First a plane, and now a Nobel Prize medal?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

As I said, that was an inappropriate place and time for a political statement. The topic was highly sensitive at the time and if memory serves, this was concurrent with the Wounded Knee protests. I doubt that ANYONE was watching the Academy Awards in order to see people make political/protest statements.

 

You might not think so, but I consider America's treatment of native peoples shameful and a black mark on our history. And they haven't been recompensed for what has been stolen from them (except by casino revenue).

 

That said, an entertainment show was absolutely not the place for that. And to answer your question, yes, I would strongly object if an award winner took the opportunity to speak criticism of the Orange Asshole. There's a time and place for everything, and the televised Awards are, as most TV entertainment, a way for people to escape from the stresses of daily life. No matter what the plight of the Sioux may have been, that wasn't the venue to discuss it.

 

And just so you know, one of my favorite books of all time is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," one of my favorite films was "Into the West," Part 6 of which has a heartbreaking and accurate depiction of Wounded Knee, and I've visited the site and gone on a tour guided by a full-blooded member of the Lakota Sioux. So maybe you can tell where my sympathies lie.

---

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

---

Yes as I mentioned it was right after the battle of wounded knee. 

 

I presumed that you find our governments treatment of American Indians to be shameful and disgusting. That's part of why I was so surprised to see you bastardize her name. 

 

I do understand your point about time and place and people looking to entertainment as a temporary escape. 

 

I appreciate your ideological consistency that you would find the same inappropriate today. 

 

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

There was no "battle" of Wounded Knee as such; the 1890 incident was a massacre, though a few US soldiers were killed and the media of the time called it a heroic battle and medals were handed out left and right. The 1973 incident was an occupation by the Sioux tribe that had a few violent clashes, wherein a couple of people were killed. The media's treatment of that incident mirrored remarkably that from 83 years earlier. The Sioux were the bad guys and painted as "rioters.' Sound familiar?

 

I shouldn't have attached that moniker to her. I just couldn't for the life of me remember her real name.

---

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

---

I did hesitate to use the term "battle". As I didn't want to contribute to the notion that it was a noble US military operation.

 

I thought about "incident " but that didn't seem to properly convey the amount of violence that happened.

 

"Slaughter" seemed to not give enough credit to the tribe members that fought hard with everything they had. 

 

In the end I went with battle. The tribe members there were certainly in a battle with those soldiers. Part of a war that had been waged against them by the US for quite a long time at that point. 

 

 

 

 

---