March 8 should be a day that “lives in infamy,” but it isn’t, in part because of this nation’s, and all nations’, tendency to forget episodes in their history that they would rather pretend didn’t happen. On this date in 1782, 160 Pennsylvania militiamen slaughtered 96 Christian Indians including 39 children, 29 women and 28 men. The Patriots killed their captives by hammering their skulls with mallets from behind, as the victims knelt praying and singing. The Patriots then piled the bodies in mission buildings, and burned the entire Moravian Mission at Gnadenhutten to the ground in the Ohio territory. . The Pennsylvanians claimed that the attack was revenge for raids on their frontier settlements, but the Native Americans they killed were not involved in any attacks. In fact, they were pacifists who had been assisting the Americans against the British by serving as scouts and performing other services.
There were consequences of the massacre, though not to the criminals responsible. Despite talk of bringing the murderers to justice, no charges were filed. But Native American tribes became less willing to trust the Patriots as the Revolutionary War continued. When General George Washington heard about the massacre, he told his soldiers to avoid being captured alive by Indian forces, as he feared the Americans would be tortured. Many were, and Native Americans had longer memories of the atrocity at Gnadenhutten than the citizens of the new nation. In 1810, Shawnee chief Tecumseh pointedly reminded future General and later President William Henry Harrison, “You recall the time when the Jesus Indians of the Delawares lived near the Americans, and had confidence in their promises of friendship, and thought they were secure, yet the Americans murdered all the men, women, and children, even as they prayed to Jesus?”
Theodore Roosevelt, a historian in addition to his other pursuits, called the atrocity “a stain on frontier character that the lapse of time cannot wash away.”
But it has, hasn’t it?
1. And they said Trump supporters were stupid! A group called Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden feel betrayed:
These people really believed that the Democratic Party was going to “engage” on the topic of abortion, and that electing Joe Biden President would lead to compromises and moderation on the issue. Let me write that again: These people really believed that the Democratic Party was going to “engage” on the topic of abortion, and that electing Joe Biden President would lead to compromises and moderation on the issue.As you know, I have constant difficulty accepting the principle that being stupid isn’t unethical. Outrageous stupidity makes me angry, and maybe that’s unfair. Episodes like this are difficult for me to put in perspective.
2. Regarding the baseball team formerly known as “Indians”…Cleveland’s Jose Ramirez and Franmil Reyes have been bounced from the team’s Spring Training camp for violating health and safety protocols, manager Terry Francona told reporters yesterday. The players dined together at a restaurant and Reyes had a haircut out of camp. Never mind whether or not the Wuhan rules are reasonable; baseball teams have strict pandemic requirements, because a clubhouse infection can put the whole season in jeopardy. Last year, Cleveland suspended and traded on of its key starting pitchers for violating the protocols. Listening to the MLB Sirius channel, a reliable locale to hear ethics dunces 24-7, I heard two baseball writer hosts sympathizing with Ramirez and Reyes. “Young men think they are invincible,” one shrugged. The two “young men” are multi-millionaires who have well-defined responsibilities to the game and to their employers. They don’t have to think, they just have to be responsible and follow the conditions of their employment.
3. And while we’re on the topic of stupidity…Jury selection in the George Floyd murder trial began today. Robin Meade, lovely as ever, was also dimmer than usual on HLN this morning. Looking puzzled, Robin asked the legal analyst Joey Jackson what possible defense former officer Derek Chauvin could have. Well, Jackson said, there is some question about whether Chauvin’s knee was what really killed Floyd, since the medical examination seemed to show that he had taken substances that might have “contributed ” to his death.
Apparently Minneapolis wants a repeat of the Rodney King riots. I don’t see how it avoids them at this point.
4. How does a Democrat make this argument without laughing? Especially this Democrat: with five (and counting) sexual harassers and sexual assault accusers already, a deadly pandemic scandal and a cover-up, and leaders in his own party calling for his resignation, Governor Andrew Cuomo said yesterday,
“I was elected by the people of the state. I was not elected by politicians. I’m not going to resign because of allegations.The system is based on due process, and the credibility of the allegations. Anybody has the ability to make an allegation in a democracy, and that’s great, but it’s in the credibility of the allegations.”
The Kavanaugh hearings? Two impeachments of an elected President based on allegations? The Trump campaign surveilled with illegally obtained warrants, based on unsubstantiated allegations in an opposition research memo? Democratic Party leaders demanding the 25th Amendment removal of President Trump based on the allegations of psychiatrists who had never examined him? When did due process start being respected by this Democratic Party?
Meanwhile, the sexual harassment law Governor Cuomo signed in 2019, SB 6577, lowered the burden of proof for sexual harassment allegations. Under the law, “harassment would [not need to] be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to harassment claims.”
5. Imagine…Andrew is the smart Cuomo!
Last week, as the Governor’s brother Chris handed off his show, “Cuomo Prime Time,” to Don Lemon, CNN’s second most incompetent journalist who hosts “CNN Tonight,” Cuomo was singing the theme song to the African-American 1970s TV show, “Good Times” (“Dyno-Miiiiiiite!“) and said, “You know I’m black on the inside.”
Now, as Chris Cuomo’s stupidity goes, this wouldn’t even make my top 100 examples. But Chris panders to the Woke and Wonderful, so the fact that he would say lead with his jaw with such a cringe-worthy line once again shows that CNN is irresponsible to entrust even its pathetic brand of quasi-journalism to someone so, so… Fredo. The outrage Cuomo provoked is nicely typified by the reaction of Aisha K. Staggers, managing editor of “Sister2Sister” magazine:
“It’s fucking offensive. Black isn’t something you can just say you feel you are inside without having to deal with the racism that comes with being physically Black on the outside. This is cultural appropriation. Black is not a costume, I don’t get to be white when I don’t feel like not dealing with racism or racist police or just regular bullshit Black people deal with. I can’t even hide at home because I can be killed there in my bed, so understand, there was nothing silly about this.”
