Rep. Lee Schoenbeck (R-5/Watertown) leads a whole bunch of cranky conservatives into battle tomorrow with House Bill 1060, to repeal the South Dakota Board on Geographic Names.
We last heard from the state Board on Geographic Names last spring and summer, when they considered South Dakota’s highest point, Harney Peak, to Hinhan Kaga. Harney Peak is named for General William Harney, who is known, among other things, for killing Native women and children at the Battle of the Blue Water in Nebraska. Hinhan Kaga is a traditional Lakota name that may or may not refer to the peak, meaning (roughly) “Place of Scary Sacred Owls.” The state BGN took extensive testimony before deciding they sided with colonialist sentiment (including that of two thick-tongued Daugaard Administration officials) to keep Harney’s name on the mountain.
I smell threatened white privilege in House Bill 1060, and while Rep. Schoenbeck admits the Harney Peak debate motivated his bill, he tells us he’s just shutting down a government agency that has done its duty and succumbed to mission creep:
Schoenbeck said the Harney Peak name-change process was beyond the intended scope of the state Board on Geographic Names. The board was created by 2009 legislation as part of an effort to help replace offensive place names, many of them containing the words “squaw” or “negro,” such as Squaw Creek and Negro Gulch.
That process has been completed, Schoenbeck said, and consideration of a Harney Peak name change by the board members represented “a whole different mission.”
“They got all the work done that the statutes directed them to do,” Schoenbeck said, “and it looked to me like this is a government agency that’s done its job and should end” [Seth Tupper, “Lawmaker Seeks Repeal of Board That Considered Harney Peak Name Change,” Rapid City Journal, 2016.01.21].
Let’s check Rep. Schoenbeck’s assertion of agency obsolescence against statutory history:
- 2001: House Bill 1280, requested by Governor Bill Janklow, found that “certain geographic place names are offensive and insulting to all South Dakota’s people, history, and heritage.” It identified 38 places with “harmful and offensive” names, all of them including either “Squaw” or “Negro”, proposed new names for some, and gave interested parties 90 days to suggest new names for the rest. The bill then gave the Board of Water and Natural Resources, the Board of Minerals and Environment, and the Transportation Commission sixty days to jointly approve new names.
- 2009: Senate Bill 155 created the South Dakota Board on Geographic Names and mandated it to “meet at least once each year to consider issues related to geographical place names and to make recommendations to the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies.” This bill dispatched the new board to recommend names for some remaining places from the 2001 list that had not yet been changed by the United States Board on Geographic Names by January 1, 2010, but it also authorized the state board to “make any subsequent recommendations in a timely manner.” The legislative intent, approved by every member of the legislature but Reps. Brock Greenfield and Brian Dreyer, clearly envisioned that the state Board on Geographic Names would continue to function after 2009 with no clear end date.
- 2014: SB 119 revised 2001’s legislative finding statute (SDCL 1-19C-1) to a specific ban on use of “squaw” in place names. It noted that the US BGN had acted on all the previously cited names but laid out further criteria for the continued operation of the state board: “The board shall investigate any proposed names, solicit public input, and make a recommendation to the United States Board on Geographic Names as to whether the board supports a new or replacement name. The board may establish procedures and standards to recommend, evaluate, and select geographic place names by rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 1-26. The rules shall be compatible with the standards of the United States Board on Geographic Names as contained in its manual, Principles, Policies and Procedures: Domestic Names, Reston, Virginia, 1997. (http://geonames.usgs.gov/docs/pro_pol_pro.pdf).“ Giving the state board more rule-making authority suggests legislative intent that the board continue to operate. As in 2009, the 2014 legislation gave no sunset date for the board’s operation.
Rep. Schoenbeck’s claim that the state Board on Geographic Names has “got all the work done that the statutes directed them to do” rests on an implication we may derive from the 2001 and 2009 offensive place name lists: “Squaw” and “Negro” are the only harmful and offensive terms that offend all South Dakotans, the board was created solely to deal with those offensive names, and we have eradicated all instances of those terms from South Dakota maps.
