If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible
for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5922356.html "Texas. It's like a whole other country." Coined to promote tourism, that wry verbal wink at the state's mythic image has assumed a literal meaning as Texas finds itself in defiance of the United Nations, the Organization of American States and national leaders in its planned Tuesday execution of Mexican citizen Jose Medellin. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry acts in his favor, Medellin, 33, will die for the 1993 rape-strangulation of two teenage Houston girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña. Jennifer's father, Randy Ertman, dismissed international opposition to the execution. "It's just a last-ditch effort to keep the scumbag breathing," Ertman said. "He never should have been breathing in the first place. I don't care, I really don't care what anyone thinks about this except Texas. I love Texas. Texas is in my blood." At issue is Texas' refusal to hold a hearing to determine whether Medellin's defense was harmed by his inability to confer with Mexican consular officials at the time of his arrest. A suspect's right to talk with his consulate is guaranteed by the United Nations' Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the United States is a party. Medellin insists he told both Houston police and Harris County officers that he is a Mexican citizen. Prosecutors say the killer never informed authorities of his nationality. In a sworn statement, Medellin said he learned that the Mexican Consulate could possibly help him in 1997, four years after his arrest. He unsuccessfully petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the issue in 1998. In 2004, the U.N.'s world court, responding to a Mexican lawsuit against the United States, ordered that hearings be held for Medellin and dozens of other inmates denied their consular rights. In 2005, President Bush called for the hearings to be held. Texas challenged the decision, and the Supreme Court determined that only Congress could mandate such action. In July, the world court ordered Medellin's execution be stayed. Perry has argued Texas isn't bound by the decisions of international courts and that the state is determined to hold killers, regardless of their nationality, responsible for their crimes. Texas has rebuffed not only the U.N. and Bush, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the judicial arm of the Organization of American States, which has demanded Medellin receive a new trial. As politicians worried about the impact on Americans arrested in foreign countries should Texas fail to honor the world court order, prison officials moved Medellin to a special death row cell, where he will be held under constant video surveillance until he is driven to Huntsville's death house. A tragic tale The big city wept when little Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña died. Students at Waltrip High School, Jennifer was 14, and Elizabeth had just turned 16. Their lives were filled with the things that occupy teenage girls. Friends recalled Elizabeth, who was beginning to dabble with makeup, as a "social butterfly." Jennifer tried her hand at basketball before concluding she wasn't cut out for athletics. On June 24, 1993, the girls were at a party at a friend's apartment when they realized the lateness of the hour. Following the railroad tracks through T.C. Jester Park, they concluded, would shave 10 minutes off their trip to Elizabeth's Oak Forest home. As the girls made their way past a thicket near White Oak Bayou, they stumbled onto the tail end of a drunken gang initiation. When they blundered into the group of youths, Medellin - 5 feet, 5 inches tall and weighing just 135 pounds - grabbed Elizabeth and flipped her to the ground. Jennifer, drawn by Elizabeth's scream, turned to help and was herself captured. As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them. Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill them." Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu, Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they stomped on the girls' throats for good measure. Four days later, police, acting on a tip from a gang member's brother, found the teens' bodies, badly decomposed in the summer heat. The victims were identified through dental records. Judge Cathy Cochran, a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which last week rejected his appeals, wrote that Medellin bragged to his friends that the victims had been virgins until they were attacked by the gang. "His written confession," Cochran wrote, "displayed a callous, cruel and cavalier attitude toward the two girls that he had raped and helped to murder. Surely no juror or judge will ever forget his words or his sordid deeds." O'Brien was first to be executed, going to his death in July 2006 with the parting words: "I am sorry. I have always been sorry." Cantu, also convicted of capital murder, awaits a death date. Medellin, who grew up in poverty amid drug abuse and an unstable home environment, twice refused to be interviewed for this story. But on his Web site, posted by a Canadian anti-death penalty group, he claims: "I'm where I am because I made an adolescent choice. That's it! "My life is in black and white like old western movies," he wrote. "But unlike the movies, the good guys don't always finish first." 