lawyer. If you're a minor (17 years or younger) you may not be questioned without a parent (or equivalent) present. However, you can answer as long as you don't misdirect the officer. Bear in mind that the officer wants to arrest the person who committed a crime and you want to talk to cops as little as possible; the officer will respect your position as long as you help him.

4) Maintain your position. Do not step towards the cop and do not back away if the cop approaches you. Approaching the cop can be seen as assault, and the cop is entitled to defend himself. Backing away can be seen as an attempt to flee, and that entitles the cop to take you down. Maintaining your position, not moving an inch, makes the cop look bad and sets him up for a complaint (at least) if he attempts to intimidate you.

[Let's clarify "assault": "Assault" does not require physical contact, only approaching someone. That's why it's usually paired with "battery", which is physical contact. Oh, and watch where the cop places his hands; too much contact with his weapon can be seen as "brandishing", an attempt at intimidation which which is also illegal in a most jurisdictions, and can result in complaints as well.]

5) If you're carrying, do not display the weapons nor reach for them. At that point you're the one at fault and the cop is allowed to react as he sees fit. He can claim either that you were about to attack him or that you were brandishing your weapons, and either allows the cop to claim to self-defense. Do not mention the weapons unless asked; you can fail to claim them, but youi can't lie about having them. Thus, make sure that you have any proper documentation for any weapons you do carry. And the "We were on our way to a baseball game" isn't an effective excuse. And make sure that you have actual training with the weapons you use; this is for your own health just as much as it for those around you. The most dangerous person in a fight is the moron with no training and it's because he's more likely to take down his frineds than his enemies.

6) Avoid street lawyers. Too many people get their legal legal knowledge from bad cop shows, and a lot of those shows totally suck at actual law. Something to consider: If someone keeps going in and out of jail because of basic stupidity, it's probably a good bet they don't know as much about the law as they think they do. If you pay heed to what they say you are more likely to end up as a statistic, so either find a way to shut them up, ignore them, or avoid them; your health could depend on it.

7) While the cop is on the scene, do what he says. Period. If there's an issue, file a complaint ASAP. You do not want to attack a cop, on or off duty; doing so may get you some serious street cred, but it's a good bet that things overall will actually get worse. However, if a cop has a lot of complaints on his record and he ends up in court, those complaints all f a sudden have a lot of power. Those complaints will also keep a cop from getting promoted, and back any civilian oversight program, that could result in getting him fired. BUT remember to make sure that the complaints are legitimate; too many false complaints will cause the legitimate reports to carry much less weight.

8) Try to record any encounter with the cops. As even cheap phones have cameras, there is no reason to not have at least two or three recording devices in a group of 5-10 people. If a cop tells you to stop recording put away the device and obey the request. After the encounter, file a complaint if someone blocks you from recording or if the cop has a missing bodycam or if it's shut off. The recording keeps both sides honest, and if something happens it becomes evidence. If necessary, take a cue from the military: Have one or two people keep their distance from the main group and so that they can record the situation without inteference from the cops (just like infantry scouts, they are to cover the group).

If you can, have one of the recorders carry his phone on the outside with the camera facing out; this way he can activate the recording function and not hold the device, thus giving it away that he is recording. If there's an issue, e-mail the video with a complaint. if you want to post it to Youtube or equivalent, give the precinct at least two days to deal with the complaint before doing so; this is not only a courtesy to them, but also shows that you are trying to be nice. You'll find that if you do this as a standard operating procedure your complaints will be handled much faster.

9) Enforce a dress code. Dress for respect and you'll be taken more seriously. If you want your complaints taken more seriously and if you want the cops to treat you more respectfully, then dress better and make sure that those around you dress well as well. Yes, this means no sagging pants, but it also means eliminating pants and shirts with too many holes, hoodies that need to be retired, and shoes that are worn out. If necessary, get the opinion of a girl and start a fund for your friends that are fashionably challenged, but you'll find that the better you dress the more respectfully others will treat and the more confident you will be.