However, that implication ignores the plain language that the 2009 and 2014 legislation put into the board’s authorizing statute, which empowers the board to “consider issues related to geographical place names.” That statement encompasses not just offensive place names but any issue with place names, such as the naming of previously unnamed creeks in Campbell County and Minnehaha County, which the board considered in 2014. To say the board has done its statutory job, Rep. Schoenbeck will have to argue that every place in South Dakota worth naming has been named, and that everything else is just a puddle or a pile of rocks… which is too bad, because there are a couple spots on Nick Nemec’s ranch that we might want to name Schoenbeck’s Ridge and Woster Slough.
Rep. Schoenbeck brings House Bill 1060 to House State Affairs Friday morning (that’s tomorrow as I write this, quite possibly today as you read this!) at 8:30 a.m. CST in Room 414 at the Capitol. Tune in on South Dakota Public Broadcasting’s livestream for what promises to turn into a fun little culture war debate, and place your bets on which committee member (Rep. Jim Bolin? Rep. Don Haggar? Rep. Mike Verchio?) is the first to say, “political correctness.”
Once again, it appears we are in favor of ‘local control’ unless and until we are not. I think it’s safe to assume that the issue will not disappear – even if this Board does. In that case, the state will have removed itself from the process, deferring to DC. As I write that it occurs to me … maybe that’s an improvement.
Would “massacre” be out of place?
It appears that Schoenbeck may be the among the more insensitive racists. Did not expect this from him; yet he appears captive of the ‘conquest’ and other dogmas while living on lands illegally wrested from the Sisseton and Whapeton Dakota Trbes via the ‘governments’ i.e. whites breaches of the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux of July 23, 1851. Recall that when the “treaty” was craft (in English which the Dakota had feint understanding) the Minnesota Territory spread to the Missouri River. http://www.mnopedia.org/event/treaty-traverse-des-sioux
More died in the ensuing Dakota War than died at the Little Bighorn. The travesty led to the largest mass execution in US history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862
This pathetic history foreshadowed what followed via the hands of Harney and the historical serial rapist Custer. There is no excuse for memorializing names of Harney, Custer, et al., any more than memoralizing Pol Pot, Stalin, or others placing humanity, treaties, or law above their own behavior. This board worked a process as legislatively directed and should continue so doing. Schoenbek should withdraw his ill-advised bill.
The board was created by 2009 legislation as part of an effort to help replace offensive place names, many of them containing the words “squaw” or “negro,” such as Squaw Creek and Negro Gulch.
So-are you saying Harney Peak doesn’t offend Native Americans or are you saying Native Americans don’t have feelings or are you saying you don’t give a s— if Native Americans have feelings?
I got it. Your racist sounding views were taken out of context.
It seems Rep. Schoenbeck needs something worthwhile to do with his time. I suggest he focus on raising teacher pay!
The photo op proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Schoenbeck hates pheasants,too.
I would suggest renaming everything to something with “Sanford” in the name and be done with it.
Paul, that is already being done! ;-)
Done it,Paul. My hometown of Cherokee,iowa has Sanford Museum and Planetarium.
Update: Schoenbeck hoghouses own bill, changes it to restrict the SDBGN to considering new names for places only if state law (i.e., the Legislature) designates an existing name as offensive or insulting. Tell me, is there a difference between offending and insulting?
Schoenbeck: threat OR menace?
Cory asks:
I’d say insulting suggests an objective wrong committed by the source of the insult, while offending only requires unpleasant feelings for the one offended.
For example, I sometimes offend others by expressing my belief that the Bible is true, even if I’m not intentionally insulting them.
Nearly everything in the christian bible is offending and insulting regardless of its purported veracity.
But laud Schoenbeck for wasting precious time during the session that might be utilized to shine sunlight on the Republican culture of corruption in Pierre.
Bob Newland writes:
The word menace sometimes refers to someone who’s merely annoying, even if that person doesn’t pose an actual threat.
As if on cue, Larry Kurtz writes:
It’s possible to take offense without being insulted, and it’s possible to be insulted without taking offense.
For Gaia so loved the world, that She gave Her hundred billionth begotten Sun that whoever believes in Her shall not perish, but have eternal life.
The name Harney Peak is both offending and insulting.
The work of SDGN is not complete until the name of Harney Peak is changed.
If most of their work is done is fine. But in the future do they want a different group with different rules each time to make these decisions?
