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.

Which Symbol is Next?

With all of the flack that Confederate flag has been given of late, there are some interesting questions being raised regarding its meaning. The flag, however, like many symbols, is problematic at best: It has a lot of different meanings, and each of those myriad sometimes contradictory meanings are perfectly legitimate, as it has earned both its good and bad meanings. To some people it is legitimately a symbol of racism and oppression given its use by a number of racist organizations; there is no denying that it has gotten a bad rep. On the other hand, it has also become a symbol for rebellion, especially against strong authority figures including the government itself. But which symbol appeals to someone is an argument everyone should work out for themselves; that's an issue one needs to work for himself.

The issue here is that every symbol has its both its positive and negative meanings. There are few symbols that don't have strong meanings in two different directions; humanity is just that truly varied in its differing perspectives, and that few ways of looking at things are really wrong. A problem develops, however, when one group decides to attack a symbol because of how that symbol appears to them, despite how it appears to another group; it's a way of attacking a problem without attacking the actual problem. It's actually not a bad strategy, as sometimes the best way to defeat a group is to take away its symbol; without the symbol to rally behind it tends to dissipate, at least until it finds another symbol.

However, by the same token, people need to start looking at things from another perspective rather than just getting offended. They need to take the opportunity to look at something from the other perspective before getting too upset; sometimes the exploration is worth it. It's worth considering that the Civil War flag is a symbol of rebellion against the government in an era when people chafe under government oppression of all stripes, ensuring that it will only become more popular as time goes by.

Obviously there is the question of what to do when a symbol has racist or sexist undertones, as the flag certainly does, but we do need to note that every symbol has negative issues. The American flag, for example, is seen as an oppressive symbol to a lot of groups across the world, just as the peace symbol is seen as a symbol of a politically correct herd mentality; both are positive symbols to their respective groups, but have their negative connotations from their opponents. That duality is intrinsic to any symbol, and needs to be allowed for in any discussion.

Ultimately, we need to be aware of hw the symbol is seen by the other side, and how our own symbols are seen by the opposition. We need to stop assuming that others looking at things differently is a bad thing and start realizing that different perspectives are just as valid as our own. Sometimes we need to bear in mind that our perspective is not the only valid one, and that we need to look at the other side; sometimes limiting ourselves to a mere stereotype makes us more blind than our opponents. It's just a matter of respecting our opponents, and that is something that we all need to get better at....

Is Secession Treason?

One of the problems with The Civil War is that those states that seceded should be considered traitors. This treats the situation far too simply, and needs to be looked at in a bigger scope.

At the time there was some debate whether or not the states could even secede. The states were loosely organized, and a lot of states on both sides did not really consider themselves part of an actual country so much as a loose confederation of independent states. The government had very little power, and it usually stopped at the state level; while the United States government had power it was decidedly limited. There was just nothing to really give the government some real bite to its bark.

When the states did secede there was a debate on whether or not they should be just be let loose or not. By then the Southern states had no serious political power, the Northern states could easily do without them, and they were considered an embarrassment by other countries. Outside of some possible affront to the country's honor, there was no real reason to pursue the option of going after them. If the Confederate armies had not fired on Fort Sumter, odds are good they would have been allowed to fizzle out on their own.

However, that loose nature needs to be considered. At the time, countries world-wide were seen more as small states and their colonies. England was about as organized as it got, and they were quickly losing their colonies. More typical were the Germanic and Italian states, which were organized more as federations of loosely organized states; they would only get together when it came time to ally together for purposes of mutual defense, but otherwise pretty much ignored each other outside of their parties.

The United States was between the two of them, where the individual states worked together for common purposes and interstate trade but otherwise were pretty much on their own. The new territories were an issue as they could alter the balance of power once they came into their own and petitioned for statehood, but the point is that the states were not as linked as they were today. This created the problem that individual states could, in theory, split off whenever they wanted to without issue; they had united for a common cause but if they no longer had that same cause then they should be able to split off.