10) Above all treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. Treat others with respect and you yourself will be respected. Never be afraid to apologize if you screw up and volunteer a reasonable penalty if you mess up. If one of your crew screws up, make sure that the bahviour is quickly corrected and that he apoligizes. If you know something ticks off someone else, don't do it and they will not do things that annoy you, provided it's within reason. The better reputation you have for being respectful, the more seriously your complaints will be treated and the better even the cops will treat you.

I know a lot of that sounds onerous, but it's worth investing the time and money to do so. You'll find that a lot of problems either lessen or disppear altogether and that when problems do develop you'll have some actual help in solving them. That alone makes all of the effort worth it, and that makes it something that you need to consider adapting as quickly as you can. If nothing else, this should help make The Talk that much easier, but make sure that you give it. Lives could depend on kids getting the right talking to, and the sooner the better. Yeah, they may ignore what you say initially, but they will eventually come around. Hopefully before they end up in prison or a body bag....

Appropriation: The Politically Correct Reverse Racism

Appropriation has got to be stupidest thing to be offended about ever created. The basic idea is that anything that defines a culture should not be appropriated by mainstream culture; to do so is to rape the culture and cause it to lose whatever makes the culture unique. A recent example is the retailer that took some Native American designs and incorporated them into dresses and jewelry designs; some groups were so offended by what was happening that they took to signatures, but the designs actually took off.

The reason for the offense is pretty simplistic: Everyone picks up culture wherever they go. Most people do so unconsciously, such as picking some vocabulary or mannerisms from another place, while others find a sweater that they fall in love with and take it everywhere they go. Some people find a particular type of symbols that they love, that makes them feel comfortable, and surround themselves with them. Others do it more consciously: A particular set of symbols is perfect for a project, and so those symbols are integrated into the project.

There is also cultural leakage: Any cultures in close apporximation will always trade bits and pieces of their respective cultures. Either one of them has a better solution for a particular problem, or a more comfortable style of dress, or even something that just looks cooler; these bits of culture will usually be in constant motion between the two cultures. Over time this creates a culture that is actually a mix of the two cultures with purists trying sometimes vainly to keep the cultures separate.

Worse, from the perspective of the purists, is when fashion and jewelry designers see something that they like. This is usually where the worst sins of appropriation come to play as the culture is mined like a gold vein for ideas which are then converted to fashion and jewelry, usually with none of the stories that made them important in the first place, or when those stories are perverted for the sake of a quick buck. The symbols of an entire culture can thus end up in the malls of the world and the originating culture gets none of the profit from the appropriated patterns. There are some situations where this is done without respect for the culture, such as for costumes or to exploit the culture, such as television and movies are infamous for doing.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of times when no disrespect is meant. There are a lot of times when it just happens, and there are other times when the culture itself puts its symbols and stories into the marketplace. A problem can obviously develop when a group gets tired of seeing of those things it feels defines it being used out of context by others, be it symbols or philosophies; as there are no copyright protections for cultures, this can create some interesting problems.

Making this really interesting is when two cultures tend to grab a lot from each other anyway; rap music is a probably one of the best examples, as it tends to incorporate a lot of different cultures into its lyrics and sound, while itself being grabbed by a number of other groups. In this case it's hard to define where exactly the leakage is happening, but it can get weird to try and track who is borrowing from whom.

Nonetheless, this can create a number of problems. Cultures tend to borrow from each other all the time; this helps create links between the two cultures as well as allowing for the sharing of knowledge. With even minimal sharing two cultures can actually become stronger as they both have more ways of dealing with problems than they had previous. In today's world where we are connected to everyone, this means that we can be influenced and influence cultures from other parts of the world that even a few decades ago we had no idea that even existed, becoming stronger as a world as each individual culture is drawn further into a single meta-culture where ideas and beliefs can be shared.