I simply fail to understand how some conservatives think! The hog house version is patently worse than the original and vividly points out that the entire matter isn’t one of clearing racist or insensitive geographic names from maps and tourism literature as was the original intent. The intent here is nothing short of who has control of something. What it also attempts to do is kill the messenger if one doesn’t like the message. If that isn’t a partisan control trick, I don’t know what is. What this hog house version does is perpetuate political meddling in something that should be void of political consideration. The first thing that must happen is the legislature must decide if a name is offensive in legislation that must pass through both houses and be signed by the governor before it is then referred to the State BGN’s for review and recommendation. This is nothing short of micro-management which, in the long run, costs the taxpayers of this state a bundle of money for no worthwhile purpose. Why is it necessary to fix something that isn’t broke.
Frankly, I didn’t support the name change simply because doing so only perpetuates the historical racial conflicts that exist here in SD. The proposal elicited unreasonable and theoretical expectations and could not produce convincing proof that a name change for Harney Peak would magically go a long ways to improvements in race relations. Had their been plausible and responsible social data collected to show that result, I and I believe most everyone else opposed would have looked at it quite differently. I simply don’t believe that changing the name of a prominent landmark in the Black Hills is going to change any persons attitude. If anything, it just deepens the divide. The commentary on social and print media was unmistakable. That being said, the Board did precisely what it was tasked with doing and the outcome, while not satisfactory to some folks, is likely satisfactory to the majority. I think we’re failing to understand that Schoebecks Bill doesn’t address the process but rather alternative outcomes and tends to address a process that brought some embarrassment and disharmony to the controlling party in South Dakota. If anyone understands state GOP politics, they also understand the honest debate is to be avoided if it embarrasses one party dominance and creates circumstances that can’t be controlled. They have to control everything including the debate.
Well concluded John but “unreasonable and theoretical expectations” and “convincing proof”, “race relations”, “plausible, responsible social data” assume proponent Indians have the task of changing attitudes of predominate society.
The EXTENSIVE passionate public testimony taken across the state led the board to recommend change from the name HARNEY, unanimously. Because enacting legislation was general the board admitted it should not have procedurally shifted to Hin Han Kaga from proponent’s Black Elk Peak application.
“Deepens the divide” and “commentary [was] unmistakable” only was shown by the massive, largely vitriolic racist rants in response from citizens and city and county local governments and even the governor’s cabinet. Truly a deep embarrassment to the entire state’s national reputation. Perhaps world-wide.
It is not surprising Indian people may not trust the state. Their major religious symbol is named after Gen. Harney, (same as the wildlife refuge in Harney County, Or. under siege right now), who pretty clearly massacred women and children in 1855. We fail to understand labeling a massacre merely a “battle” undermines self esteem of Indian children on a daily basis. We can change this at the cost of a few signs. For 10% of our population. It is time the state stop this discrimination. Then the divide will begin to evaporate. Magically.
leslie-+1
http://mashable.com/2016/01/22/whitesboro-town-seal/#xg1DwVYakgqN
Finally decided to change town’s seal showing a white man chocking an Indian.
Isn’t the word “Sioux” offensive as well? Perhaps we should take a second look at that name as well:
http://www.lakotacountrytimes.com/news/2009-03-12/guest/021.html
(Or merely have I just given the Sanford folks an opening here? (Sanford Falls?))….. That’s it. We should either place a moratorium on the use of the word “Sanford” in South Dakota and/or at least tax the word. Let us see, $ 75 million divided by every “Sanford” sign in South Dakota would be how much per sign to fund a teacher pay increase?….;-)
Kurt: insult is objective, while offense is subjective? So if folks look at HB 1060 and say that Lee Schoenbeck rejects political correctness, are they insulting him? Do they mean to offend him?
John, good point about micromanagement. Schoenbeck suggested the original intent of the bill was simply to streamline government and get rid of a board that has outlived its usefulness. Now Schoenbeck says keep that board, but require that the Legislature act to authorize that board to act in each case. The whole point of having a board like BGN is to reduce the number of picayune details the Legislature has to deal with. Does Lee really want us to bring every geographic name change to the Legislature?
I find “Sanford” offensive and insulting and will bring every Sanford designated place before the Legislature demanding change to a name that does not celebrate usury and exploitation of the poor.
Cory asks:
I’d maybe try to phrase it in a less ambiguous way. I used the word objective in reference to the wrongness suggested by the word insult. When an offended person experiences genuine unpleasant feelings, I’d say there’s been an objective offense regardless of whether the offender committed an objective wrong.
