The Massachusetts Flag Debate: History Deserves a Fair Hearing, Not Another Rush to Judgment

“white supremacy culture.” I admit that I tend to react instinctively in opposition to the removal of historic images or memorials. However, the Massachusetts flag dispute seemed strikingly similar to the debate that we recently had (and lost) at GW over our moniker “The Colonials.”

According to activist Marianne Vesey, the state flag and seal depicts a “colonializing and violent depiction that is really supporting the fact that white people are in charge of this world and that we have to subdue the Native American people.”

The official emblem of the State goes back to 1775 and was later adopted by Governor John Hancock and his government on December 13, 1780. The seal and flag have gone through changes through the years. The first seal, for example, depicted a nude Indian with a bush covering his groin. That image was later changed.

The current depiction is reportedly based on a composite sketch using the image of the Chippewa chief Thomas Little Shell III.

In fairness to critics, there is history related to older images that had offensive elements common at the time. During King Philip’s War in 1676, the Bay Colony ordered a seal with the words “In the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this Land / They giving us peace and mercy at their hands.”

The question is whether the current image of a Native American is itself racist as opposed to reflecting the Native American origins of the area. Many of the objections appear to be the juxtaposition of the sword above the head of the figure.

However, the sword above the figure was added around the revolution and was a reference to resisting British rule, not Native Americans.

For some of us, it is reminiscent of our debate over the Colonials. The objections to the Colonials was entirely ahistorical and uninformed on its meaning. It did not matter.

For roughly 100 years, George Washington rallied behind our beloved mascot of the Colonials.  Then someone declared it meant celebrating the colonization of other people, as opposed to resisting such occupation.

The petition read: “The historically, negatively-charged figure of Colonials has too deep a connection to colonization and glorifies the act of systemic oppression.”

It is nothing of the kind.  The Colonials reflect our history as one of the oldest universities in the country founded at the direction of George Washington.  Washington called for the establishment of a national university and left funds for our charter in in his last will and testament.  President James Monroe approved the charter in 1821.  It was meant to be a new university that reflected a new nation.  This country was founded by colonials who forged a new vision for democratic process and individual freedoms.

Former Hatchet reporter Andrew Hesbacher, along with Rachel Yakobashvili and Emma Krasnopoler started the campaign.   Hesbacher is quoted as saying “Colonialist, terrorist, murderer. In a lot of places that’s what colonials mean to people.”  Of course, that is the value of learning about the true meaning of terms.  The thirteen colonies were the seedlings that grew into a new Republic.  This school reflects those founding members of our nation.

Many people objected that an initial vote to change the name was held with little notice and relatively few students voted. Even then it was close. The university then created a committee to study the issue, which seemed to avoid inviting those of us who had long argued in favor of the name. That followed a panel of discussion that notably omitted anyone arguing for the Colonials. It was clear from the outset that the name would be dropped.

Now Massachusetts is arguing the same ahistorical point. The sword accompanied the Latin motto “Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.”(“This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty.”) Again, it was a statement against British rule. Rather than educate people on the origins and meaning of symbols, particularly the sword over the figure, it is now a racist symbol by acclamation.

Massachusetts has a rich history that helped shape this Republic and its ideals. It is part of our shared history; we are all beneficiaries of the patriots that rose up in the Bay State. The flag is part of our collective history. It is a shame to sever another symbol from the founding period without a full and honest discussion on the Massachusetts seal and flag.

The fear is that, once a movement coalesces around a racist claim, many fall silent out of fear of being tagged or attacked. We have seen that happen on many campuses. I hope that this will be different. Many of us are open to hear why this image is racist and now intolerable. However, the flag and seal should not be discarded in another mad fit of political correctness. For hundreds of years, this symbol and its precursors have rallied Massachusetts and served as a reminder of a shared legacy. We should give it more than a passing consideration in a rush to sanitize history.

138 thoughts on “The Massachusetts Flag Debate: History Deserves a Fair Hearing, Not Another Rush to Judgment”

  1. Perhaps the individuals (being polite and respectful) who have suddenly discovered the Commonwealth’s flag tour the Statehouse and ask about the flag. I see no racism or white supremacy in the flag. In fact, the Chippawa brave is represented to honor the help given to, dare I say it, the first colonist, the Pilgrims. JT is correct about the sword, it is not illustrating white supremacy.

    One cannot take today and overlay it over past practices. No matter how one tries you can not change the past. You can learn from it.

    As for Senator Warren, this issue is not so much about caring as it is about publicity.

    As a citizen of Massachusetts, the “issue” is much ado about nothing.

  2. If the leftwing activists want to cancel everything with a racist past, they should start with the Democrat Party.

  3. As we erase images of Indians we will gradually forget them and start to ask “Why are you here and why don’t you grow up and join America?”

  4. Jonathan: In the case of the Mass. flag and seal you oppose any change. Why? Because the “flag and seal should not be discarded in a fit of political correctness” and a “rush to sanitize history”. You took the same position when GW decided to change the name of the school mascot “Colonials”. It is interesting that at GW there was a student, faculty and staff referendum in 2018. 54% voted to change the mascot name. A special committee was appointed to review the issue and they also came down in favor of the change. The board of trustees agreed and apparently the change will occur this academic year.

    Now I would imagine a similar process will take place in Mass. There is a growing movement in the state to change the flag and seal because they depict a White hand holding a sword over the head of a Native American. There is also the Latin phrase “She seeks by the sword a quiet place under liberty”. The seal and flag are clearly a symbol of the oppression and genocide of Native peoples during the Colonial period and why many in the state, including Sen. Warren, call for a change. There probably will be a referendum to see what the citizens of the state think. If they vote to change the flag and seal that will be part of the democratic process. How could you possibly oppose the will of the people?

    What is happening here is a reminder of what happened after Nazi Germany was defeated. The allies and the new German government removed all symbols of the Nazi era. In 1948 the “Reichmark” was replaced by the “Deutsche Mark”. Would you have opposed these de-Nazification measures as a “rush to sanitize history”? I hope you would have supported those measures but by the same logic it could be argued de-Nazification was a “rush to sanitize history”

    Now you oppose any change to the Mass. flag and seal because, well, they have been around for “hundreds of years” and “serve as a reminder of a shared legacy”. Being around for “hundreds of years” is no real justification for not making a change. And what is the “shared legacy” you seem to think requires no change? You took the same position when statues in the South–symbols of the confederacy and slavery were removed from public places. Those statues were removed because the people in those states no long consider slavery a part of their “shared legacy”. This reason is again no real justification against change.