Of course, there are those that dislike this idea. As noted above there are those that wish to exploit other cultures for their own gain, but they can be stopped by boycotts and by providing better examples of that culture in the same media. This has been seen at work in that films and shows have gotten more respectful of other cultures.

Of course you also have the isolationists who believe that cultures should remain pure, but that's a losing battle; the culture would have to totally isolate itself in order to prevent any contact. However, as even the Amish and various tribes have shown, there is virtually no way to do this; cultures will always mix to some degree, and proximity is not always a requirement, not in the Age of Internet. It's just not a possibility any more for cultures to isolated.

The takeaway here is that appropriation is going to happen, and sometimes it is going to offensive. However, cultural leakage is going to happen, whether by intent or otherwise. All we can do is learn to respect the culture from which it comes and hopefully learn something about it before we take it for granted. About all I can advise for those that feel as if they have been "victimized" by it is to feel sort of flattered that someone loved your culture enough that they though to emulate it, and that they found something that reached out to them; cultural elements should link us, not separate us.

Why People Are Flocking to Trump

Every election cycle there is some element that defines it. In the 2016 election cycle, that element is Donald Trump. Trump's meessage seems to be so generically painted that he hasn't even bothered backing hmself with facts; he is rising simply because so many agree with his basic precepts. And that those can be just plain scary....

Trump is symbolic of so much that the American public actually feels when it comes to the political process as a whole. Between the legitimate issues and misinformation out there, Trump has managed to find himself a rather confortable niche, and he is happy as a clam in it. He is preaching isolationism to those who want America to stop importing new people and new ideas, familiarity to those tired of seeing something new every day, and conservative values to those tired and annoyed of liberal ones. He is also an outsider when all of the candidates are part of the politcal structure no one likes. It's that niche that makes him so welcome.

Some people are tred of what they see as a continual assualt on traditional values. I'd love to say that it's because they had some sort of advantage under traditional values, but they don't; it is just that it is the devil they know and the one they don't know scares them. Worse, some of them have taken the wrong message from dystopian literature and believe that anyone acting in their interest is just setting them up for something bad later on. Between the fear and the paranoia, it makes sense that someone who appeals to that is going to be their new leader.

People are also tired of the usual Washington insiders being in charge, and they want a change. Those seeking Sanders as a president can understand that, especially given his status as an outsider of the usual politics. However, Clinton and Sanders are still too ""inside" for them; Clinton's bonafides are obvious, while it needs to be remembered that Sanders has been in politics since the early 1960s. While Trump may be seen as a failed businessman on a number of levels, don't forget that "The Apprentice" has shown Trump to be a competent mentor and that he has a good management style; throw in that people assume businessmen to fail from time to time, and it's not that hard to see Trump as a great businessman who has just suffered a number of setbacks.

His message of isolationism is hardly new, but it has new relevance in an era when Muslims have become the new universal enemy; they are foreign to most people, and it is easy to be fearful of what you don't know. Throw in the fear of an imposition of an outside law (specifically Sharia law) and that foreigners of any stripe are feared in an era when anyone can be a terrorist, and any fears of the unknown can be intensified. It doesn't help that some need the influx of new ideas and concepts to slow down a little; we are in an age when ideas come quickly and rapidly.

All of this makes Trump a banner to be flocked to, a signal light in the perceived darkness. Some have a need for the values that they know, for someone to act against their fears, and to act as a bulwark against the invaders. People are looking for a Washington outside, and one that knows something about business is an added bonus. Combined with his ability to just pain insult anyone instead of trying to talk when people are tired of talk, and all of this makes Donald Trump a great looking president for the wrong people. He just happened to be the right person at the wrong time, and that makes him popular enough to be a presidential candidate. Hopefully, that's as far as he gets....

How To Help Stop Police Violence

The problem of police violence is a complicated one. Summing it up:

1) It takes a particular types of person to get involved with law enforcement and that type is usually more aggressive than the average person.

