Tim Giago's "Bury My Hertz at Wounded Knee"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c4896/c4896cc651e392eddae86790764712f439e6f982" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/894e5/894e5d83894d20a586595591d0c6c31cca2611d9" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f70b/3f70b77c389861c80f73bf17778dc3d686e07970" alt=""
...ABC News tonight pointed out that the speech contradicted all the spin and all the statements from the campaign before this incident broke, that Senator Obama was somehow unaware of these controversial statements and these very controversial views.
I was, frankly — I watched the speech, and you can't help but be moved by some of the sentiments in the speech, particularly at the beginning. It had a wonderful construct, talking about our Constitution and the troubled and flawed portion of the Constitution dealing with slavery.
But on reflection, look, the views that Reverend Wright talked about are reprehensible not because they are racially motivated but because they are so divisive and negative about our country. And in the speech, which I've read and reread, Senator Obama attempts to make those views a question of race. It's almost like he condemns them on one hand but refuses to disavow Reverend Wright on the other, saying he could no more disavow him than the black community, and then basically, asks us to accept that these views need to be understood, not accepted, but need to understood because they are legitimate expressions of black anger about discrimination. I just think most Americans — I think virtually all Americans would disagree with that.
...This whole thing has tarnished the image that he had attempted to build, first as a uniter, as somebody who'd bring everybody together. How can you claim to be somebody who can unite America if you're so tone deaf as to for 20 years be associated with an individual filled with such hatred for our country and for his fellow citizens?
And second of all, how can you claim to be something new and different when it turns out that you have misled people about the nature of your association with him? And how can you claim to be something new and different when it turns out you applied one standard to one individual and different standard to another?
This is deeply troubling, and particularly because we now live in a culture of the visual. These statements by Reverend Wright, which were, interestingly enough, given away or sold by the church on DVDs to people — you know, they're on YouTube. They'll be viewed and talked about continually between now and the election. And they're going to cause deep concerns about people because, again, it gets down to — these are bad. These are bad, paranoid and vicious things about our country. Why did you tolerate them for 20 years?
...if he had come out and said some of the things that he said about our country in this speech but said, Look, I recognize — I realize now how deeply troubling these comments by Reverend Wright were. I wish I'd spoken out at the time. I wish I had not tolerated them. I took part of our relationship, the relationship of faith, and allowed me — that allowed me to — that blinded me to how divisive these comments were. I made a mistake. I won't make that again. I think Americans would be applauding him.
Nobody expects our candidates for president to be perfect, but here he basically said, I now condemn them after I didn't acknowledge them before. But you need to really understand them in their context, and everybody in America, black and white, has reason to be angry, and we all ought to be angry at the same people. He talks about it towards the end of his speech, where he talks abut we need to be — you know, white and black together ought to be angry about, you know, corporate malefactors and people who've engaged in accounting abuse and people who are moving jobs overseas, which is basically to excuse almost anything that anybody would want to say, as long as we all have the same enemy.
...He equates the comments of Geraldine Ferraro with those of Reverend Wright. Now, Geraldine Ferraro was wrong to suggest that his presence in the race was a result of Affirmative Action, but I got to tell you, I find that, as reprehensible as it is, to be far less troubling than the suggestion that our government created AIDS in order to — as a tool of genocide. The moral equivalence that he drew between them was troubling.
It's even worse when it goes on to equate all these things that Reverend Wright says to what his grandmother said. Look, the private comments of an elderly grandparent are not equivalent to the public rantings and ravings over a 20- year — over several decades by a pastor of a very large church which are then disseminated into print and provided on diskette to anybody who wants to see it. I just thought throwing his grandmother under the bus like he did was — you know, showed an unattractive ambition that he should have kept contained.
...Americans don't like to talk about race. They'd like to get beyond race. They would like a post-racial society, black and white, yellow, brown, colorblind. But what Senator Obama did was deliberately say, We can't have this conversation about Reverend Wright except in and of a discussion about race. And as a result, the left-central media, the mainstream media, the left-center of American media applauded it, and a lot of people feel uncomfortable talking about it. But it will remain. It will remain a question for a lot of voters. Why did you associate with somebody who said such ugly things about America and made such outlandish, paranoid statements about our country? [Full text]
True enough. The documents found in Reyes' computer tell of funding the FARC's activities with Venezuelan money. No less than 300 million petrodollars.
