Anyway, as I was saying...
I think it's time for some friendly moderation to avoid a flame war,
here, since things are getting a bit "ad hominem" again. My comments
appear at the end. --Gary ]
> Rick, it was not Deb that wrote what was written. If I recall,
>.
>.
>.
> I would personally like to see Leonard Peltier out, but that's
> because everything I've read about his trial pointed to it being
> a snow-job kangaroo court.
> Dave Jacoby
> t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
With sincere respect, I think readers would do well to read Matthiessen's book
for themselves, and I think you would not make quite this kind of statement if
you correctly recalled the writings by Brand, Churchill, and Matthiessen in
their three respective books.
> Rick, it was not Deb that wrote what was written. If I recall,
> it was a repost of a newspaper article which used as it's primary
> source Tim Giago, current Nieman Fellow at Harvard and publisher
> of the Lakota Times, the largest Native weekly.
Again, with sincere respect, although it's good to have a citing for your
source, I decline to automatically find credence with a Fellow at an
institution such as Harvard that puts out a large number of FBI, CIA and other
questionable leaders. Harvard IS Big Business. Ivan Boesky spoke at a recent
commencement, did he not? Remember the words "Greed is Good"?
> So, don't shoot the messenger!
> Regards,
> Deb Gagnon
Please don't shoot the questioner. Remember, that's what Ronnie always did.
Please go back and read my posting for the sincere intellectual supplication
that it was, rather than the naked attack that you seem to fear it to be.
And please go buy and read the book by Matthiessen which has been banned for
almost ten years by the powers that be.
Rick Burgess
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks from NativeNet facilitator, Gary Trujillo:
I agree that we'd all be in a better position to have a responsible and
productive discussion if we were to read this book. Whatever we feel about
it, it is sure to become a very controversial item, and I think we would
do well to familiarize ourselves with its contents.
That having been said...
I feel Rick could have done a bit more to acknowledge and apologize for
his mistake in identifying Deb Gagnon as the source of the remarks with
which he took issue in his previous posting. As Deb correctly pointed
out, she was very clear in her original article in attributing the source
of the enclosed article (_National_Catholic_Reporter_, byline Catherine
Walsh, date May 24, 1991). As she said, Deb was not indicating her own
opinion or whether she even has formed one on the subject.
I did not find Dave Jacoby's identification of Tim Giago as being a Niemann
Fellow to necessarily be an attempt to provide him additional credibility,
but done only in order to identify him and to describe his current activi-
ties. We can each come to our own conclusions about the meaning and value
of his affiliations and pursuits. Similarly, I don't think it's entirely
fair to indict Giago or the Niemann Fellowship Program based on a set of
values and beliefs about Harvard and its connections with certain agencies
and institutions. We can debate the merits of such a program based on an
analysis of its activities and operating principles, and a knowledge of its
history. To say that "Giago is connected with the Niemann Fellowship
Program, and that program is conducted under the auspices of Harvard, and
Harvard is known to have cooperated as an institution with certain govern-
ment agencies you or I happen not to like," and to then go on to infer that
all of Harvard and all of its academics are thereby tainted seems rather
reckless and irresponsible. It's the essence of the logic of "guilt by
association," and is not likely to lead to a good understanding of the
matter we have before us.
All of which is not in any way to suggest that I necessarily agree with
what Tim Giago has asserted in his article. I don't know the situation
well enough to be able to seriously evaluate his claims. From what I've
heard, he appears to be a controversial figure, but I don't have any real
information about him, nor do I feel it is very productive to speculate
about his motives for taking a certain position.
I suggest that we try to avoid getting too personal here, or basing our
arguments on what we know (or think we know) about people, and that we
try to just "stick to the facts," and to the arguments that people them-
selves offer in defense of their own positions.
However, I think Rick is right if, in his earlier article, he might
have been attempting to suggest that there are certain vested interests
which might feel they have a stake in doing all they can to discredit
the author of this book and the evidence he cites and the way he uses
it. Even fairly calm and dispassionate observers of the scene in the
U.S. make a good case for rather overt manipulation of media by gov-
ernment and by particular administrations to serve their own rather
narrow ends. I suggest we would do well to heed these warnings (like
those offered consistently by journalists like Bill Moyers).
By the way, I suggest those interested in this whole controversy might
also want to read Ward Churchill's _Agents_of_Repression_, which asserts
that the FBI and CIA infiltrated both the American Indian Movement (AIM)
and the Black Panther Party, and deliberately set their members against
one another by means of forged documents and other "dirty tricks" and
that AIM was set up and targeted for destruction and discrediting as a
legitimate political movement.
--Gary