Yup…all over America, racist cops are killing women hiding in their beds. Well, that’s CNN’s audience, and Cuomo should know better than to say “he’s black inside.” But he doesn’t.
Ethics Alarms 
Re: No.5; Fredo Deserved Respect but was Passed Over.
Oh, Chris. You just aren’t that bright. You committed an unpardonable sin and you must be annihilated. Show some respect and resign, go into therapy and reeducation, flagellate yourself and go away.
jvb
Charged under the overreaching law he signed seems appropriate. That should happen to all virtue-signallers trying to profit from the fear they grow. They are inside the glass houses throwing stones.
What about “female”, is that just something you feel on the inside, or an objective external reality?
I wonder if Cuomo’s critic had the same reaction when Toni Morrison pronounced Bill Clinton as our first black President?
They square this circle by comparing experience, neither is about objective reality.
Objectively, Cuomo is just as black as a fully intact biological man with gender dysphoria is a woman. But this isn’t about objectivity, reasonableness, or the truth…. It’s about oppression. Because really… What else differentiates someone who misrepresents their race, like Rachel Dolezal, or Shaun King, to someone who misrepresents their sex? Sure, both can be murky, is the child of a mixed race couple black or white? Is a person with Klinefelter or Turner’s syndrome a man or a woman? Progressives would usually say that the person With XXY or XYY are whatever they self identify as, and similarly for the mixed race child, whatever box they choose to mark. And if you get a fully intact biological man who believes that they are a woman… Well, welcome to the club! But if you’re a white woman who puts on a lot of spray tan, dreds up her hair, and works as a black NAACP activist for most of her life… Fuck off bigot? I guess.
I’m not saying that I agree with this, but from their perspective the difference is oppression. The man who thinks they’re a woman statistically has a significant chance of having mental health issues, their suicide rate is orders of magnitude larger than the population in general, they’re often viewed as pedophiles, or predators, their families often disown them. Regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman who believes they are a woman or a man, saying so opens you up to a world of scorn and oppression in a way that Chris Cuomo saying he’s black on the inside never will. Similarly, Rachel Dolezal could have lived the life of a normal white woman, which they view as being privileged. It helps in understanding their mindset if you view lying about your oppression to be akin to stolen valor. Because black women as a class are disenfranchised, regardless of whether individual black women are disenfranchised, Rachel donning the persona of a disenfranchised class stole the social currency of oppression, because she hadn’t paid for it with the experiences of growing up black. And that’s not acceptable.
Oh, the mind boggles.
What do we say about an individual who thinks he/she is, for instance, an aardvark?
jvb
I mean…. This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Kindly, one would hope. There’s obviously a mental health issue there. But just like the right thing to do when your aunt sees hallucinated bugs crawling up her walls isn’t to fumigate the house, calling her crazy isn’t helpful.
Honestly… I’ve kind of come around on this, over the years. At a personal level, the progressive treatment for gender expression is closer to right; These people are in distress, nothing of value is added by demeaning them. For the most part, it doesn’t do anyone any harm in using whatever pronouns they want, and I don’t find a whole lot of value in being an asshole. The people we’re talking about aren’t well, and making fun of them is like making fun of a guy in a wheelchair: It can be funny in the abstract, but up close and personal, it’s not a great look.
But that’s personally. On a policy level, trans people are being used by people who don’t give a rat’s ass about them to push a political ideology that is kinder to them, but not really beneficial for them. We have to do a better job at picking our fights; and pick the right targets. There are precious few places where someone’s sex actually matters anymore, we need to differentiate where it does, and create policy that makes sense. Trans people don’t like that their driver’s license has the “wrong” sex in the sex feild. I don’t like the idea of a government ID with false information on it as affirmation for a person with a mental health condition… But why does a driver’s license need a sex feild? Can we do away with it and make everyone happier? It’s hard to mock the absurdity of ideas without mocking the people associated with those ideas, particularly in this case because mentally unwell people do absurd things, but I think we have to at least try.
Look at the first item on the list today: Evangelicals for Biden. It’s almost an oxymoron. But there were evangelicals who were willing to look past the Democrat’s record on abortion, which they view as the literal murder of babies, because they disagreed with Trump or the Republicans on issues x, y, and z. Somehow x, y, and z seemed worse to them than the possibility of more baby-murder. We need to give people less x, y and z. Sometimes x, y, or z are inherent to conservatism, and if those are deal breakers, we’re never going to convince people who care very much about the inverse of x, y or z to support you. But if x, y, and z alienate people, and they have nothing to do with conservative values or principles, then maybe we don’t need them.
I agree with this, HT. It is a Golden Rule issue to me. Respect and dignity for others I may disagree with, as well as for those with whom I agree, is an important societal value.
jvb
I’m surprised that more Americans don’t know about the Gnadenhutten Massacre. An atrocity for sure, but the chain of events leading up to the mass murder is much more complicated than it might seem at first blush, with a history of treachery and atrocities by both the colonists and the British-allied Indians in the region. I have read that the Christian Lenape who returned to the Moravian mission in September (after being abducted and removed from the area months earlier by British-allied Indians) were supposed to stay only long enough to harvest fall crops and remove property left behind upon their initial removal, and then return to their new “settlement” closer to Fort Detroit. Their continued presence there in March, plus the fact that the Moravian missionaries did not come with them and were not present at the time of the massacre, lends credence to colonists’ suspicions that the Lenape were spying for the British. I suspect that if the missionaries had been present, they would have been able to defuse the situation and avert the massacre. A “day of infamy” indeed!