An important aspect of the Annie Mae case is that the “ownership” of it is spreading among a growing number of like minded people-to me that represents an awareness that it is about more than an singular issue.
It is of course intensely personal to Annie’s family, and I believe everyone has an understanding of that-but by association it is also intensely personal to all who suffer and are abused.
Personal to every raped and abused woman or child in the shared misery, personal to the
suvivors of every murdered person and the victim, whether it be Annie, Ray Robinson, those laying in anonymity at WK, or those who were victims in other locales. Personal to those abducted and forced into the sex trade.
Personal to every young girl beguiled by an older man to be used and cast aside-with the expectation that they should feel honored and pleased in having been found worthy by those who profess “elk medicine”.
They represent a litany, an unanswered roll call, that all need to assume some degree of ownership in and demand not only answers, but justice. It should be personal to everyone.
Ownership is to say I take offense at these things, they are foreign and unacceptable to me as a human being-and in some manner I suffer, we all suffer, to a degree in knowing that society has not addressed these issues and the knowledge that justice has yet to be served.
It is a suffering to know that you, your children, your loved ones and friends could be victims as well, if they haven’t already been.
Life is a powerful thing, but also a fragile one that should not be subject to the whims of anyone, or an unrestrained ability to decide who lives and who dies. War is one thing-murder another- and the circumstances that separate the two are the difference between night and day.
Annie Mae was not a victim of war as some would have it-the crimes committed at WK2, in the aftermath, and elsewhere were neither the result of, nor acts of war-they were singularly the commission of criminal acts, by criminals who authored them, with criminal intent as defined by any society of human beings that has ever existed.
The world for the most part looks on in shock and disbelief at the thought of Gadhafi making war on his own people-and yet it was much the same at WK2-ask the survivors who lost their homes and possessions-ask the victims who have yet to receive so much as a penny in compensation from the “liberators”. Ask the family of the old man confined to a wheelchair who was cast into the street.
It is reminiscent of the killing fields in Southeast Asia at the hands of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who made war on their own people, and one can only wonder about the unknown graves and victims scattered about the landscape. It is no less an atrocity-it is only the numbers that differ.
The treatment of indigenous people throughout this hemisphere has appropriately been referred to as a Holocaust-history and the present bear grim testament to that-likewise WK2 was a holocaust. It isn’t enough that we have been killed by others, now our own kill us as well and call it war, justice, service, or an act of liberation-anything but what it truly is.
This word war has become common in usage- a state of war exists here or there-there is a WAR on poverty, a WAR on drugs, ad infinitum. It is a word often used to mask the truth, to justify what is not justifiable. If this is the correct application of the word then let there likewise be a WAR against injustice and the lack of closure for all the aforementioned victims and the survivors. For the missing three thousand plus women indigenous women in Canada alone.
Many wars are based on national interest and what serves it-in their creation they are lacking this key element of justice. A just war would be one that serves a common welfare, that protects, secures, and provides justice and equality for all people.
Such a definition applies to those who would be leaders as well, and whether they are just. A man who has more than those around him who suffer in their need is no leader. A man who makes a career of charitable foundations, scams, and securing his livelihood from donations is no leader.
A man who circumvents justice and denies it to others, while always demanding his version of it for himself is no leader. A man who grows fat and comfortable in lean times, who is warm and sheltered when others are not is no leader. A man who has more than the least of his neighbors and is not willing to give or share it with them is no leader. Neither are those who create websites to prostitute ceremonies and traditional beliefs for their own gain.
Hopefully everyone will spend a moment or two examining their definitions of leadership and justice, and in doing so draw a comparison to what is, and what they think should be. Hopefully they will ask themselves when was the last time they heard any of these leaders devote so much as a tenth of the time to speak about these issues as they do about themselves, their good works, and their personal spin on things?
These are not leaders-they are politicians first and foremost, cut from the same cloth. They have a “dream” to sell-“change” to offer-as politicians they believe they have an entitlement that excludes them from the same standard applied to others. They are above accountability, and when scales are employed to measure their “good works” against the loss and suffering of others they would have a free pass, a get out of jail card.
There’s a word that- that word is BULLSHIT.