I’m not sure I understand the point of those questions. There’s no way for me to know the intentions of the “folks” in your hypothetical, but if they’re making their statement primarily because they “mean to” offend Schoenbeck, I’d say they’re committing an objective wrong and insulting him. Otherwise I’d say they’re probably not.
Rep. Kevin Killer-good response to Rep. Bolin! Changing the name has come up MANY times over decades.
Mr. H is right about all the Sanforditis. I’m starting to become annoyed with it all and annoying is just as bad as offending or insulting. They should change that bill to include annoying.
Mr. C, what about Custer Peak and Crook’s Tower and Doane Mountain and Ludlow Cave and Riley Pass? O’dakota Mountain?
Grudz-though I have no place to speak for Indians, Harney Peak is a sacred place central to religion which is offensive because Harney massacred innocent women and children. The name-change proponent is a Lakota/Korean War vet I know whose opinion is that kind of military attack would never be sanctioned by morale people. Hill City, however is another matter. Mr. Hill was reputed to be an SOB. Perhaps you knew him:)
Ms. leslie, I did not realize there was a Mr. Hill. Bob Hill it turns out. I always thought that town was named after the hills between which it is nestled. like a loaf between towels. Perhaps they should try and change the name of Hill City to something else. Or maybe start with Custer City. I’m just sayin…
My guess is they could care less about the good city of Custer. His name stands for what it stands. The city and the county however seem to be scared to death given their apparent representative name-change comments AFTER the board unanimously recommended change following extensive state-wide public meetings taking testimony. I believe Rancher Rittberger wrote the board’s recommendation “sounded like two owls screwing”. County chair Lampert said something about “the Indians should learn a lesson”. Think they have any sway with state congressmen Bolin, Schoenbeck and our Governor and his fearful cabinet?
You seem overly careful to disguise your typical thinly-veiled racism, grudz. That’s why you’re just sayin…right?
Why dont you have a state wide vote on all name changes?
The Blindman
I think if the name is offensive to anyone, it should be considered for change. In Harney’s case, there should not even be a debate. The guy was a mass murderer, how can that be still accepted and why should it? Harney is a stain that should be cleaned up.
Then why not put it to a vote? If enough people feel the same way the name could be changed.
The Blindman
I think we should just whitewash all of our history and rename everything Maple, Elm, Walnut, Pasque, Lilly with an occasional concession to our locale and mix in bean and corn.
Troy’s attitude is that of every white supremacist in South Dakota.
Watertown High School hosts a racist pageant every year.
Heȟáka Sápa (Black Elk) returned to Lakota ways after he realized the Roman Church was committing crimes against his people.
It’s time for the State of South Dakota to abandon Bear Butte State Park that it claimed through colonization and remand it to the tribes for governance so they can restore its name to Mato Paha and for the US Park Service to add the name Mahto Tipila to Devils Tower National Monument.
Dismissing seriousness is easy Troy. Suggest renaming as Janklow Highway, the location he killed the biker. Perhaps the effect on his children might be like the generations of suffering Indians have endured. Instead your party punishes the process, the good faith proponents of Black Elk Peak, and even refuses to face the racial issue of the state.
Leslie, I am being serious.
There are two logic fallacies at play here. Presentism and historians fallacy. And they are always applied selectively. I don’t recall anyone clamor in for not honoring Indian Chiefs who often consummated a peace treaty by giving one of their daughters in marriage to the other tribe.
Either we quit looking at things with these fallacies and learn from history or let’s just pretend history never occurred.
yeah, leslie. being fallacious is troy’s dealio because jesus.
Good idea,though: South Dakota should rename Trent for Bill Janklow.
Negro Creek does have a nice ring to it.
Let’s rename Custer State Park for Annie Tallent.
Sue Ann Falls, Big Sue Ann River named for Sue Ann Big Crow. Better than Monsanto River, init?
Squaw Creek should be renamed Acid Mine Drainage Creek in my view.
Bridal Veil Falls should be renamed Arsenic Cataract.
Rapid Creek should be Diarrhea Diorama.
Custer, Custer County, Custer Peak: Wasicu, Wasicu, Wasicu.
Jones County should be renamed Whiskey County or Lysol County.