    If we want to talk about attempts to “sanitize history” you should be addressing what is happening in FL under Gov. DeSantis. He is leading the charge to “sanitize” the history of racism by preventing teachers from addressing these issues in the classroom. Books that address issues of racism or LGBTQ subjects are banned from school libraries. These are more draconian attempts to “sanitize” history then anything going on in Mass. But you have nothing to say about this more important issue.

    Which brings up why this is all of a sudden a big issue for you. Fox News covered the Mass story 2 days ago. It took you just 48 hours to write this column where you call the movement to change the flag and seal a “Rush to Judgment”. I think this is just another example of how you follow Fox’s lead when it comes to the news. So it is laughable that you claim in your recent disclaimer that “my views on this blog are neither connected to nor approved by Fox…”. We all now know that is not true.

    1. Dennis McIntyre:
      (1) The 54% (near the slimmest of majorities) was apparently achieved, as JT points out, as a result of, “Many people objected that an initial vote to change the name was held with little notice and relatively few students voted. Even then it was close. The university then created a committee to study the issue, which seemed to avoid inviting those of us who had long argued in favor of the name. That followed a panel of discussion that notably omitted anyone arguing for the Colonials. It was clear from the outset that the name would be dropped.”
      (2) your selective editing of the Latin phrase exposes your intent. Even your own liberal Wikipedia source admits that it comes from the full phrase, “this hand, an enemy to tyrants, seeks with the sword a quiet peace under liberty.” Notice that the REAL intent, (-not yours) –was anti-tyrant, not anti-Indian.
      (3) Your comparison to Nazism is unequivocally without merit, as the Reich had a stated mission to eradicate anything not Aryan. No such objective here comes even close to what you purport, to wit, to eradicate Indians?
      (4) Likewise, your addition of DeSantis is without merit. You speak as though DeSantis and Florida are alone in this effort. Have you considered that DeSantis is anti-propaganda, not anti-history?
      (5) Your remark to JT, i.e., “So it is laughable that you claim in your recent disclaimer…” is indeed in itself laughable. I personally have no idea when “Fox News covered the Mass story.” Apparently you, like Svelaz and Gigi, do know…and all three of you breathlessly follow the good professor’s blog every day, without fail.
      This begs the question, Why?

        1. Because I do not consider Dennis a troll, like Svelaz, Bug, Gigi. I compartmentalize him into his own little box, with different motive than the other three.

          1. Lin,
            You have an amazing way of owning Dennis. The only time I will bother to read his stuff is when you respond/own him.
            And in much fewer but eloquent words.

      1. lin: Thanks for your comment. I will take your points in order: (1) 54% is a slim majority–but a majority nevertheless. Are you saying such a majority should not prevail. Kind of gives “majority” a whole new meaning. The GOP now has the slimmest majority in the House in recent memory–only 51%. Does that mean they should not make their own rules or legislation? That’s preposterous!; (2) I didn’t selectively edit the Latin phrase. That’s the portion that appears on the flag and seal. If you have a complaint take it to the people who designed the flag and seal. And why did they choose an image of a Native American. If their intent was really “anti-tyrant” why didn’t they choose a different image–say King George? It’s pretty clear from the historical record that the Puritans were intent on subjugating native peoples who did not share their religious beliefs; (3) My reference to what happened after Nazi Germany was defeated is appropriate. In 1945 there were some who didn’t want to erase all the symbols of the former regime. It wasn’t until 1948 that the “Reichmark” was replaced with the “Deutsche Mark” and that was controversial. Using Turley’s logic you could argue that Hitler’s image and the other symbols of Nazi tyranny should not be replaced because that would be a “rush to sanitize history”. You might consider my reference as extreme but if you follow Turley’s logic that’s where it leads; (4) Same with my raising the issues posed by Gov. DeSantis in Fl. He is “anti-history” not “anti-propaganda”. His legislation says teachers can’t teach the real HISTORY of slavery or the HISTORY of racism in this country. That’s anti-HISTORY!; (4) Fox News covered the Mass. controversy on 3/7. Actually, it was a pretty straightforward article without any editorial comment. I don’t know if Tucker Carlson or any other Fox show host added any critical comments. But Turley decided to add what he knew would be approved by Fox executives. That’s why I say Turley’s claim to be independent of Fox is laughable. Turley knows what’s expected of him as a paid “legal analyst” at Fox. If you don’t believe me check out any of Turley’s columns. They appear in close proximity to a Fox article or one that appears in the NY Post–also owned by Rupert Murdock. Turley frequently cites the Post in his columns. Turley provides a echo chamber for Murdock’s or Fox executives’ views on any subject.

        Now, I can’t speak for either Gigi or Svelaz. But we are fellow travelers in a quest to point out the fallacies in Turley’s posts. And, yes, we follow his blog every day–just like you. Why? Because we are truth seekers–unlike you and others on this blog who see your roles as providing an echo chamber for Turley’s views. That’s your privilege but don’t expect us to just go along. We are not sycophants.

        1. Is a majority all that is required to eliminate the right to free speech ?

          It is troubling that it so often needs repeated – American is not a democracy.
          Everything is not decided by a majority.

          I do not have a position regarding flags, or state symbols or bhirds, or the names of sports teams.

          Beyond that it is not wise to change something hastily.

          But that is not true of most things. Government as an example should not ever be given the power to use force – and nearly everything government does uses force or threat of force, with a mere majority.

          1. John Say: Every 2 0r 4 years you walk into the voting to choose the candidate(s) and issue(s) of your choice. That’s one of the quintessential rights of “free speech” we still have in this country. If your candidate loses does that mean your right of free speech was taken away? Of course not. If you are in a minority you take your lumps and move on. Why is that such a hard concept to get your mind around?

            We are not a pure democracy. We are a “democratic republic”. Which means we elect other people to represent us in the House and the Senate and we expect their votes to represent our interests. It doesn’t always happen that way but you don’t always get everything you want.

            On Jan 6, 2021our democracy was tested severely for only the second time in our history. Had Trump been successful in overturning the election we probably would be living in a much different world. Millions of voters who voted for Biden would find their right of “free speech” (the right to vote) taken away. Even today Trump apparently agrees with you that “Everything is not decided by a majority”. He wants the power of a king or an authoritarian so he can make all the decisions. He doesn’t care what the majority thinks. Is that also your concept of “democracy”?

