I guess the “sisterhood” has fallen on somewhat hard times in the court of public opinion, they may have a cush job and consider themselves a matriarch in much the same way a female elephant will but the difference is elephants are nurturing.
They look to the security and welfare of all seeking to instill a sense of harmony and stability, no power struggles, no contriving, no facade.
I’m not an authority on elephants but it seems as though they lead a well structured life, maintain their traditions, won’t abandon another in distress or facing a threat, and have a sense of overall responsibility.
Attributes that separate and elevate them from the AIM sisterhood.
I don’t think anyone would ever hear of one being betrayed, kidnapped, slapped around to instill a little fear, and then very matter of factly executed.
A comment was made in the original “sisterhood” blog that the women who composed this sisterhood were empowered, a suggestion they were on equal footing with the “men” of AIM.
If that is true then they sought to be patriarchs, to acquire and wield the same power, as their behavior mirrored that of the men they served and would emulate, even down to referring to themselves as warriors, even down to facilitating the murder of a sister.
To say they were empowered and on the same footing is to imply that the murder of Annie Mae could have been singularly of their design and execution – to put it bluntly I don’t believe for a moment they had the gonads to buck the leadership or the ability to do so.
Had they of had either Annie might well still be alive, assuming the sisterhood would have supported her – which has never been shown to be any part of their inclination.
The leadership ruled, that’s the bottom line, and these women knew “their place” within that environment as was the mandate. They knew that any attempt to confront the leadership, to question it’s authority, or engage in such an act independently could very well lead to their own demise.
Murder is a dirty business, especially premeditated murder – to kill on the spur of the moment in a fit of rage is one thing, but to do so in a calculated manner ignoring every opportunity to reverse course is an entirely different matter.
I believe in a manner of speaking the opportunity to reverse course and failing to do so can be likened to premeditation – how so?
An example would be the murders Leonard Peltier and his cohorts committed, they had the advantage of numbers, superior firepower, and the undeniable safety margin of distance.
At any given point they could have reversed course assured that at least temporarily there would be no pursuit – they made a decision not to.
That’s a willful decision, very much a part of the definition of premeditated. If any would argue it isn’t then they must also attempt to argue that once having seriously wounded and incapacitated Williams and Coler for Peltier and company to then approach them and shot them at point blank range to finish them off wasn’t either.
I’m inclined to think there was a little role confusion at times, that Peltier and his buds might have thought they were members of the pie patrol, sisters so to speak, and like their pie patrol counterparts fawning, subservient, and looking to catch the eye of others in a quest for status.
That worked for Peltier, he’s not only got status, as in a convicted murderer, but also the myth that he was and is a leader and warrior.
The downside is he’s neither a patriarch or a matriarch in his current surroundings, he’s just another number in a sea of numbers, and while raving about transfers where upon his arrival his fellow numbers give him a heroes welcome still at times suffers the indignity of a beat down by those very fellow numbers.
I guess it isn’t any easier being a “hero” than a member of the pie patrol in today’s climate of airing out the dirty laundry.