1. USD is studying post 1860s confederate settlement as Gettysburg public officials tout the stars and bars uniform patch. We have an 1855 historical genocide by US Military memorialized on the sacred peak of Indian people and this legislature abolishes the law raising the public discussion of that peak. Our public SD HISTORICAL SOCIETY sits on the Name Board and has expertise to study THIS issue objectively. It should. No one but Daugaard’s Administration is trying to whitewash history.
2. Troy-what is your issue? Please document Presentation and Historian problems always used. And in this case. Do you think USD will put GETTYSBURG to bed and the bill will shut the Indians down? Should they?
Again I say put it to a vote of the people in the state. Then take those results to the United States Board on Geographic Names. The decision of the voting public would carry more weight then what is now happening.
No more then two names could be voted on in any election cycle, and once voted on those names would be permanent, never to be challenged again. It would get out the indian vote and make elections more interesting.
One man, one vote is the fairest way to make these kinds of decisions.
The Blindman
Mr. Schoenbeck. What’s your position regarding change to the KI-YI pageant in your district?
I’ll go with the Blindman’s idea of a vote and Troy,leave corn and beans out of this.
Actually,let the Indians name it what they want. Spike,buddy,you’re up.
Leslie,
Presentism is when we judge the past in light of todays standards, experience, and perspective without consideration of the past standards, experience and perspective.
Historians fallacy is when we judge past decisions with the presumption they were made with the information we have today. It’s a form of criticizing past decisions with 20-20 hindsight.
Especially with presentism, there are efforts at selective white washing of history because the history is “offensive.” For example, we want to remove the name past military leaders from landmarks because under today’s standards they have some rather glaring blemishes. But, the same people aren’t so diligent about holding Indian chiefs to a similar standard. Neither side lived up to the Geneva Convention with regard to treatment of prisoners.
Personally, I think we should be consistent. No Harney Peak and no Crazy Horse mountain. Or let’s have the both. And, I prefer the latter as we can learn then from what they did, why they were heroes then, and what we don’t like about them today.
The city of Iroquois and Huron (Indian tribes that likely never set foot within 300 miles of South Dakota) got those names because a Railroad guy in Chicago thought it was honoring Indians and didn’t know the Huron & Sioux were mortal enemies before the Sioux were pushed west into the Dakotas by the Huron? I wonder how we have towns named after the Onaka and Seneca Indians as well. Probably the same railroad guy. Or Onida which is named after a city in NY which is named for an Indian tribe from NY.
Pierre might be named after the French fort but it why is it pronounced as it is? Maybe we should call Pierre what the Sioux called it (Mahto)? But, the Sioux changed the name when they annihilated the Arikara-Ree who called it something else.
When does the renaming stop? When nobody is “offended?” Well, if that is the standard, let’s just go with Maple, Elm, Lilly, or numbers or pick names out of a hat like we name storms.
History is history and we shouldn’t white wash it. There is a story behind every name in South Dakota and knowing those stories is good. Maybe the story says something good even under today’s standards. But, maybe they tell us something we shouldn’t forget. Changing the name will just make it easier to forget.
At the same time, there were a lot of places with offensive names on their face (Squaw creek, etc.) where there is no historical value or nothing to be learned. That was the real charge of this board (get rid of the squaw creeks) and not whitewash history.
Yeah, we should all quit talking about this because Troy says so. Besides, Lee believes it should be up to the Feds anyway because South Dakotans are too stupid to debate it just like Troy thinks.
Troy is wrong, somethings never surprise. I do give him kudos for “whitewash” in a sentence structure about racial issues though, well done sir. But the Blindman is on the right trail. Maybe a popular vote would be the right thing to do.
Troy, how does it feel to put up a nearly lucid piece of prose at DWC only to have Pat pile propaganda on it.
Troy’s wrong about contemporary standards not jibing with 19th century standards with respect to events like the one that occurred at Blue Water, NE, under the command of Harney. Here’s what the Joint Committee On The Conduct Of War said about Sand Creek in it’s report to Congress in 1865: “As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.”
Here’s the full report: http://www.kclonewolf.com/History/SandCreek/sc-documents/sc-1JCCW.html
John,
That is information I never knew. I bookmarked it and will read it some evening. Just reading this, does it somewhere directly criticize Harney or is this an example of a person being rogue or otherwise disobeying orders (implied or explicit)?