'Uncaring and hateful' This time, death penalty opponents believe, the sovereign state of Texas has gone too far. "Most of our friends abroad have long since come to the conclusion that this country, on this topic, just doesn't get it," said Southern Methodist University history professor Rick Halperin. "This state is seen as uncaring and hateful. And this case is just right on the top." The Medellin case will solidify stereotypical views of the Lone Star State, said Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and former board chairman of Amnesty International USA. Cochran, however, disagreed in her appeals court concurrence. "Some societies may judge our death penalty barbaric," she wrote. "Most Texans, however, consider death a just penalty in certain rare circumstances. Many Europeans disagree. So be it." The politics of capital punishment aside, some legal observers worry that the United States may suffer as a result of Texas' noncompliance with the world court order. "Outside of Texas this is a huge diplomatic misstep," said Columbia Law School professor Sarah Cleveland. " ... Unfortunately, I doubt that the international community is likely to brush this off as simply the actions of Texas. In the international community (and under all U.S. treaty obligations) the United States is responsible for Texas' actions." Wide-ranging effect If the United States fails to observe its treaty commitments, said Cleveland, co-director of the Human Rights Institute, other nations might be inclined to disregard agreements when they become inconvenient. Affected could be treaties ranging from those mandating protection for foreign nationals to nuclear nonproliferation. Texas Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, a frequent traveler abroad, said he fears Texas' noncompliance will put American military personnel and civilians at risk. In ruling that Bush could not unilaterally force states to hold hearings to consider Vienna Convention violations, the Supreme Court noted that power lies in Congress. Within weeks, U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., introduced such a bill. It is pending in the House Judiciary Committee and can't be enacted until next year. Nose Kisses, CatNipped |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote:
This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though, I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the right to determine the life or death of another. However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis. The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable to protect US citizens. Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants at the least a retrial. Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
"CatNipped" wrote in message ... This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5922356.html "Texas. It's like a whole other country." Coined to promote tourism, that wry verbal wink at the state's mythic image has assumed a literal meaning as Texas finds itself in defiance of the United Nations, the Organization of American States and national leaders in its planned Tuesday execution of Mexican citizen Jose Medellin. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry acts in his favor, Medellin, 33, will die for the 1993 rape-strangulation of two teenage Houston girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña. Jennifer's father, Randy Ertman, dismissed international opposition to the execution. "It's just a last-ditch effort to keep the scumbag breathing," Ertman said. "He never should have been breathing in the first place. I don't care, I really don't care what anyone thinks about this except Texas. I love Texas. Texas is in my blood." At issue is Texas' refusal to hold a hearing to determine whether Medellin's defense was harmed by his inability to confer with Mexican consular officials at the time of his arrest. A suspect's right to talk with his consulate is guaranteed by the United Nations' Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the United States is a party. Medellin insists he told both Houston police and Harris County officers that he is a Mexican citizen. Prosecutors say the killer never informed authorities of his nationality. In a sworn statement, Medellin said he learned that the Mexican Consulate could possibly help him in 1997, four years after his arrest. He unsuccessfully petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the issue in 1998. In 2004, the U.N.'s world court, responding to a Mexican lawsuit against the United States, ordered that hearings be held for Medellin and dozens of other inmates denied their consular rights. In 2005, President Bush called for the hearings to be held. Texas challenged the decision, and the Supreme Court determined that only Congress could mandate such action. In July, the world court ordered Medellin's execution be stayed. Perry has argued Texas isn't bound by the decisions of international courts and that the state is determined to hold killers, regardless of their nationality, responsible for their crimes. Texas has rebuffed not only the U.N. and Bush, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the judicial arm of the Organization of American States, which has demanded Medellin receive a new trial. As politicians worried about the impact on Americans arrested in foreign countries should Texas fail to honor the world court order, prison officials moved Medellin to a special death row cell, where he will be held under constant video surveillance until he is driven to Huntsville's death house. A tragic tale The big city wept when little Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña died. Students at Waltrip High School, Jennifer was 14, and Elizabeth had just turned 16. Their lives were filled with the things that occupy teenage girls. Friends recalled Elizabeth, who was beginning to dabble with makeup, as a "social butterfly." Jennifer tried her hand at basketball before concluding she wasn't cut out for athletics. On June 24, 1993, the girls were at a party at a friend's apartment when they realized the lateness of the hour. Following the railroad tracks through T.C. Jester Park, they concluded, would shave 10 minutes off their trip to Elizabeth's Oak Forest home. As the girls made their way past a thicket near White Oak Bayou, they stumbled onto the tail end of a drunken gang initiation. When they blundered into the group of youths, Medellin - 5 feet, 5 inches tall and weighing just 135 pounds - grabbed Elizabeth and flipped her to the ground. Jennifer, drawn by Elizabeth's scream, turned to help and was herself captured. As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them. Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill them." Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu, Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they stomped on the girls' throats for good measure. Four days later, police, acting on a tip from a gang member's brother, found the teens' bodies, badly decomposed in the summer heat. The victims were identified through dental records. Judge Cathy Cochran, a member of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which last week rejected his appeals, wrote that Medellin bragged to his friends that the victims had been virgins until they were attacked by the gang. "His written confession," Cochran wrote, "displayed a callous, cruel and cavalier attitude toward the two girls that he had raped and helped to murder. Surely no juror or judge will ever forget his words or his sordid deeds." O'Brien was first to be executed, going to his death in July 2006 with the parting words: "I am sorry. I have always been sorry." Cantu, also convicted of capital murder, awaits a death date. Medellin, who grew up in poverty amid drug abuse and an unstable home environment, twice refused to be interviewed for this story. But on his Web site, posted by a Canadian anti-death penalty group, he claims: "I'm where I am because I made an adolescent choice. That's it! "My life is in black and white like old western movies," he wrote. "But unlike the movies, the good guys don't always finish first." 'Uncaring and hateful' This time, death penalty opponents believe, the sovereign state of Texas has gone too far. "Most of our friends abroad have long since come to the conclusion that this country, on this topic, just doesn't get it," said Southern Methodist University history professor Rick Halperin. "This state is seen as uncaring and hateful. And this case is just right on the top." The Medellin case will solidify stereotypical views of the Lone Star State, said Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and former board chairman of Amnesty International USA. Cochran, however, disagreed in her appeals court concurrence. "Some societies may judge our death penalty barbaric," she wrote. "Most Texans, however, consider death a just penalty in certain rare circumstances. Many Europeans disagree. So be it." The politics of capital punishment aside, some legal observers worry that the United States may suffer as a result of Texas' noncompliance with the world court order. "Outside of Texas this is a huge diplomatic misstep," said Columbia Law School professor Sarah Cleveland. " ... Unfortunately, I doubt that the international community is likely to brush this off as simply the actions of Texas. In the international community (and under all U.S. treaty obligations) the United States is responsible for Texas' actions." Wide-ranging effect If the United States fails to observe its treaty commitments, said Cleveland, co-director of the Human Rights Institute, other nations might be inclined to disregard agreements when they become inconvenient. Affected could be treaties ranging from those mandating protection for foreign nationals to nuclear nonproliferation. Texas Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, a frequent traveler abroad, said he fears Texas' noncompliance will put American military personnel and civilians at risk. In ruling that Bush could not unilaterally force states to hold hearings to consider Vienna Convention violations, the Supreme Court noted that power lies in Congress. Within weeks, U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., introduced such a bill. It is pending in the House Judiciary Committee and can't be enacted until next year. Nose Kisses, CatNipped What part would you like to discuss? The part where the POS need to fry? or about Texas ignoring the US government? or him being an foreign person? or President Bush putting his foot in his mouth yet again? Which part of it please? ;-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
Daniel Mahoney wrote: On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote: This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though, I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the right to determine the life or death of another. However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis. The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable to protect US citizens. Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants at the least a retrial. Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states could ignore national laws? I get the impression Texas (and Arizona) think the South won? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