            As to the government’s use of force it requires an act of Congress to go to war. But presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have used work arounds to avoid going to Congress. They have even lied to get the right to use force. We saw that in the Iraq war. Remember the “weapons of mass destruction” George W claimed Saddam Hussein had hidden? We are now in a virtual war in the Ukraine. Biden has sent billions in military equipment and advisors into Ukraine. Did our elected representatives get to vote on that? We are on a slippery slope in Ukraine just like Vietnam and it seems only the Republicans are questioning Biden’s decisions. Where are the Dems when we need them?

            1. “John Say: Every 2 0r 4 years you walk into the voting to choose the candidate(s) and issue(s) of your choice. That’s one of the quintessential rights of “free speech” we still have in this country.”

              Makes no sense.
              Demonstrates a lack of understanding of what democracy is.

              “We are a “democratic republic”.”

              ½ Wrong.

              We are a Constitutional Republic. You can add democratic if you wish, but we follow the Constitution, which includes democratic elements.

              “As to the government’s use of force it requires an act of Congress to go to war. ”


              We are supposed to have an act of Congress to go to war, but some prefer a “living Constitution” enabling them to suspend it at their convenience.

              ” We are on a slippery slope in Ukraine just like Vietnam and it seems only the Republicans are questioning Biden’s decisions. ”

              Correct. That is what happens when too many stand behind a “living Constitution”. Aren’t you one of them?

              1. The issue of a living constitution is an advanced one – far beyond the very fundimental errors that Dennis is making.

                All use of FORCE is not war.

                Government is FORCE. That is not a good thing, it is not a bad thing. It is just a fact.

                The social contract is our agreement to allow government to initiate force against us in return for the protection of our rights.

                There is nothing in the social contract requiring democracy, or monarchy or a republic.
                Practical experience MAY have taught us that Republican government works the best.
                Though I am not entirely certain that is true. I do not think there is anything fundimental that makes a republic better at protecting individual rights – which is the sole purpose of government, than any other form. In On Liberty Mill briefly archuded that Monarchies and Dictatorships tended to be LESS Tyranical – specifically because all blame for infringement is directed always at one individual, while humans are far more tolerant of group infringement on their rights.

                Regardless, Dennis can not grasp that the fundamental attribute of Government is the use of FORCE – that is ALL that distinguishes government from our voluntary interactions – charities, businesses, churches social groups.

                This is also where Dennis errs on elections. God knows where he got the idea that voting is a free speech right. Voting is not an actual natural right.

                The Declaration of independence is one of the most important political documents in human history it is a modern Magna Carte.

                The first couple of paragraph’s are the most beautiful framing of the philosophy of government, or the social contract every uttered.

                Nowhere in the declaration does it mention democracy, or a republic, or anything about the form of government, Nowhere does it mention elections or voting.

                The declaration of independence states the Purpose of government, and the right of the people to alter or abolish it should they fail to trust it to serve that purpose.
                It also affirms that governments are required to earn the trust of the people.

                The constitution, elections, a republican form of government are the means that we believe we have established through experience to best accomplish that purpose.

                The Constitution is what we HOPE is the best implementation of those principles.
                It is not the principles themselves.

                When we debate originalism v. living constitutionalism we are not having a debate over principles. We are having a debate over what actually works best.

                One of the huge problems we are facing today is that 20 years ago the political debate was over how to best implement what was primarily a shared set of fundamental values.
                And the fundmental problem with the left 20 years ago was that their solutions do not work.

                Today everything is up for grabs and entire sets of principles and values that have developed over thousands of years of trial and error – that have been honed and polished – both logically and in practice are being casually tossed out as if we can structure society in any way that we please and expect that it will work.

                That is incredibly stupid and foolish.

                1. John, it is near impossible to discuss anything with Dennis. He has no sound principles that he adheres to in discussion.

            2. Dennis: I made my comments; you made yours. We have thus addressed each other, and we can let readers review them and the chips fall where they may. thanks again.

              1. lin: I am really disappointed. I thought we might have–a sort of Socratic dialogue. But I guess I was expecting too much.

                  1. I just posted about ATS knowing when his posts would be deleted and then realized he sent another a couple of them earlier that were intentionally deleted.

                    Here is what he said in one of them. “Spoken like S. Lyer.”

                    That response should have been posted after “spoken like a troll. Lin, take note” but ATS was having another tantrum so he made sure it would likely be deleted.

                    One can look here and see it doesn’t exist and one can search their trash email box to see if it is still there to confirm the idiocy of ATS.

            3. Recently someone posted that you are not a troll like Svelaz and Gigi.

              How are we to tell ?

              Do you read what you write before you post ?

              Voting is not free speech.
              It is not an excercise of freedom that causes no real harm to anyone.
              Elections are the means by which we legitimize government and authorize the use of FORCE by government.

              Almost no one would care all that much about voting if Government was not FORCE – POWER over others.

              Elections are the means by which government gains the legitimacy – the trust necescary to excercise that power.

              You can not claim the trust of the people through a process that is not trustworthy.
              Why must ANYONE explain that too you ?

              Are the people – the women of Iran free to protest their government ? In some cases those protests have been violent – because there was an election – are iranians barred from opposition to their government ?

              Elections are not scared. The lawful and fraud free process of elections are sacred.

              The Declaration of independence does not mention elections anywhere.
              But it repeatedly notes that legitimate govenrment MUST have the trust of the people.

              People are not obligated to trust government – government is obligated to earn the trust of the people.

              You can elect anyone you want through any process that you want – so long as that election does not endow them with power over others.

              The only reason we care about elections and voting at all – is because the results of elections are a grant of power, They are SUPPOSED to be the proof that voters Trust those elected.

              You can not gain the trust of voters through fraud and lawlessness.

              In every single election it is the duty of those conducting the election to conduct that election in a lawful and trustworthy manner – NOT by their standards – not even by the standards of the majority of people -which did not occur in 2020, or 2022.
              But by the standards of a SUPERMAJORITY of people.

              The most important question at the end of an election is not “who won” ? But do the overwelhming majority of people trust the results.