Personally, I am of the mind history is history. And, learning from history is one of the gifts it gives to the present and future. Also, I’ll bet with just a little effort I could make a list of 100 names which a case could be made they have historical roots which are offensive to someone, including some Indian names/people. When will it stop? if there is no end to it, let’s just rename everything and be safe.
It just shows that some moral absolutes really do exist in this country, particularly when it comes to savagery against the defenseless, regardless of era. Also suggest you do some reading on an Episcopal Bishop named Whipple, who presided over the church district in Minnesota where the “Great Sioux Uprising” occurred. He was a powerful advocate for Indians and made many emotional appeals for their fair treatment, some of which reached Abraham Lincoln. There was neither a moral vacuum nor a broad ethical acceptance of the treatment of the Indians in this country during the 19th century. I don’t know where you get this “where will it stop?” stuff. We’re just talking about Harney Peak right now. Let’s take it one mass murderer at a time.
Many Huron migrated to Michigan and Ohio after leaving Quebec. Although they initially refused, the Huron were forced to relocate to Kansas and Oklahoma along with numerous other tribes during the U.S. Indian Removal Act of 1830, a sad time in history for all Native Americans.
Huron is a French word,translates to something like boar’s head because Hurons had Mohawk style haircuts.They were enemies of the Iriquois but emulated them in housing structires and other stuff.
Presentism like “politically correct” and “political correctness” are terms embraced and used continually by bigots attempting to avoid valid criticism. If a word or phrase is offensive now it needs to be changed now. That it had a historical reference to a time when it wasn’t offensive has little bearing on it’s need for change, now. Using presentism to avoid criticism is just another card in the Republican poker hand of “aversion to change” and wishing things would just stay the same for a while. Our Constitution changes with the times. People’s awareness changes with the times. Even the changes we need now change with the times. This utopian desire to circumvent change is one reason South Dakota is continually ten years behind and ten years outdated and without appeal to newcomers.
There is also Oneida, Wisc. just outside of Green Bay, they are owners of one of the most successful tribal casino’s in the country. They were originally from upstate New York and attached to the tribe there. They moved to Wisc. looking for better farmland.
My father was a full-blood member of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, as am I.
I’ve been torn about renaming Harney Peak and keeping it the same, there is no doubt that Harney was a war criminal and should have tried and convicted under military law rather than be honored for his cowardice.
On the other hand, Harney Peak serves as a reminder of just how racist South Dakota is and always will be. When tourists ask about the peak I tell them truth and they are horrified that it was named for such a horrid man.
A state wide vote for the name change is absurd, in case you haven’t noticed, South Dakota is controlled by white rednecks, Indians wouldn’t stand a chance in an election.
Yes, Harney Peak stands as a testament to racism and the hate that goes with it, let it stand as a lesson to those that don’t know the history of Harney and his cowardice.
Hear, hear sir. Roger Cornelius for State Truth In Tourism Director.
Harney County, Oregon is rethinking its role in genocide after domestic terrorists stormed a federal facility there yet South Dakota remains mired in its own racist muck thanks to white guys like Troy Jones.
Steve Hickey is right. Until an independent truth and justice commission is convened racism will remain the order of the day in Pierre.
But with the vote Roger, you would be able to make an even more empowered view of Harney and the why the white people support his memory. Sometimes it is felt that there is extreme racism in South Dakota, but there is no real proof of it, only one person saying one thing and another something different. The numbers would tell the true story.
Crow Peak in Lawrence County is derived from an English translation of Place Where the Crow Were Killed, a reference to a time when the Lakota were conquering the Hills That Were Black From Fire.
Troy-ethnocentrism is an air of superiority over another culture my professors taught in the early 70s. In 2002 the AHA President Hunt, UCLA wrote about the soft issue you raise, simply reminding “respect for the past.” Is there current academic thought on the subject in the politicization of PC and white privilege?
A whitewash, we ALL know, is labeling a battle “Custer’s Massacre” when it wasn’t. From 1876 until more recently this was taught to generations. Few seriously hold to those ethnocentric judgements today. We still call My Lai one however. Hoven educator/scientist Spencer here in 2015 refers to Crazy Horse as “butcher”.
For the social welfare of our friends the Lakota people in SD they ask this veil be lifted from the place their “Star Knowledge” calls the Center Of Everything. Sinta Gleska Univ. Publishing.