On Aug 4, 3:33*pm, Daniel Mahoney wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote: This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. *I can sort of see both sides of the issue. I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though, I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the right to determine the life or death of another. i'm not gung-ho in favor of the death penalty. In general, I'm against it. But I don't see two sides to this issue. I see two little girls. I don't think the state of Texas should execute this guy but I wouldn't lift a finger to help him. If someone killed him and I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit. However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis. The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable to protect US citizens. Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants at the least a retrial. "At least a retrial." You are saying that under some circumstances he should get _better_ than a retrial? That he might get to walk? I am not against allowing him contact with his consular officer and a retrial. I actually have plenty of confidence in Mexico not to have much sympathy for a rapist and child-murderer. _Unless_ there is some question about his actually _having done it_, I think his friendly consular official would say "Fry, you *******. You have besmirched the honor of your nation." Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. I don't recognize any sovereignty but that of the individual and the U.S. federal government. I thought Texas sovereignty was settled in 1865. Still, any option where this guy goes free sticks in my craw. -- Will in New Haven |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
... Daniel Mahoney wrote: On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote: This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though, I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the right to determine the life or death of another. However, I think the biggest point here is the one make by Senator Ellis. The US cannot thumb it's nose at the rest of the world with impunity. If the US chooses to ignore the findings of the World Court, then other countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding US citizens. To assert that we need not be concerned with the findings of extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable to protect US citizens. Besides, regardless of whether the killer informed the cops that he was a Mexican national at the time of his arrest, that does have a bearing and he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. That warrants at the least a retrial. Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states could ignore national laws? I get the impression Texas (and Arizona) think the South won? Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. Don't let anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is *always* about money). Nose Kisses, CatNipped |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
"Will in New Haven" wrote in message
... On Aug 4, 3:33 pm, Daniel Mahoney wrote: On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:23 -0500, CatNipped wrote: This case hits rather close to home and I was wondering if it were possible for us to discuss this rationally. I can sort of see both sides of the issue. I can too, kind of. I used to support the death penalty in cases of extreme wanton violence, and this would qualify. In recent years, though, I've come to rethink that and now believe that no human being has the right to determine the life or death of another. i'm not gung-ho in favor of the death penalty. In general, I'm against it. But I don't see two sides to this issue. I see two little girls. I don't think the state of Texas should execute this guy but I wouldn't lift a finger to help him. If someone killed him and I were on the jury, I would vote to acquit. =============================================== The two sides I see... on the one hand, fry the b*stard who so cruelly, and with no obvious regrets except that he got caught, raped and killed two little girls. On the other side - American citizens who may be affected if treaties are ignored because of this incident (not *any* bleeding heart feelings that he should be spared). Just his justifications for this horrific act... "I'm where I am because I made an adolescent choice. That's it! "My life is in black and white like old western movies," he wrote. "But unlike the movies, the good guys don't always finish first." ....are enough to make me want to put the injection in his arm myself. "Good guys???!" "GOOD GUYS????!!!!!!" Ohmydeargawd! Tail Twitches, CatNipped |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
Will in New Haven wrote: "At least a retrial." You are saying that under some circumstances he should get _better_ than a retrial? That he might get to walk? I am not against allowing him contact with his consular officer and a retrial. I actually have plenty of confidence in Mexico not to have much sympathy for a rapist and child-murderer. _Unless_ there is some question about his actually _having done it_, I think his friendly consular official would say "Fry, you *******. You have besmirched the honor of your nation." But, being a foreign national, shouldn't that ruling be up to the courts of HIS nation? Deportation of an illegal to his own own country when he has committed a crime in ours isn't necessarily a favor to him - many countries impose far harsher punishments (and far swifter) than we do here. I know we have a president who doesn't quite believe in the existence of sovereign nations other than the U.S., but at the rate he's been going, we may find ourselves in Germany's shoes, post WW2! (Ironic, given the fact that in many cases the U.S. was instrumental in promoting and upholding "international law" - banning torture, insisting upon humane treatment of prisoners, etc.) Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. I don't recognize any sovereignty but that of the individual and the U.S. federal government. That's true for citizens of the U.S.A. - it's what gives Americans arrested abroad the right to appeal to their consulate. Are you saying foreign nationals arrested here should not have the same right? We live in a world made up of MANY sovereign nations - we may not approve of all their governments, but that's really none of our business. Isn't it high time we tried to co-exist, rather than arrogantly assuming we have some God-given right to dictate to the entire world? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
