President Obama’s new book, Of Thee I Sing, praises Sitting Bull, whose warriors are responsible for the death of General George Custer.
The royalties from the book will benefit a scholarship fund for the children of American service members who were killed or disabled in battle. Does Obama really not get it that children grieving the loss of a father or mother on the field of battle are not going to be interested in celebrating an historical figure who killed a soldier on the field of battle, and slaughtered his men before scalping and mutilating their bodies? Does he think these kids are going to want the royalties from such a book?
via Of Thee I WHAT?.
Pretty interesting instincts that Christian Conservatives or Conservative Christians display. Here’s some history to chew on.
//”I don’t know what broken hearts and broken treaties he mended,” Hutton said in reference to Obama’s prose. “I don’t believe he was a progressive leader by any stretch of the imagination. He was not fighting for the future, he was fighting for the past. He brought death, destruction and poverty to his people” by not seeking peace with the white man in a struggle Native Americans were doomed to lose.//
So if you are a white redneck resisting government expansion in 2010, you are a patriot. If you are an actual native of this country, you were expected to lay down arms and submit to the government. Do I understand that correctly?
Let us also not forget that Custer’s defeat is about 85% Custer idiocy and 15% anything else.
I note with great satisfaction that the comments on that article are four for four in pointing out that you can have respect for your military enemies, or otherwise that there is more moral complexity to the situation than Ms. Morse indicates.
Which is a huge relief, because the moral obtuseness of that post would be deeply disturbing if I thought it was broadly shared by Breakpoint’s constituency.
And I do understand her point (in the comments) that since it’s coming from President Obama, a distrustful reaction to his priorities concerning who the good guys and bad guys are isn’t unwarranted. It’s just that in this case, the simplicity of the original post is based on assumptions that are just….wrong. And idiotically jingoistic. And her attempt to justify the OP by saying “Well, yeah, but the point is that he’s a liberal and liberals hate America” is….well….disappointing in anyone who has a sponsored platform like that. That many left-liberals have an attitude toward America that could reasonably be describe as hatred at some points, which I don’t dispute, does not justify a reaction of unqualified outrage at the idea that someone, anyone, who “killed American soldiers” might deserve a respectful historical treatment. Even by Barack Obama.