Liaison with narcoguerrillas
They describe the complicity of the government of President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who assigned one of his principal ministers to be the liaison with the narcoguerrillas and offered to remove from the border any soldiers who interfered with the rebels' work.
The documents also mention Arab dealers, willing to sell missiles. And there are references to efforts to buy uranium, presumably to build ''dirty'' bombs capable of contaminating thousands of people with radioactivity.
We are, then, in the presence of an organization as lethal and sinister as al Qaeda, except that it is much older (40 years), better structured and more numerous. Its essential difference with Osama bin Laden's group is metaphysical in nature.
Al Qaeda is engaged in an anti-Semitic and anti-West religious crusade. The FARC is a communist organization, built within the strategic and political concept of the Cold War. It managed to survive after the disappearance of the Eastern bloc because drug trafficking and kidnapping furnish it with the resources it needs to remain viable.
Pact with radical elements
It is very important that we understand this fact, if we want to view reality through Chávez's eyes and interpret his behavior. The Venezuelan sees himself as the heir of the task and responsibilities that Moscow betrayed.
Chávez is convinced that the Caracas-Havana-Quito-La Paz axis is the seed of what someday will be a global power capable of destroying the rotten capitalist Western world. He dreams that he will have the honor of founding that glorious neocommunist era.
That is why he makes pacts (as Moscow did in its expansive phase) with the world's most radical elements, regardless of the ideology that sustains them or the methods they utilize. Their only requirement is to be profoundly and virulently anti-American and anti-West.
Whoever wishes to understand Chávez's behavior should read Epic of the Insurrection, a very interesting book, nicely written by Nicaraguan Gen. Humberto Ortega, a Sandinista and former minister of defense. Ortega tells -- with absolute frankness, much pride and thousands of facts -- how the Nicaraguan communists, at great cost, set up the subversive and insurrectional apparatus that liquidated the Somoza dictatorship.
Complicity with criminal gangs
But a second reading also demonstrates the intense degree of cooperation and solidarity between the ''brotherly'' forces in the socialist camp and the entire anti-West neighborhood.
Cubans, North Koreans, Russians and Palestinian terrorists turned out to help their Nicaraguan comrades ``unto victory forever.''
Chávez is not just the heir to the Soviet cause. He also inherited the tradition and strategy of ''revolutionary internationalism,'' something that includes total complicity with the criminal gangs. Moscow managed to shirk the consequences of that crime. Chávez probably will not be as lucky and will wind up, like Milosevic, behind bars.
The stir is over. I step forth on the boards. Leaning against an upright at the entrance, I strain to make the far-off echo yield A cue to the events that may come in my day.
Night and its murk transfix and pin me, Staring through thousands of binoculars. If thou be willing, Abba, Father, Remove this cup from me.
I cherish this, Thy rigorous conception, And I consent to play this part therein; But another play is running at this moment, So, for the present, release me from the cast.
And yet, the order of the acts has been schemed and plotted, And nothing can avert the final curtain's fall. I stand alone. All else is swamped by Pharisaism. To live life to the end is not a childish task.
[The poem is cited from Boris Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago. "Hamlet," is translated by Bernard Guilbert Guerney, p. 523. Here are some slideshows that showcase the beautiful Russian landscape and architecture. The slideshows are set to the songs "Laura's Theme" and "Evening Bells"---scroll down to Russian/English text.]
***************
I thought Pasternak's Christlike "Hamlet" would be a nice reflection for Palm Sunday. I am dedicating this post to two American heroes, writers who, like Boris Pasternak, defied the vilification of communist criminals and witnessed to the truth: Joseph Trimbach and Richard Two Elk.
The retired FBI agent Joseph Trimbach, the author of American Indian Mafia, and the Indian oral historian Richard Two Elk were vilified by the violent criminals and communist agitators who controlled the American Indian Movement (AIM) because they punctured AIM's lies and told the plain truth about AIM's crimes in words that everyone could understand. [Here readers can scroll down and review some recent posts about Mr. Trimbach and Mr. Two Elk. My first post (4-29-06) about Mr. Trimbach is here.]