2) It doesn't help that it takes a particular type of person to be a criminal and that type of person is usually more aggressive than the average person, creating a fun time when the two of them clash.

3) If the most peaceful person tends to lose it occasionally under high stress, imagine how long it would take for that person to lose it when lives are constantly on the line.

4) Keep in mind that not all people are inclined to help the police, and think that it is their responsibility to obstruct the police, especially if they can help with an investigation. Some of these people are aggressive in their obstruction, which adds to the problem.

Combine all four liberally, and it gets weird. Of these problems, the only that can really change is the fourth, and if you can figure that one out, you woul see a major decrease in police violence. Note that I'm not pinning the fault exclusively on the civilian population; police need better training in how to handle their emotions and the hiring process needs to get better at weeding out problem recruits. Of course, that also means that police departments also need to increase recruitment in order to ensure that they have better choices as well. That would also go a long ways towards eliminating police violence.

On the civilian side, there are basically two sides to the conflict. The first is that the civilians needs to at least feel as if they have some control over the police; they need to have a voice in not only how the department is run but have the ability to see something done about their complaints. A civilian oversight board should be instituted in order to field those complaints as well as provide feedback to the police department; even if the board has no actual power it should nonetheless help provide a way for civilians to see what happened during an incident and for both the police and civilians to work towards a better way of doing things.

The other is that the standard vicious cycle needs closing. The issue is that certain neighborhoods feel as if the police don't like going to those neighborhoods and that the police treat them rougher than other neighborhoods; the police feel that it harder to investigate crimes in that neighborhood and that they are in danger in those neighborhoods. Adding to this is that cops often don't serve those neighborhoods as well as they do other, even as the cops find that cnducting an investigation in those neighborhoods is tough. While there is there no question that police need to serve those neighborhoods better, those in the neighborhoods need to help the police out; the police need to feel less on edge going into those areas, and a good part of that is their reception in those neighborhoods.

It doesn't help that some comunities don't like the police. Ignoring gang-controlled areas, you have a lot of areas where immigrants traditionally enter the city, and those immigrants are coming from lands where the authorities were corrupt, where law was controlled by the rich, and where it basically sucked to have to call in the police. When they come in they are already distrustful of any authority, and so they have learned to basically monitor themselves. However, in far too many areas you end up with a contnuation of the system from where they came, but in some cases worse as the new authorities are not only judge, jury, and executioner but also need to deal with justice on the spot as they lack any kind of jail. These areas have even less respect for authorities.

And there is the problem that police departments are attempting to change but are caught in the past: They are becoming more receptive to non-traditional solutions, and are actively working towards becoming more color-blind. Some are trying to figure out how to weed out potential problem recruits, while others are instituting programs in order to better educate their cops. In some areas beat cops are making a come back as precincts find that they are not only a great way to deter crime but work as part of a community outreach program. Other precincts are creating civilian oversight programs in order to deal with public relation problems. That's the good news.

However, there is a lot of bad news as well. Some precincts are having a problem finding enough recruits to fill slots, creating forces are too small for the area being enforced. Others are having to deal with communities that want their cops living in that community even as no one from that community wants to be a police officer. It doesn't help that some precincts are dealing with problems from the past, either that the community has lost faith in the police or never had any to begin with. It doesn't help that some precincts have a well-deserved reputation for violence that needs to squelched.

In summary, police and their communities need to come together in order to figure out how to solve the problem. This is not to say that both sides shold not be wary of the other, but at some point things will only happen if both sides put away the majority of their mistrust and start working together. They need to pull together as a community in order solve this problem, and until they do the problem will only get worse.

Why Trump Could Win The Election

Why Trump Could Win

Liberals can be idiots. Anyone who follows a path without really considering where it goes can easily get lost; that definitely applies during election years. In this case that path could lead to a destination that actually fears most people rather than the promised land. That could make this a really bad year, depending on how you look at it.