... Will in New Haven wrote: "At least a retrial." You are saying that under some circumstances he should get _better_ than a retrial? That he might get to walk? I am not against allowing him contact with his consular officer and a retrial. I actually have plenty of confidence in Mexico not to have much sympathy for a rapist and child-murderer. _Unless_ there is some question about his actually _having done it_, I think his friendly consular official would say "Fry, you *******. You have besmirched the honor of your nation." But, being a foreign national, shouldn't that ruling be up to the courts of HIS nation? Deportation of an illegal to his own own country when he has committed a crime in ours isn't necessarily a favor to him - many countries impose far harsher punishments (and far swifter) than we do here. I know we have a president who doesn't quite believe in the existence of sovereign nations other than the U.S., but at the rate he's been going, we may find ourselves in Germany's shoes, post WW2! (Ironic, given the fact that in many cases the U.S. was instrumental in promoting and upholding "international law" - banning torture, insisting upon humane treatment of prisoners, etc.) Ignoring the court that hears Geneva Convention cases? The very thought makes me shudder. I don't recognize any sovereignty but that of the individual and the U.S. federal government. That's true for citizens of the U.S.A. - it's what gives Americans arrested abroad the right to appeal to their consulate. Are you saying foreign nationals arrested here should not have the same right? We live in a world made up of MANY sovereign nations - we may not approve of all their governments, but that's really none of our business. Isn't it high time we tried to co-exist, rather than arrogantly assuming we have some God-given right to dictate to the entire world? In an ideal world, yes to all you said. But I live in a city that is dealing with the most blood-thirsty gangs imaginable (worse than LA) - they're illegal aliens, running from the law of Mexico and Mexico is trying to help them stay here! I can just about guarantee you what would happen if Jose was sent home - he'd be back in the states in less than a month, free to rape and kill again. It's happened a number of times here in Houston already. Why do you think our Governor is so adamant about "flouting" international law in this instance? He's trying to set a precedent that might, in the future, save the lives of American citizens. No matter what people in other states might think, we're not all gun-totin' idiots here in Texas. We're on the front lines dealing with a problem that will eventually migrate to the rest of the US quite soon. Tail Twitches, CatNipped |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
CatNipped wrote: Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede Federal law in all but cases involving crossing state lines. Don't let anybody kid you, the Civil war was about the north not getting its grubby hands on taxes generated by cotton plantations (as all wars throughout history, no matter the lip service paid to ideological beliefs, it is *always* about money). How true. I am reading an eye-opening novel "The Proud and the Free", about the way our government dispossessed the Cherokee Nation, back in the 1830's. The book itself is a slightly steamy romantic novel, but the historical background is genuine, and redeems it. These were not "savages", but people who had adopted the White Man's ways, were educated in Eastern U.S. schools, and had become prosperous farmers and businessmen. (Since their territory included a good chunk of the Deep South, many had lavish plantations, and were slave-owners.) I have always considered it a good joke on our government that, after forcing the Indians into lands the White Man didn't want, they discovered oil there, and couldn't evict them. However, that may simply mean we had a slightly more moral government in office at the time. There were equally binding treaties in place in the 1830's, but when President Jackson and his cronies decided they wanted all that rich farmland and those newly discovered goldmines in Georgia, it didn't stop them forcing new treaties relocating the Cherokees from their ancestral lands to territory West of the Mississippi, and using the U.S. Army to enforce the eviction. (There are times I don't think much of the human race, and clearly Americans are no better than anyone else.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lucky, the political cat | Bobcat | Cat anecdotes | 2 | October 9th 07 07:15 PM |
[OT] Political | CatNipped | Cat anecdotes | 1 | April 30th 06 06:03 PM |
[OT] WARNING OFF TOPIC - POLITICAL (SORT OF) - Humor, Living Will | CatNipped | Cat health & behaviour | 11 | April 10th 05 07:28 PM |
OT More Political Fun from JibJab | Kreisleriana | Cat anecdotes | 0 | January 20th 05 08:43 PM |