Mr. Trimbach and Mr. Two Elk fought for justice for Indians and other Americans who were victimized, persecuted, and murdered by the leaders of the so-called American Indian Movement (AIM).
As I noted in a previous post that cited A.V. Bartoshevitch:
For two centuries the Russian intelligentsia have regarded “Hamlet” as a reflection of their own essence and historical fortunes. The changing interpretations of Shakespeare’s tragedy by Russian critics, writers, painters, composers, theatre artists, etc., mirror with extraordinary precision the evolution of Russian society and culture.
Pasternak's "Hamlet" was supposedly written by the poet Dr. Yuri Zhivago, the protagonist of Pasternak's 1957 novel of WWI and the Russian Revolution.
Pasternak arranged for his novel to be published in Italy because it was rejected by the Soviet censorship, and in 1958 the novel was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Pasternak was not allowed to accept his Nobel Prize, but during the week that the Nobel Prizes were awarded, Time (12-15-58) profiled the author and his works in an article called "The Passion of Yurii Zhivago":
For nearly 50 years, during which most of his country and the world became a graveyard, the poet continued to write—and one of the things that shaped his vision was the contrast between the graves and his youth's calm summer landscape, the eternal tension between life and death. In Doctor Zhivago, one of this century's remarkable novels, Boris Pasternak carried that theme to its climax. With this embattled book he restored to the world the image of what Russia has long been, despite violence, madness and corruption —a preacher to the nations on the text of death and resurrection.
In 1988, Pasternak's novel was finally published in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet regime's condemnation of Boris Pasternak was one of the reasons that the KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin became disillusioned with the communist regime and brought his notes about the KGB's foreign espionage and active measures to the British.
In Chapter I of The Sword and Shield, Cambridge University historian Christopher Andrew explains that Mitrokhin was disgusted to see Pasternak falsely denounced as a literary Judas:
Mitrokhin was an avid reader of the Russian writers who had fallen out of favor in the final years of Stalinist rule and began to be published again during the mid-1950s. The first great literary event in Moscow after Stalin's death was the publication in 1954, for the first time since 1945, of new poems by Boris Pasternak, the last leading Russian author to have begun his career before the Revolution. Published in a literary magazine under the title "Poems from the Novel Doctor Zhivago," they were accompanied by a brief description of the epic but still unfinished work in which they were to appear. However, the completed text of Doctor Zhivago, which followed the meandering life of its enigmatic hero from the final phase of Tsarist rule to the early years of the Soviet regime, was judged far too subversive for publication and was officially rejected in 1956. In the novel, when Zhivago hears the news of the Bolshevik Revolution, "He was shaken and overwhelmed by the greatness of the moment, and thought of its significance for the centuries to come." But Pasternak goes on to convey an unmistakable sense of the spiritual emptiness of the regime which emerged from it. Lenin is "vengeance incarnate" and Stalin a "pockmarked Caligula."
...Mitrokhin saw the official condemnation of Doctor Zhivago as typifying Khrushchev's cultural barbarism. "The development of literature and art in a socialist society," Khrushchev boorishly insisted, "proceeds ... as directed by the Party." Mitrokhin was so outraged by the neo-Stalinist denunciations of Pasternak by Moscow's literary establishment that in October 1958 he sent an anonymous letter of protest to the Literaturnaya Gazeta. Though he wrote the letter with his left hand in order to disguise his handwriting, he remained anxious for some time that his identity might be discovered. Mitrokhin knew from KGB files the immense resources which were frequently deployed to track down anonymous letter-writers. He was even worried that, by licking the gum on the back of the envelope before sealing it, he had made it possible for his saliva to be identified by a KGB laboratory. The whole episode strengthened his resentment at Khrushchev's failure to follow his secret speech of 1956 by a thoroughgoing program of de-Stalinization. Khrushchev, he suspected, had personally ordered Pasternak's persecution as a warning to all those inclined to challenge his authority.
The criminal AIMsters, their enablers, and literary apologists should think about the fact that witnesses with troubled consciences will come forward, and history will uncover and judge the AIMsters' lies and terrible crimes.