              This country went through hell for 2 years – because a pair of HOAXes by Hillarty Clinton and adanced by the FBI and Special counsel persuaded a large portion of the people that the 2016 Election was fraudulent. There was no evidence of this, the claim rested on a lie, and yet we conducted a blatantly unconstitutional criminal investigation to reassure that significant minority of left wing nuts that No Trump did not conspire with Putin to fraudulently win the election.

              Massive amounts of effort went into looking into every nook and cranny to prove that your mistrust of the election was without foundation.

              You owe Trump supporters EXACTLY the same thing – actually more in 2020.

              You owe them a Transparent election.
              You owe them a trustworthy election.
              You owe them scrutiny – investigations of the conduct of the election merely because THEY have doubts, but especially because of the messy, nontransparent, and lawless way the election was conducted.

              I did not vote for Trump – but you STILL owe that to me.

              Without that you do not have the legitimacy and trust necescary to govern.

            4. J6 was not a test of democracy – we are not a democracy, and as we have seen over and over the threat to “democracy” does not come from the right – but the left.

              With rare exceptions the J6 protestors were following the law, and the constitution and were peaceful.

              But even that is NOT the actual standard.

              Chris Cuomo was correct when he said that there is no requirement that protests be peaceful. Ask our Founders.

              “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

              Whether it is the American revolution, the collapse of the USSR, the protests against the government in Iran or Hong Kong, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
              Violently if necessary.

              I do not condone the limited violence that occured on J6 – a small fraction of that by Antifa last weekend, or in Portland most any night in 2020, or that at the Whitehouse in May 2020.

              We are not YET at the point at which Violence is justified to alter or abolish a government that is destructive of the inalienable rights of the people.

              But absolutely everything else on J6 was completely justified.

              I would further note – had you NOT conducted the election lawlessly. Had you not conducted the election without transparency. Had you not conducted the election with large scale government censorship. Had the 2020 election actually been conducted properly and inarguably transparent and trustworthy – it STILL would be the absolute right of Trump supporters to march on the capitol and demand that congress refuse to certify the election.

              Just as Clinton tried (and succeeded) in persuading electors to change their vote. Just as Clitnon supporters in the House supported her challenge to the certification of the election.

              1. John Say” If voting is not free speech what is it? In Citizens United v. FEC (2010) the SC ruled the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations. So if they can spend unlimited money to sway elections why isn’t the actual casting of a ballot also an exercise in free speech? The SC has, in many other opinions , noted that the right to vote is the right to have a “voice” in elections and has acknowledged the 1st Amendment implications for voting. If you don’t agree that voting is fundamentally a 1st Amendment exercise please give some authority for such an absurd position.

                But you are right on one thing. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution specifically mentions the right to vote. Except by implied reference in the Article 2 “elections clause”. Various constitutional Amendments (14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th and 26th) prohibit the denying the right to vote of women, racial minorities, etc. The problem is that in a series of decisions the conservative SC has severely weakened voting rights. A subject for another discussion.

                Your descent into the 2016 and 2020 elections borders on the bizarre. The Mueller Report documented a number of cases of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But no federal lawsuits were brought to challenge that election. Obama accepted the results and there was a peaceful transfer of power.

                And I owe nothing to either you or the Trump supporters over the 2020 election. Every court (over 60) that heard Trump’s claims about a “stolen” election were dismissed. Trump could offer no evidence of “massive election fraud”. Even Trump’s DOJ found no such evidence. What is bizarre is that you still cling to the conspiracy theory that the election was “messy, non-transparent, and lawless the way the election was conducted”. The election was only “messy” because Trump refused to accept the results. Do you think Trump will get by with that argument when AG Fani Willis down in Georgia charges Trump with felonies for violating and attempting to tamper with the free and fair election in that state?

                And if you believe Tucker Carlson’s false claims about the Jan. 6 insurrection–from his cherry-picked clips of the 40,000 hours of videotape– you need a reality check. Even Mitch McConnell and many Republicans have denounced Carlson for his distortion of the J6 insurrection. But I guess you believe Carlson because you say “with rare exceptions the J6 protestors were following the law, and the constitution and were peaceful”. You apparently didn’t watch the video I saw–how the protesters broke windows to get into the Capitol and beat up officers who stood in their way. Apparently you follow Trump’s admonition to Melania when she read about her husband’s tryst with Stormy Daniels: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes!?”.

                1. Citizens United is not about Voting. Have you read the case ?
                  CU is not about money. It is about the fact that government can not restrict free speech through the back door buy regulating money or corporations.

                  Why isn’t the Ballot free speech ? For the same reason that shouting fire in a crowded theater is actually free speech, but lighting a fire is not.

                  This is typical of left wing nut logic. Artificially without any basis expand of contract the law the constitution, court decisions to fit your narrative.

                  As to your claims regarding the SC – given that you can not even come close to accurately describing CU – why would anyone trust your views on other SC cases.
                  Please cite HOLDINGS in the cases you are arguing. I am not interested in the oppinion of someone who is off by miles on one case, with regard to another.

                  You note that the constitution had to be amended to give suffrage to various groups – and then claim that voting has been restricted. The FACT is the opposite – and YOUR evidence proves it. Over Time we have SLOWLY been expanding Voting – not contracting it.

                  The constitution does have an election clause – in it Senators are “elected” by legislatures, Presidents are “elected” by the electoral college.

                  Regardless, that was not my point – which you entirely missed.

                  The reason that The declaration particularly does not mention elections, is because Voting is not Fundimental. Even elections are not fundimental.

                  Trust in government IS absolutely fundimental.

                  Let me try an analogy. If it is critical for you to get from Boston to Washington, you can fly, take a train, drive, bicycle, walk, ride a horse, take a stage coach. Regardless, you have a right to travel from Boston to Washington. comparing CU – you have the right to speak, and government can not restrict that speech by saying – your right to speak is limited to shouting in your front lawn. Just as Government can not say your right to travel is limited to walking.

                  The Declaration establishes the right of people to government that has their consent, that they can trust to protect their rights, and that the people have the right to alter or abolish govenrment that loses their trust or fails to protect their actual rights.
                  The RIGHT established is to Government that protects their rights, and government that the consent to.
                  It is not to elections, which are like travel by bus – one possible means to establish that consent and trust.

                  It is STILL that, consent, that trust, as well as government actually protecting individual rights that are FUNDIMENTAL

                  Not Elections, not voting.

                  I am not arguing against elections or voting. Merely pointing out that they are a mechanism – they are not fundamental.