That's where things get interesting. Treason is usually defined as acts that act against the interest of the state as a whole, usually acts of extreme disloyalty to the state. Acts against the government as well as espionage that give out state secrets are obviously treason, as well as acts that encourage sedition. A state, like any other organization, requires that its members be loyal to the state; it only operates when everyone is one the same page. While protests and such are acceptable as long as they merely allow expression of that protest; actually obstructing that state from operating is something that needs to be avoided.

When the various states that made up the Confederate States of America split off, there was no question that their actions constituted lack of loyalty to the state in question. However, there is the question of whether or not the act of seceding itself constitutes treason. When someone leaves a country due to a dislike of the country's policies, it's not treason; no one blames the person for staying in what they see as an untenable situation. When companies decide to part ways, no one blames either company; it's considered good business sense to separate from a business partner that has decided to go another direction.

Secession is pretty much the same thing, but on a bigger level. It's the political version of a split-up: One or more state decides that the partnership is no longer working and so decides to split from the larger union. The North no longer needed the South's drama, and told the South to grow up; the South felt it was being picked on and decided to pack up and leave. The South decided it had had enough and decided to go on to what it thought were greener pastures.

As such, it's debatable on whether or not secession can be legitimately called treason. Although there is no doubt that there was some disloyalty shown, there is the issue that it was because the various states decided that they could no longer do business with the other states as part of the same union and that it made sense to separate. If anything, it's probably the best thing that could have happened, as the writing was on the wall: Slavery had overstayed its welcome and was on the way out, and there was no way to predict what would have happened to the South or what it would have done when slavery was finally abolished.

In essence, there's just not enough legal ground to say that secession should be considered treason or not, especially as none of the states had really decided that the membership in the United States had to be a permanent thing. Although the Civil War decided that particular matter, until that war and the ensuing legal storm the Southern states should have been able to split off with no problem. They no longer wished to work under the same framework as the rest of the states, so it was probably a good thing, politically, that they decided to do so. On pretty much every other level, however, they should probably have just dropped the whole slavery thing.....

How Slavery Weakened the American Pre-Civil War South

Interestingly, slavery would have eventually destroyed the Old South. Ignoring that it was a powderkeg that would eventually go off, based on the number of slave revolutions in other countries, slavery was sapping the strength of The South:

Expense: By the time of the Civil War, a healthy male black slave was going for $1100, based on handbills of the time. Putting that into perspective, they could have bought a healthy male Irish slave for $15 and a Native American for $5. Keep in mind that the average plantation could have 50 to 200 slaves on it, the majority of whom were young black males, and that represents a major expense on the part of the plantation owner. Throw in the expense of owning a slave, as they had to be fed, clothed, and otherwise maintained, not to mention the overseers and other associated personnel to deal with the slaves, and those slaves represented a major drain on resources. While the owners could hire them out in order to recoup some costs, this was rarely as profitable as it needed to be.

Technology: The South pretty much sucked as far as technology was concerned. The cost to update the technology is just part of the equation, but so was the dependence on slave labor. Be keeping to what they knew the Southerners were slowly falling behind the North in terms of technology. Worse, their plantations were not as efficient as Northern farms due to the lack of technology, so that was another additional cost that The South had to bear.

Education: The South had a love-hate relationship with education. The problem is that, with no real technology to maintain and being a primarily agrarian society, there was no real need for an education. Even women probably didn't stay in school as long as they did up north, especially as there was plenty to do at home. The rich were more likely to use tutors, whether it was for giving potential belles of the ball their manners and basic skills or for preparing boys for the military academies. This lack of education among its lower classes meant that the South was able to maintain its status quo, remaining a static society far longer than necessary.

Equality: While it needs to be noted that the 19th century is hardly the bastion of equallity, the South was far worse than the rest of the nation. While others were willing to ignore the gender and race under the right conditions, the South had managed to develop its own caste system based on gender, race, and economic status and vertical mobility was virtually impossible, at least less likely than other areas. This additional stratification added to the other stultifying effects of Southern society and ensured that the South would fall well behind the North.