You say history would be “changed” by renaming Harney Peak. Historically Harney’s 1855 land surveyor some years later named the peak for Harney. In 1858 Harney was in eastern Oregon. Ammon Bundy recently familiarized the world to Harney Lake, Harney Basin in now infamous Harney County.
Today Indians are petitioning to change the peak’s name as a desecration of it’s sacredness. Their oral history
It is likely Harney improved his legacy in his last several decades after these Dakota and Oregon Terr. exploits may have left a guilty conscience.
Rep. Lee Schoenbeck (RWNJ-Watertown) wants to shut down public discussion on changing offensive names in South Dakota. If his House Bill 1060 survives a senate vote and is signed by Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard the US Board on Geographic Names will decide which geographical features will be renamed.
Custer is one such offensive name destined for review.
How does one improve on “butcher?” Label Harney a meat cuts technician?
lee-what are u doing and why? krauss and chomsky remind us we forgot we exterminated indians took their land then used slavery to initiate our nation of wealth.
lee’s (daugaard’s) attempt to neutralize a democratic process has been done before: flint MI poisoning drinking water.
There might not have been a super-empowered emergency manager at all in Flint if a 2012 referendum had been allowed to stand.
It’s the failure of a specific governing philosophy: Repub. Rick Snyder’s belief that government works better if run more like a business.
Sports
Local
National
World
Business
Tech
Lifestyle
Entertainment
Crosswords
Video
Photography
Washington Post Live
Live Chats
Real Estate
Cars
Jobs
WP BrandConnect
Classifieds
Partners
washingtonpost.com
1996-2016 The Washington Post
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Submissions and Discussion Policy
RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices
The Washington Post
Share on Facebook
Share via Email
Share on SMS
Share on Twitter
Share on Whatsapp
Opinions
The Flint disaster is Rick Snyder’s fault
Resize Text
Print Article
Comments 2337
Book mark article Save for Later
Read later list Reading List
Saved to Reading List
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. (Al Goldis/AP)
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer January 25
Jeb Bush explained Sunday why he still thinks Rick Snyder has been “a great governor for Michigan” even after the mass lead poisoning because of tainted tap water in Flint.
The disgrace over Flint’s water, the Republican presidential prospect told ABC’s “This Week,” “is related to the fact that we’ve created this complex, no-responsibility regulatory system, where the federal government, the state government, a regional government, local and county governments are all pointing fingers at one another.”
Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the nation’s capital. He joined the Post as a political reporter in 2000. View Archive
Facebook
Google+
RSS
Um, no.
Bush was attempting to muddy the proverbial water by portraying the Flint debacle as a failure of government at all levels. Snyder attempted the same diffusion of responsibility last week, saying that “government failed you — federal, state and local leaders — by breaking the trust you placed in us.”
But the Flint disaster, three years in the making, is not a failure of government generally. It’s the failure of a specific governing philosophy: Snyder’s belief that government works better if run more like a business.
17 key moments in Flint’s water crisis
Play Video3:05
Take a look at the key moments that led up to Flint, a city of 90,000, getting stuck with contaminated water. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)
[The poisoning of Flint]
No doubt, the federal Environmental Protection Agency deserves blame for failing to sound warnings more loudly and publicly, and for being too deferential to state authorities, once it learned last year that high lead levels in Flint were poisoning children.
But EPA had no role in the decisions that caused the problem, nor was it supposed to. That was entirely the responsibility of Snyder’s administration and his appointees.
The governor, former head of Gateway computers, was first elected as part of the tea party wave of 2010 with a plan to use his tech industry skills to run Michigan (sound familiar? hint: trump).
One of his 1st actions, was a new law that gave the state dramatic powers to take over failing municipalities and school boards by appointing emergency managers with unchecked authority.
Michigan voters killed that law in a November 2012 referendum, but a month later Snyder got the legislature, in a lame-duck session, to enact a law very similar to the one voters had rejected.
This time, legislators attached it to a spending bill so it couldn’t be undone by referendum. (sound familiar in SD?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-flint-disaster-is-rick-snyders-fault/2016/01/25/9c77e036-c3b1-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html
so sorry for the sloppy post of the link. ignore all but 3 first paragraphs and last 4 paragraphs.