                  Further we do not need either the constitution or the declaration of independence to know that elections and voting are not fundamental. We can look through history and even around us in the present. No one voted to bring down the Berlin Wall, to end the USSR, The protesters in Iran are not voting. The protesters in Hong Kong are not Voting.
                  Lexington and Concord were not a Vote, Nor was storming the Bastille.

                  The right of people to alter or abolish government that the do not trust or is destructive of their rights – exists whether the declaration if independence was ever written.

                  Sometimes we alter and abolish government that is not trusted peacefully, other times we must be violent to do so.
                  Regardless elections may have little or nothing to do with that.

                  The US (and other countries) process of elections is the mechanism we have chosen to legitimize the current government.
                  To avoid altering and abolishing government through violence.
                  But that only works if the election itself – as well as the other processes surrounding elections have our trust.

                  When as a society we engage in censorship – we destroy Trust. While it is worse if that censorship is by government, or regarding elections. and worse still if it is the truth that is being censored.
                  What is fundamental is that Trust – Trust in government, Trust in our institutions such as the press, trust in those who had the power to censor is destroyed.

                  Censoring someone is not just a tool to advance your policy preferences. It dehumanizes those you censor.
                  Your policies are not a right – regardless of how good you might thing they are.
                  You are not free to violate the rights of others to achieve them.

                  I have only addressed the censorship associated with the 2020 election above. That is just PART of how you have abused power to destroy trust.

                  There are many many many serious problems with the 2020 election. you can not fix the lack of trust in the election by fighting over the details of one or another of the many problems.

                  We have debated the process, the fraud, the censorship, the lack of transparency, the lawlessness, the willful blindness,

                  But the fundamental problem is not the details – it is that you manipulated circumstances to gain power without securing trust.

                  The language I cited in the declaration of independence is not a provision of the constitution. That language has no institutional source of authority. Its power and authority arise from the fact that it is the TRUTH.

                2. “The Mueller Report documented a number of cases of Russian interference in the 2016 election. ”
                  Nope, Mueller went to court on those claims and LOST. New Your Courts threw Out Millers claims against Russians because he could not provide even the minimal evidence needed to get into a court.

                  “But no federal lawsuits were brought to challenge that election.”
                  There were election challenges in 2016, there were actually recounts in several states and Clinton lost those.
                  Further Clinton concocted multiple HOAXes regarding the 2016 election and managed to sell them to the FBI – who bought them KNOWING they were hoaxes, and the Press bought them – wittingly or unwittingly – is not clear.

                  Regardless the investigation of the 2016 election is still ongoing – though now it is focused on the conspiracy to committ a coup. 2016 was 6 years ago – and is still being investigated – yet you think you are entitled to claim legitimacy in 2020 based on hiding everything.

                  You do not seem to grasp YOUR conduct in 2016 is part why 2020 is not trusted.

                  Why should anyone beleive that the same people who sold the collusion delusion HOAXes would not also engaged in election fraud ?

                  “Obama accepted the results and there was a peaceful transfer of power.”
                  Nope. Obama was constitutionally required to leave office – he had no choice.
                  But as he left office he participated and empowered the collusion delusion.

                  Again – why should anyone trust in 2020 those who in 2016 and 2017 engaged in such misconduct ?

                  As I keep telling you over and over – the legitimacy of government rests on the trust of the people.

                  No one cares that Democrats sought to undermine Trust in Republicans or Trump.
                  That is part of the normal process.

                  The Big deal is that you abused government power to do so.
                  And to a lessor extent that you lied repeatedly, and fought all efforts at transparency.

                  Not only were there recounts in key states in 2016, But Clinton sought publicly to persuade electors to switch their vote, as well as engaging in efforts similar to Trumps to get Congress to refuse to certify.
                  She also had her hordes of Protestors at the Capitol and the inauguration in 2017.
                  No one has threatened Clinton with an orange jumpsuit over any of that.

                  Only the acts of arson and violence that occured in 2017.
                  As well as the conspiracy to use multiple hoaxes to undermine the government.

                3. “And I owe nothing to either you or the Trump supporters over the 2020 election.”
                  Of course you do, you are only entitled to power if you earn trust.
                  You do not have it.

                4. The courts owe Trump nothing.

                  They owe the American people an inquiry into whether the 2020 election was trustworthy.

                  Contra your claims – not only did they fail to do so – they failed egregiously.

                  You fixate on whether Trump proved claims – which had nothing to do with any court decision, and is nto the standard regardless.

                  The duty to conduct an election that people can trust rests with Government – not candidates.

                  It does not matter whether Trump or future or past candidates are lying about claims of fraud and or lawlessness.
                  You do not seem to grasp this is not and never was about Trump.

                  It is about a lawlessly conducted, rigged, and probably fraudulent election.

                  It is about the FACT that a majority of americans still do not trust that election.

                  It was the duty of the courts to restore trust. Not bury their heads in the sand.

                  Shortly after the election even Turley was calling for a thorough inquiry – and he was calling for Biden to get behind that.

                  Turley believed – and likely is correct, that such an inquiry would not find sufficient problems to alter the outcome, but that the inquiry itself would have restored badly needed trust.

                  It is unlikely that an inquiry in 2020 would have established the frauds that actually occurred.
                  It is unlikely that it would have uncovered the large scale illegal voter harvesting in 6 key cities.
                  It is unlikely that it would have uncovered the unconstitutional and illegal participation of government agencies in censoring political speech during an election.

                  You had the opportunity to take the small gamble that your malfeasance would be uncovered and restore trust.

                  But you did not take that.

                5. “And if you believe Tucker Carlson’s false claims about the Jan. 6 insurrection–from his cherry-picked clips of the 40,000 hours of videotape– you need a reality check. ”

                  The most fundimental claim Carlson is making is that YOU LIED. And that is a TRUE CLAIM.

                  You are correct that it will take significant time and effort to digest the full meaning of 42,000 hours of video.

                  But what is self evident already is that Democrats LIED during faux impeachment II.
                  That they LIED throguh the J6 committeee, that DOJ has LIED in prosecuting J6 defendants.

                  The LIES are all self evident.

                  Biden Schumer and Garland have ALL claimed – within the past few months that 5 CP officers were killed on J6.
                  That was a known LIE prior to Carlson showing Video of Sicknick at the end of the day.
                  But Biden Schumer and Garland continue to LIE about that. 2 people were killed on J6 – both by the CP, and both protestors.
                  Both were murdered. No CP officer was killed.