The basic gist of the situation is that whenever someone says that slavery was ever a good thing, the deserve to be slapped down. By the 19th century slavery had long outstayed its welcome and needed to fade into the past. It had become a millstone around the neck of progress and needed to disappear into the annals of history, allowing the world to advance rather than keeping it where it was, like a fly in the amber of history. The damage wrought by slavery is going to be with us for a while longer, but hopefully we will eventually overcome it. 

The Other Causes of the Civil War

The current debate over the Confederate battle flag has got to be driving historians crazy. If most of them had to list the causes of the Civil War, slavery would maybe be in the #7 or #8 slot; slavery may have been the final straw, but it was hardly the only thing going on. It's one of those things that while everyone used it in their speeches, it was a stand in for everything else was going on. It needs to be realized that this was a war that was more than 80 years in the offing, and it was going to come to a head at some point. Here's some of the "other reasons" why.

1) Industrial Revolution: The South was primarily agricultural; it relied pretty much on its agriculture to fuel its way of life. When the Industrial Revolution hit, The South resisted it with every fiber of its being, even when it came to using inventions that could have helped it. There were exceptions, such as the cotton gin, but in general The South was extremely resistant to change. There was just no reason for it change, and Southern society had pretty much calcified. This meant that The South would fall behind The North on pretty much every level, and it's lack of ability to adapt would keep it there.

2) On The Wane: It needs to be realized that the US Government hasn't always relied on taxes to raise funds. In the century after the Revolutionary War, the government was loathe to create any taxes, and although there were some taxes and other income such as tariffs, the whole thing was more like a high school club than an actual government. Because of this, the government relied on private donors in order to finance a lot of its endeavors (for the Louisiana Purchase, for example, the government only paid $3 million of the price, with over $8 million coming from bonds, although there were other sources).

This meant that a lot of the money for a lot of government spending came from private citizens, giving those citizens a number of dispensations, such as military commissions and favorable bills. Originally a lot of this money came from rich plantation owners, but as the North became more industrialized it was able to line political pockets. Combined with the gains in territory with its resultant gains in senators, representatives, and electoral votes, the South was losing political power even as the North gained.

3) Imports/Exports: The South had a few products, such as cotton, tobacco, and a variety of fruits and vegetable, and they did them well. However, they were limited to those products, and little else; they lacked a lot of mineral wealth. On the other hand, the North had forests, a wide variety of furred and feathered animals, room for cattle, and a lot of fertile plains, as well as easy access to metals ranging from iron to gold. This meant that the South was dependent on the North for a variety of products, while the North was virtually independent of the South. Overseas, this situation was magnified; the South imported a lot more than it exported, so it ended up with a trade deficit, while the North usually profited, As the South had to deal with the situation, as the majority of the imports were necessary for daily life, they were lucky that cotton and tobacco were so profitable.

These factors ensured that a war between the states was bound to happen. The South was in an untenable long-term situation and had to gain more territory at some point, but the North had already pretty much laid claim to all of that territory. Taking over islands or Latin America territory was problematical at best. This meant that southerners had to buy up northern territory, but they then had to deal with the slavery issue, which was not a favorite topic in the North.

In essence, the South was running on fumes but figured that they would be able to get more territory to feed their hunger for expensive items, and had to do so using an unpopular form of labor. Thus, while slavery was an issue, it was just the obvious one; The South was doomed to fall at some point and no one wanted to restructure out of pride.

Ultimately, slavery was just the final match that would eventually burn the house of straw that was the Old South....

Horus, Mithras, and Why Not Everyone Is Jesus

One of the more interesting attacks on Jesus is comparing him to some mythological characters. It seems that the easiest way to attack the Bible is to prove that it is nothing bad fiction, and the easiest way to do that is to apparently show that the Bible does nothing but retread older stories. Of course, Jesus makes a great target because he is so obvious. It seems funny until you see how little research they put into the attack.

The most common characters used are Dionysus, Mithras, and Horus. Given the miracle at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine and the resurrection, Dionysus is probably the better fit. Dionysus also had an entourage, and frequently came into town on a donkey spreading the word. However, that word was "wine", and he hardly had a virgin birth. The closest he comes to a resurrection is that he was "twice-born"; he was killed as an infant, but Zeus put him into his thigh where he was born a normal childd, so to speak. However, that was pretty much.

