An ongoing discussion between myself and Isobel who has been commenting in the blogs “Why & how it happened”and “Russell Means Exits The Stage” has prompted me to blog this separately.
“You’re ingoring the facts, one of which being there is no plausible explanation as to why she did not bring charges, if there was such an attack. Having had descriptions of the Trail, and of Russell on it from other people, I think it highly unlijkely that those people, committed as they were to the issues they were raising, would calmly sit round and view a rape. Which is a separate issue from my belief he didn’t do it; they also would not have viewed it, in my opinion.
I also thought of a logic lapse by LBW; according to her, she decided that the alleged rape took place because AIM wanted to kill her father, so if he raped her, her father would attack him, then AIM could kill her father.
But according to her view of AIM, and yours, they were so murderous if they wanted to kill someone they just did. In other words, if they wanted to kill her father, they would have done.
I could, and will for Russell’s sake, go through the whole of her history and make points about it.
He was not a saint and did not pretend but this outright series of his attacks since his death hurling accusations is truly despicable.”
I’d say you’re the one ignoring facts Isobel, but I see you are slowly modifying your approach and grudgingly allowing now that “he was not a saint”.
Indeed he wasn’t-and the rest of the AIM leadership hasn’t been an angelic choir. So perhaps “you have learned something” and beginning to understand the truth can wound.
If that is the way of it consider the wounds the truth has inflicted on the nations and our desire for them to heal allowing us to move on. Consider how your defense of any who inflicted those wounds is a willful obstruction of that desire, how you have joined in the effort to do exactly that.Then tell us your efforts are well intended.
Tell our little ones who will grow to adulthood in the midst of an unprecedented level of crime, drug and alcohol abuse, rape, and gangs that are the product of the examples set by the very ones you would defend, that whatever “good” you perceive them has having done that you, as an individual, far removed from the reality believes it outweighs the bad-that it amounts to little more than they weren’t saints.
You say you think it unlikely that people “would calmly sit around and view a rape”, and yet people have calmly sat around for decades viewing the aftermath of AIM’s Reign of Terror at WK2, likewise they have calmly sat around in denial while survivors of victims there like Annie and Ray have attempted to secure closure, justice, and even the repatriation of the remains of loved ones.
And the history is many have calmly sat around during decades of criminal activity by AIM, and some not so calmly, but constrained by intimidation and fear-fear for themselves, their children, and their loved ones. Russell even boasted of this in his book when he said Banks could make people “disappear”.
You should ask yourself if you were in their shoes how would you feel-what would be your response? You should also question the character and motivation of the men who planned and led that assault, men who wounded and ravaged their own people- men like Russell Means, Dennis Banks, and the Bellecourts.
But I suppose in doing so the romantic imagery of fearless warriors sweeping across the plains could no longer be entertained could it?
Russell was surely not a saint, just as he wasn’t a lot of things he laid claim to.
While you have resorted to a certain level of personal malice directed at me, I don’t believe your motivation is malicious, only hopelessly naive and misguided.