                  It is claimed that 100CP officers were injured – we have no means to test that – there is little evidence that shows the likelyhood of injuries on that scale. Regardless, 180 Police officers were injured on May 29, 2020 when Left Wing nut rioters tried to storm the whitehouse. So even by the Governments own measures – J6 was less violent than May 29.
                  Further there was no arson at J6 and far less destruction of property.

                  In additon to the video Carlson released of Chansley, there is now Video of Chansley at the front of the capitol after Trump tweeted for everyone to go home – telling protestors to go home as Trump had asked.
                  That is mitigating evidence for Chansley – presuming that he even committed a crime.
                  But it also directly contradicts claims that Trump did nothing.

                  Carlson’s video has also torched the J6 Committees cherry picking of Hawley leaving the Capitol – and confirms Hawley’s claims – he was the Last to leave and he was ordered to do so by the CP.

                  Again YOU LIED.

                  The damage that Carlson’s reporting is doing is Self Inflicted.


                  And once again – you are undermining the 2020 election even further.

                  Added to the other lies and deceiptful conduct – we now have the lies about J6.

                  You are correct that the results of this may well be a false counter narative of J6.

                  But that is YOUR FAULT. When you LIE t people – ALL of the people, and you get caught,
                  then people tend to beleive NONE of what you say.

                  You have gained power, But you have destroyed trust in the process of doing so.
                  We will all pay for that – but hopefully – you will pay the most.

                  I would further note that YOUR LIES are what is significantly increasing Trump’s prospects for 2024.

                  If you want people to believe the Truth – TELL THE TRUTH.

                  The J6 video should have been made public on J7, 2021.

                  The 2020 election should have been throughly investigated before J6.

                  The left, various alphabet agencies, Social Media, the Media, Democrats, the DNC should not have engaged in political censorship in 2020 (and through today) for any reason, much less to win an election.

                  Elections in 2020 should have been conducted according to the actual law passed by legislatures at the time – narrowly construed as law must always be. If the pandemic required alteration – which it obviously did not, there was time for legislatures to pass temporary measures.
                  Though most of the changes you lawlessly implimented had NOTHING to do with the pandemic.
                  And everything to do with rigging the election.

                  and on and on and on.

                6. DM – no one denies that some protestors broke windows and engaged in conflict with police.

                  Though we STILL do not have the truth regarding the West Tunnel which is where nearly all the violence occured.

                  Recent video releases – again why only now ? Show the CP tear gassing themselves and then tear gassing peaceful protestors BEFORE violence broke out.

                  We need an End to the false naratives, we need an end to the efforts to hide the truth.

                  Let the Truth our ALL of it, and allow the chips to fall wherever they do.

                  I will fully support sentences for J6 offenders similar to thouse of Kavanaugh protestors or George Floyd protestors WHEN you prove they INITIATED similar violence.

                  Can you name a single J6 protestor who did something more egregious than Put an Axe through a Senators door ?
                  That received a sentence of probation and the Axe was returned.

                  Or a J6 protestor who threw molotov cocktails into police cars ?

                  Is there a J6 protestor who used lasers to blind federal agents ?

                  Is there a J6 protestor who threw fireworks at police officers ?

                  We have all seen the ACTUALLY cherry picked video that you are referring to.
                  And there are likely those in that video who should face charges proportionate to those of other instances of political violence by the left in this country.

                  Regardless, once again your efforts at censoring the Truth have backfired on you.

                  Try something from Breaking points – NOT a right wing outlet.


                7. Dennis, you have not grasped how nuts and untrustworthy the left is.

                  You drove Sen. Seinama and Tulsi Gabard out of your party.
                  And who know what Manchin will do in 2024.

                  Prominent liberals like Russel Brand, Glenn Greenwald, Alan Derschowitz and even Turley
                  are now according to you right wing reactionaries.

                  JK Rowling has the disticnction of being not only the worlds best selling author but the only author whose books are banned by both the far left and far right.

                  Julian Assange and Eric Snowden who exposed warmongering by “the deep state” are heros of the left …..
                  Except they are not.

                  You lied about Covid,
                  You lied about the collusion delusion.
                  YOPU continue to lie about russian involvement in the 2020 election – even the CIA determined – which we now know that Putin favored Clinton in 2016. Yet, you still push this nonsense that Putin tried to help Trump.

                  Increasingly the dirty laundry on the FBI is coming out and it is bad – recently one of the lead FBI Agents in the Get Trump efforts was charged with ….. Colluding with Russia.

                  Elon Musk invites a bunch of Left Wing Journalists to examine the pre Musk conduct of Twitter – and their findings are corrupt beyond our worst imaginings – and when they testify to congress about their findings – Democrats attack them as right wing nuts.

                  The left LIES about everything.

                  Why would you trust them about elections ?
                  About January 6th.

                  Absolutely the video you reference is appalling, and AFTER we have all the context, What proceded it, who started the violence, it may prove sufficient to convict those involved.

                  But ultimately all your video proves is that the event was not completely peaceful – not why it became violent.

                  I know of no one – including Carlson who has claimed that J6 was completely peaceful,
                  and he even started his broadcast with the violent video you reference.

                  So much for cherry picking.

                  No one is asking you to beleive that J6 was peaceful – obviously it was not.

                  But that does not alter the fact that alot of what we have been told – by the left, the press, democrats, the J6 committee has been LIES.

                  Just as most of what we have been told by the left, the media, democrats over the past decade has been lies.

                  Stick your head in the sand if you wish,
                  But lots of people what the truth.

            5. Because of the censorship, fraud and lawlessness that you engaged in millions of americans DID have their rights infringed on.

              You do not seem to grasp that voting is atleast a two way street.
              The refusal of congress to certify an election is the constitutional process that addresses lawlessly conducted elections.

              And please quit equating free speech and voting – these are entirely different things.
              One is a natural right, the other is a contract right – it is the means by which the social contract, is renewed. There are few obligations with regard to speech.
              Those forming a contract have numerous obligations – including to form the contract, lawfully, and without deceipt.

            6. “John Say: Every 2 0r 4 years you walk into the voting to choose the candidate(s) and issue(s) of your choice. That’s one of the quintessential rights of “free speech” we still have in this country. If your candidate loses does that mean your right of free speech was taken away? Of course not. ”
              And that is exactly what I did in 2020. But it is NOT what many – possibly most voters did.