Conversely, Horus is probably the furthest. Horus' connection is simply that he was part of a trinity of closely-linked deities (Osiris, Isis, Horus), but otherwise there is no other link. Not only was he hardly the product of a virgin birth, but he was also never killed (therefore no resurrection). He was also a god of war, compared to Jesus being a messiah of peace. While it can be argued that he had twelve followers, it was simply because the stars, and therefore the twleve signs of the zodiac, followed the Sun, which Horus represented. Horus didn't even have a ministry; in fact, he rarely interacted with humans at all. at one point he was even replaced as sun god by Aten.

Mithras is the fun one of the lot. There are plenty of similarities to Jesus, but only if you seriously do not do your research. Most of the similarities appear to be the result of misinterpretations (his "twelve disciples" were from a picture of him with the twleve signs of the Zodiac, for example) and later additions (attributes of Jesus were tacked on after the 4th century AD as the two personages were combined by some Mithras devotees). He did have a ministry, and while Jesus and he did preach much the same things, a certain perspective needed to be allowed for; while both preached community, there were some differences in how they perceived peace, Mithras being a warrior god and all.

The bottom line is that it's an interesting form of attack to go after religion by going after the origin of its stories. We as human like to recycle a lot of things, and that includes stories that we find powerful and motivational. We'll continue to do so and we'll even add more stories as we find stories we like, that resonate with us. As that allows us to adapt,to grow, to become greater, I'm not so sure that that's something that needs to be discouraged. It should be interesting to see which stories become important over time, and last to the next generation or the generations beyond that.

The synthesis of those stories gives a very interesting look at who we are, and it should be interesting to see where we go from here. 

Why The War On Poor Defenseless Christmas?

A lot has been said about the War on Christmas, and how it doesn't exist. The catch is that it's an interesting conflict in ideologies, and one that can make for some interesting cultural anthropology. The problem is one of semantics, and how one defines "war".

A "war" doesn't need to mean something involving guns and bombs. It can be a revolution, where one ideology seeks to supplant another. While some revolutions have been big and obvious, some have been much smaller, as one idea attempts to subvert the other. This can make life interesting for those at the extremes of either side of the battle as they try and figure out how to win a victory for their side. It's entirely possible that most people involved don't even realize that a war is even being fought, or that those that fighting it are being downright silly. The so-called "War on Christmas" is one of the latter.

At one extreme there are some atheists that are attempting to stop Christmas as a way to slap down religion. These are usually the ones that enforce the law when it comes to the separation of Church and State, usually when it comes to some sort of religious celebration around the holidays. Some file complaints at work at the slightest mention of a "Christmas party", while others move into school districts so that they can stop the relevant schools from celebrating Christmas on the school grounds, especially if one of the schools has a widely-known tradition of celebrating Christmas. Some atheists have even resorted to court cases in support of their cause.

And then there are the idiots on the other side who see every new judgement as a nuclear strike on Christianity. This has proven great for ratings, and makes filling church coffers that much easier, as every rating point and dollar raised is seen as a defense against the heathen hordes. Fox News is especially good at using the "War on Christmas" to secure ratings, and has even used countdowns to foster some sort of panic mode in order to make themselves look that much better. It can, and has, gotten silly to the point that even Colbert and Stewart have had fun with it.

While religion and government need to remain separate, there needs to be some gray area. This is not to say that the government should become an advocate of religion, but rather that it should allow for the beliefs of those in the immediate area, and that local celebrations should be allowed in the buildings in question in the same sense that other organizations are allowed in, with the same restrictions. Obviously this should not apply to buildings that do not rent out spaces to the general public, such as court houses and most office buildings, but if the organization does, such as schools and some office buildings, it should be as long as space is rented out as normal. As long as it doesn't break any rules and they have paid for the space, there should not be problem in what they do with it.

At some point the religious and non-religious extremists need to just let things go. It should be easy to broker a piece between the two sides, far easier than it seems sometimes. Hopefully that is one the horizon...