In a nutshell: Liberals could actually end up voting Donald Trump in as President of the United States. It may sound contradictory, but there are a number of ways it could happen, and all of them because of their very morals. That makes this an election year that has some very interesting traps for those trying to avoid Trump as president.

Voting their conscience is one of the traps. In any vote you will get those that feel as if it's the time to make a point, and making a point that the two-party system is broken is part of that. While that's a legitimate argument, as more voices would make it things a bit more interesting if nothing else, a third-party candidate needs to work on timing: A campaign that began a bit earlier than the last few months before the vote itself just means that the third-party candidate will remain virtually unknown outside of a relatively few people. All that is going to happen is not much more than split the vote between herself and a main party candidate. In this case voting their conscience may get the third party votes, but it may give Trump an edge.

[Interestingly, we have see a double split vote this year: Just as JIll Stein (Green Party) may split the vote with Democratics, Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) may do the same with the Republicans. If so, then this cold be an interesting year, to say the least.]

Worse are those who want Sanders no matter what. Basically, if Sanders ends up on the ballot, then all is well and good; if he doesn't, then a lot of people are planning to not vote. While this is a respectable point of honor, there is the issue that it sort of goes against the spirit of voting in a primary; it just feels that if you vote in a primary for that party you should be willing to vote for whoever wins that vote. Otherwise, there is the old "if you didn't vote you can't complain" argument: If you're not going to vote, then you sort of lose all right to complain if Trump actually is voted in as you did have the chance to vote for someone else. Laying down your arms, so to speak, and surrendering should never be seen as an option; you have a vote so use it.

And of course there is the anti-Clinton crowd. While it's not completely incomprehensible as Clinton has done some things that are not exactly kosher and she should be judged on her record as senator, she does nonetheless not deserve all of the bad press she has gotten. However, the manufactured Benghazi and e-mail scandals have taken their toll; although she has been rated by Politifacts as the most honest of the three major candidates (herself, Trump, and Sanders), she has had problems shaking the perceptions of too many people following the election. This may also cause some voters to either vote Trump, for a third party candidate, or avoid voting altogether.


The bottom line is that votes have not counted as much as they do in this election. Admittedly votes always count, but Trump is the one person I would never want to see in office, and it stands a very good chance of happening. I would advise knocking out as many Republicans as you can as well, but it's mandatory to do as much against Trump as possible. Trump is one of the scariest candidates I've seen run for president, and while I'm hoping someone else will be asked to run at the Republican Convention, being prepared is not necessarily a bad idea. It's going to be a long four months; hopefully it won't end with Trump as President of the United States.

The Native American Genocide....sort of

Sometimes history is manipulated for political effect: Groups have learned that the easiest way to get friends,or at least allies, is to make themselves victims of some great tragedy. Native American groups have settled on fabricating a genocide that happened during the 16th through 19th centuries, despite the historical fact that no such genocide actually happened. It's a great way of getting attention, especially among those looking to make it look like they are doing the right thing, but sometimes agreeing with something just to make yourself look good is hardly the best thing.

[This is not to say that the deaths of native peoples is not a tragedy, and that should not be the takeaway here. There is no doubt that the deaths of so many is in fact one of the greatest tragedies in world history, and there is no way that it can be righted. The subsequent theft of native lands by the US government just compounds that wrong, and it needs to be addressed by more aggressive action. However, that's beyond this entry....]

The sad truth of the matter is that when the first explorers hit the shores their intimate interactions with the natives they found began the spread of any number of diseases to which they had no defense. Those diseases then spread throughout the continent killing tribe after tribe, and eventually resulting in a decimation of the population; by the time the plague was finished between twenty and sixty million people would be dead. In this case a number of different reasons contributed to the decimation, ranging from limited medical knowledge, general separation of tribes, and the style of combat (most warriors counted coup more often than killing their opponents; this meant close physical proximity when they hit another warrior with a coup stick).