              Regardless, you make numerous errors.
              Voting is not a free speech right.
              Voting is the means by which the social contract is affirmed, and the government atains legitimacy. That is something radically different.

              With few exceptions we do not care what you write, say, express. That is free speech.
              If you say something wrong, offensive, … what does it matter – we can ignore you, rebut you.

              Voting authorizes elected to wield the power of government – to use FORCE.
              It is something radically different than just speech.

              There is no meaningful harm done by most fraudulent speech.

              Fraud in voting grants people who did NOT receive the actual consent of the people to use FORCE.

              Because voting authorizes the use of FORCE, because it authorizes those elected to potentially infringe on our rights it is absolutely critical that it be conducted transparently in in a fashion that people trust.

              If you want to actually have your “voting is just a form of free speech that does not matter” argument – that is trivially accomplished – radically limit the power of government.

              Government is POWER, it is FORCE, it is not merely expression.

              Reduce the power of government – and few will care about voting.

            7. “Everything is not decided by the majority” is both a fact, a part of the constitution, and a fundimental moral principle.

              What is disturbing is that you do not understand that.

            8. My concept of democracy – is that of the founders – the absolute worst and most tyranical and dangerous form of govenrment ever conceived – a view also shared by John Stuart Mill. Most of the world abandoned democracy with its failure in Greece over 2000 years ago.

              The United States is not a democracy.
              The concept of rights – which despite your mangling, is aparently important to you does not exist in democracy.

              YOUR ignorant fixation on “everything is decided by the majority” reflects your fundimental lack of understanding of government, of democracy, of rights, of the social contract.

              The entire concept of “rights” requires that “everything is NOT decided by the majority”

            9. What you do not think we are in a war in ukraine ?
              When did congress vote to go to war with Russia ?

              And where did you get the idea that War was the only use of FORCE ?
              Left wing nuts are constantly telling me that words are violence.

              You are telling me that J6 was violence.

              Isn’t violence a use of FORCE ?

              So which is it – is WAR the only Use of FORCE ?
              Are unpleasant words FORCE ?

              Or is Force something more than words and includes things less than war ?

              Regardless, if you refuse to comply with the edicts of government – how long do you think it will be before men with Guns come to take you away ?

              Government is FORCE.
              That is not some politically controversial oppinion.

              It is just a fact.

              The entire purpose of government is the use of FORCE.

              That should be OBVIOUS.

              If what government does did not require FORCE – it would not require government.

              I will make a deal with you – you left wing nuts can have complete control of all government so long as you are that you will not use FORCE.

              You will not use men with guns to confiscate anyones property, wealth, or liberty if they refuse to do as you ask.

              If I refuse to pay taxes – you can stomp your feet, you can send the IRS, you can get judgements, But you can not use FORCE to enforce anything.

              Lets see how government works without FORCE.

              Think about it.

              Then can we please stop the idiotic nonsense arguments ?

              Government is FORCE. PERIOD.
              Where FORCE is not necessary Government is not necessary.

              I am not an anarchist – I do not believe that FORCE is never necessary.
              Only that the justified use of FORCE requires significantly more than the consent of the majority.

              I would hope that would be a FACT that all of us could accept.

              Resolving issues would be far easier if you accepted some fundimental FACTS that have been known for thousands of years.

            10. When you bring up the House and Senate you call it a representative republic.When you bring up rule of law or say a nation of laws not of men, you call it a Constitutional Republic.
              The demoncrats have perverted the word democracy for their political power gains and you shouldn’t play along and be a liar like they are. Harry Truman stole the election, the election was stolen from Nixon by JFK, and this current schmuck stole the election 3 times over. That already means tens of millions of Trump voters (had “their right of “free speech” (the right to vote) taken away *your words* )… so what could have horribly happened to you and yours already happened to everyone else in the very same election. DUH.
              The dems are kissing and licking the boots of war because they have zero morals and absolutely nothing in their heads of their own accord. That’s where they are. In deep sin. Mortal sin. Down in the dirt, covered in blood and everyone else’s money.
              Deep inside their lying corrupt hearts and deranged minds they scream Putin did it and orange man bad and they will murder every Ukrainian to the very last to satisfy that demonic bloodlust that has devoured them since 2016. That’s exactly where they are.

    2. Books that address issues of racism or LGBTQ subjects are banned from school libraries.
      Teaching 8 year olds about blow jobs and anal sex, is wiping away history?

      1. iowan2: Which specific books that have been banned from FL school libraries are “teaching 8 year olds about blow jobs and anal sex”? Just a few specific examples please.

    3. Dennis – in the midst of your ususal anti-Fox tirade, you state: “In 1948 the “Reichmark” was replaced by the “Deutsche Mark”. Would you have opposed these de-Nazification measures as a “rush to sanitize history”?” I believe this is what you would call “disinformation”. I am reporting you to the Biden adminstration. The Reichmark was not a product of Hitler’s regime. It was introduced in the ’20’s due to depreciation of the earlier currency, the Papiermark. Then, in 1948, Ludwig Erhard introduced the DM in West Germany because the RM had also depreciated. This is what happens when governments overspend. I have read elsewhere that far from being an initiative of the Allies, Erhard defied Allied advice, acting without prior notice and on a holiday when the Allied authorities would not be watching. You see, the problem was that the Allied authorities were under the influence of statist economists who believed in controlling the currency, whereas Erhard believed that the new currency would reach stability by itself in the market. He was right, and the German economy boomed. It has never looked back.

  5. Harvard University has a dark history of slaves working for the university, its faculty, and even its presidents. The funds used to found Harvard included blood money from the slave trade. And, until recently, Boston was among the most racist cities in the Northeast. The fact that we are now focusing on a piece of cloth is a good sign.

  6. The zealotry of activists for all things that can be twisted and turned so as to be identified with racism shows itself again. That the image of the Native American commemorates Native American heritage is not at all to be considered. Nor is the sword of liberty to be depicted as the resentment white colonialists had for their white English masters. Something other has to be made of it all if the activists are to continue their fixed cause ad infinitum.

  7. When all historical symbols are eliminated, what is left? Nothing really. Every abstraction in culture and our minds could be called a symbol. Their creation reflects and preserves our innermost biases. Every man-made creation, could be called a “symbol” of some emotion or thought. Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony – a celebration of human will and violence. Manet’s Olympia – a symbol of male oppression of women. Shakespear’s plays – they all represent the point of view of someone content with colonialism, patriarchy and Christianity. When history is erased, our emply minds will be helpless against political proganda of an all powerful State in control of media. Isn’t that the point?

    1. My kids only memory of Indians will be those of the old westerns.
      “Good bye Tonto, Your heroism will be forgotten along with my generation.” Sniff.

    1. And they never built a single road or bridge in all the thousands of years they were in charge of the ‘land’.

      1. J West – depends on what you mean by “roads”. They did establish indian trails (e.g., Ann Arbor trail) that are still in use in Michigan, as paved roads. By the way, the pre-Colombian peoples have not been “genocided” here. We have 12 reservations still going strong.

  8. If people knew just how much censorship was happening at this website, they’d stop wasting their time here.

  9. Frankly, I don’t care what the people in Massachusetts do with their flag. It’s their flag and if they want to have a civil war over it, I don’t care. Just so it does not spill over in other states. Virtually all the discussion over “colonizers” is both hysterical and ahistorical. Humanity has a track record of always moving anywhere and everywhere for as long as we have been on this planet. It never mattered before whether someone was already living there or not. If we were not restless “colonizers” all 8 billion of us would still be packed in east Africa and the rest of the world would be empty of humanity. It’s just like slavery. It did not start in 1619 in Virginia. The records, once they started being written down, shows that slavery has been part of humanity from hunter gatherers on. It grew with civilization, all of them. And it is still present.
    And every race and religion has enslaved every other race and religion. It was an equal opportunity sin.
    It happened, get over it, make sure it does not happen again and move on. The present world has problems to be solved. You cannot undue the past or feel guilt because you might have had ancestors who were evil or bad. And trying to make people feel guilty about something their ancestors did is simply cruel and revenge. It accomplishes nothing but to generate more hate.

  10. “ According to activist Marianne Vesey, the state flag and seal depicts a “colonializing and violent depiction that is really supporting the fact that white people are in charge of this world and that we have to subdue the Native American people.”

    Well…Turley confirms that was the original point of the seal when it was created in those early days. Keep in mind that the original colonists were largely puritans who didn’t have favorable views of stranger outside their faith and that wasn’t just about the British. It was also about the Tribes who did rule the lands around them. There was the Wampanoag confederacy which consisted of 30 Algonquian-speaking Native American tribes who lived in the region of modern-day New England, specifically from Rhode Island down through Massachusetts and parts of Connecticut.

    To the Puritans they were also considered tyrants. To religious zealots anything the doesn’t conform to their values and beliefs are tyrants. That’s why it’s naive to think that the term “tyrant” only applied to the British government.

    The seal includes a “Native American” and an sword wielding arm above it. BOTH were originally considered tyrants by the colonists at the time, the Puritans. The modern view that the Native American was put there to “honor” the original inhabitants ignores the true history behind those people and the colonists. It seems more of a token gesture and an insulting one due to the real history of the region.

    There is a rational reason why they want to change the seal. One only needs to learn about true history of the region and not rely solely on what was learned in grade school, the sanitized version.

    1. The “true history” of the region includes centuries of bloody internecine war among the local tribes, who also gave as good as they got from the later European settlers. All that aside, and further to GEB’s point, there was no way what were, effectively, Paleolithic cultures were ever going to win out over vastly more technologically sophisticated and numerous incomers. Then, too, the tribes tended to ally themselves with the losing side when they did get involved in conflicts between/among those godawful colonizers.

  11. Still waiting for the loony left to put their money where their mouth is and demand to repaint the White House black. Is it not the biggest symbol of what they call “white supremacy” in the nation?

    1. A black or color deficit is transphobic (“Rainbow”) and both are exclusive of brown.

      The Rainbow or dissociated colors is albinophobic.

      We are ruled under a regime of psychiatric dysphoria forced by chromatic dissonance.

  12. Why let facts stand in the way of a good brainwashing campaign! Today’s “activists” are just seeking their 10 minutes of fame — being another “first to tear down something” seems like a big deal to the talentless Left. The sad thing is that they expose how truly ignorant this society is, not only of historical facts, but of the ability to think. The Left simply responds to buzz words, like Pavlov’s dogs (about whom they surely are ignorant).

  13. This is the trans movement for our national identity. Tearing down statues, defacing monuments, altering seals, taking on new names, in no way changes who we were in the beginning and who we are today. The woke movement wants to put our country in the witness protection program. That will only work on the truly demoralized. Our national DNA is and always will be found in the DoI. And who we are today is not determined by a vote. It is determined by how our national body has experienced and dealt with events in history, and we have the scars to prove it.

  14. Personally, I think this whole debate is unnecessary. The reasons the citizens of a state approve a state flag are numerous and iconography (as well as Latin phrases) are but a part of it. The secret to being a “good flag” depends on the following parameters:

    1. Keep It Simple. The flag should be so simple that a child can draw it from memory.
    2. Use Meaningful Symbolism. The flag’s images, colors, or patterns should relate to what it symbolizes.
    3. Use 2 or 3 Basic Colors. Limit the number of colors on the flag to three which contrast well and come from the standard color set.
    4. No Lettering or Seals. Never use writing of any kind or an organization’s seal.
    5. Be Distinctive or Be Related. Avoid duplicating other flags, but use similarities to show connections.

    The reasons WHY people like the aesthetics of any particular flag are personal, however, and, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, whether the decision to approve a flag design is made by a governor through executive action, by the legislature, or a peoples’ referendum, a flag can be changed for any number of reasons, or no reason at all.

    Amateur Vexillologist
    Former Member, North American Vexillological Association

  15. “[T]he state flag and seal depicts a ‘colonializing and violent depiction that is really supporting the fact that white people are in charge of this world and that we have to subdue the Native American people.’”

    The myth of the “noble savages” persists. The civilized will be safe when that myth becomes a laughing stock.

    Those “noble savages” were illiterate nomads who routinely pillaged, raped, and looted other tribes, for eons. Some of those “noble savages” fought against the Patriots, for British tyranny.

  16. The history of the world and the evolution of Western Civilization is replete with periods during which one culture overcame and held supremacy over another. The practice of slavery included. The question remains as to where these idiots should begin to remedy all their perceived injustices and make the present whole.

Leave a Reply