This epidemic would last from the day Columbus landed all the way to the late 19th century, when vaccines would become reasonably commonplace. The disease would eventually hit every tribe from Alaska to the tip of Chile, even though some tribes would be hit harder than others. Worse, it would keep coming back even to areas that it had previously passed over. It was the gift that just kept giving.

[It's worth noting that the natives did infect the explorers in turn: Several million Europeans died as a result of the diseases brought back, and one of the new immigrants, syphilis, is still a killer even today. But...those deaths were widespread enough that they were ignored until centuries later.]

The problem is that "genocide" is not a word to tossed around lightly; it's a word with a specific meaning and that meaning needs to be respected. For it to be considered a true genocide, not only do a massive number of deaths need to occur, but their also has to be intent: One group needs to actively seeking the destruction of another group. While a lot of deaths did occur, those deaths were the result of disease rather than actual intent. The explorers did not mean for the natives that they encountered to die, and they certainly didn't mean to kill millions; they meant to open up trade routes and it's hard to trade with people that don't exist.

The issue gets worse when the US government decided to take over The West. In general the settlers not getting along with the locals is a myth; settlers actally tended to treat the natives well. There were exceptions of course, but it went both ways: Native Americans did occasionally attack settlers for any number of reasons and the settlers weren't always the nicest people. Even roughly 44 "Indian Wars" over a century or so of fighting didn't do as much damage as some claim: There were 30,000 lives in all of those wars, some of which were with the British, French, and other nations (it has been estimated that the true total was closer to 45,000).

It's not even a genocide when the Bureau of Indian Affairs took things over. If so it was the worst genocide ever: Not only did the tribes survive the relocation and attempts at re-education with their beliefs mostly intact, but most of the 114 tribes that disappeared were due more to reclassification than due to actual deaths (at the beginning of the Western Expansion "tribes" could be as few as a handful of individuals, but the BIA grouped a lot of those smaller groups together). Although the practice of so-called "pagan" beliefs was illegal, tribes were still allowed to practice them as long as they were practiced away from civilized society (that was why the sun dance was renamed the "ghost dance" until the 1970s, when they were allowed to practice their beliefs openly again).

Heck, even the smallpox blankets were mostly myth. There were only two incidents of that ever reported, once in 1763 and another in 1837. In1763, Lord Amherst ordered two infected blankets be sent to a nearby tribe, but the tribe had moved on before the blankets arrived. In 1837, an epidemic among the Mandan tribe begun that would spread to the rest of the Plains Indians; although originally attributed to blankets it was actually found that a three Mandan women had been exposed to smallpox sufferers aboard a river boat on their way home, and they spread the disease to their tribe. While there were plenty of threats to release smallpox on various tribes, and there was a generally consensus it could be spread that way, there is no actual incident of it being spread by any means other than bad quarantine practices.

[It's worth noting that in 1832 the US government had passed a bill to vaccinate the various Plains Indians tribes, but Secretary of War Lewis Cass prevented surgeons to be dispersed in order to distribute the vaccine; this the person responsible for implementing Jackson's Indian relocation policy.]

Thus, while it's important to recognize that the Native Americans did suffer in a number of ways under colonization, genocide was not one of them. Sure, there were massacres, but the Native Americans did that as well (Little Big Horn is the obvious example, but a number of small settlements and forts were destroyed as well; in war there are no innocents). They did suffer from enslavement, governmental abuse, and any number of other crimes against humanity, but we need to be clear that genocide was not one of them; the tribes have survived and hopefully will for centuries to come. I'm not trying to make the tragedy any less horrific; it definitely needs to be noted and the lesson learned for any other attempts of colonization. If nothing else, hopefully we will have learned that the rights of indigenous natives need to be respected and will help protect them rather than take them over. If not, then we deserve to have some aliens take us over in order to properly teach the lesson, but hopefully it won't come to that.