For a few liberal American Indians, the one important and unanswered question in the Osama Bin Laden story is why the United States Navy Seals used the code word “Geronimo” to represent the world’s most despised mass murderer.
Of course, these Indians haven’t even asked that question. They have protested the used of the name in this military circumstance, and the liberal media is proud to voice their Indian protest. Liberals this way can denigrate the US military victory, and divert attention from “president” Barry’s unorthodox indulgence in the war gesture. They know he seeks a campaign stimulus, and they were willing to grant him that; but, the fact is, liberals don’t like anything that represents strength or patriotism. The Indian protest has become the liberal voice against the whole affair of Bin Laden’s reported death. Liberals love for Indians to represent anti-Americanism. It is the most power such representation of all.
As most news stories these days, particularly those eminating from Washington, the Bin Laden reports have been contradictory, edited five minutes have they’ve been published, or substituted with new stories. Our BadEagle.com was just subjected to such confusion, which we freely acknowledge, yet we retain some sense of professionalism in this second article in a day on the same subject–something BadEagle.com has never done before.
In “Geronimo, Osama, and Indian Propriety: Protesting the Protesters,” posted this morning, we took issue with the liberal Indian objections to the use of the name Geronimo. However, in our comments following, we noted that there was confusion over the way in which the name was used, what it was used for, and what was meant by its use. And there was even confusion over who was doing the protesting. (For example, a late report now says Harlyn Geronimo, a great greandson of Geronimo, is into the Apache protest, whereas earlier, it was the tribal leader great grandson Jeff Houser who was the key protester. Articles are constantly being re-written, substituted, updated, etc; as a result, BadEagle.com must make this second post. The original protester was a woman, Lauren Tuell, a senate Indian affairs staffer )
So now we address the issue of why. Why did the US Military decide to use the name Geronimo? Whose choice was it, in fact? This is the person who needs to be identified and questioned. All we can offer is speculation.
We know Geronimo was an incredibly successful Apache warrior, of the Chiricaqua. He led guerilla warfare against the invading whites (and Mexicans), and evaded capture and/or escaped confinement for decades. In the end, in 1886, it had taken thousands of US soldiers, scouts, and Mexican volunteers to track him down. The man was magical. His powers were feared. When he was given the status of a prisoner of war, he was taken to Fort Pickens, in Pensecola, Florida. So great was his power that the US Army did not want him near his people, nor his land, for fear he would arouse that deadly Apache restance.
An Apache spiritual man. Apaches were deeply involved
in the supernatural. Their religion is complex and powerful.
So, lethal warfare, remarkable powers, uncanny evasion and vision, were the military mark of Geronimo. Perhaps this is why he name came to be associated with Osama Bin Laden. The US Military loves the Indian ambience in all things. It is a grand American tradition. (Perhaps the Navy took a little too objective a view here, and did not have the sense of appreciation for Geronimo, but only the sense of his fearful power.) But, Geronimo was certainly not a serial mass murderer. Geronimo did not have millions of Muslims to support him, help him, hide him, or praise him. Geronimo had only the mountains, and the moon. In the end, Geronimo had only 16 warriors, 12 women, and 6 children when he capitulated to US military forces.
Certainly, Geronimo was considered an enemy of the United States of America. Anyone who cost as much as capture as he did was definitely not considered an asset! But, all Indians were America’s national enemy at one point or another. That is the history of the encounter. Is it wrong to have used Geronimo’s name in the encounter with Osama Bin Laden?
From the Indian point of view, it is offensive, yes. From America’s point of view, it is not. It is a proud victory, with an appropriate name in code. Fighting against Indians is one of the few vestiges of American social unity remaining active in the modern American psyche. Too many foreigners have been her too long now to unite on anything else. The Indian is just America’s original boogie-man. That’s all. The Indian was a holy terror to early America, something America has never forgotten.
Real warriors would understand that. Indians haven’t forgotten history either, but, it seems some Indians have forgotten to be warriors. Unto the victor belong the spoils. Americans won. They won the land. It is theirs. They are the victors. Did they out-number us? yes; did they have superior weapons? yes. War and victory are never about fairness, equality, or sportsmanship. War is a desperate act. War is to win, whether defending or “pre-empting.”
It appears that, in “president” Barry’s case, war is about winning votes, but, that’s Barry. He has no concept of national identity or patriotism. We don’t look to him for anything but the denigration of all he associates himself with.
I think the basic Indian reaction to this, particularly the Apache reaction, is right, but not expedient. It is an honest response, but not a useful one. It is spitting in the wind. It shows weakness, not strength. Certain wars are over. Certain losses cannot be recovered. To lament this, as the theme of ethnic existence, is not healthy. It provides no positive, hopeful path. If these Indian protesters are concerned about the “devastating” effects on children, “native and non-native,” (which is pushing it, I’d say), they should be more concerned about their own effect. They have given the media the story. It is these Indian protesters who have dramatized the use of “Geronimo” in the Bin Laden death story. They should never have opened their mouths. But, in stead, they have tried to make that the story. They have thus branded this great American victory with a wholly unnecessary distraction. They have embarrassed, not honored, all Indian people in this.
Again, they are right in what they are saying, but, ill-advised for saying it. No good will come of this, for anyone, least of all for Indians.
This is partly the result of their having invested in the false hope that a person of color as “president” would have any whit the concern for Indians. Barry is a Negro who thinks of himself as superior to whites, yet seeking all the “white” power and authority he can aggregate. Denigrating Indians, if in the use of “Geronimo” as the code word for Bin Laden, makes him feel white power.
It is stark naivete for Indians to look to the Negro for anything in the way of value. Indians protesters, trained by white oedipal liberals, think racist, and are taught to believe that all non-white people are naturally affined, and automatically think alike, have the same values, and should all unite against the white man. This is what white liberals have taught them.
Will any liberal Indians learn a lesson from this? Doubtfully. They are professional protesters. That’s their career. That’s what they do. They think nothing of the effects of what they’re doing. “Useful idiots?” In an earlier day, they might have been called “dumb Indians.” This is what white liberals think of Indians. Conservatives don’t really have any thoughts about Indians. Conservatives have only a few concepts of responsibility, and they see the Indian as far from the ideal in this regard.
But the conservative way is a far better path than the liberal delusion. Indians need to consider the path of honor, and not beggary. The white man owes the Indian nothing. Nothing at all. The Indian should never, ever expect anything from the white man. Our fathers made treaties, in blood, but, we should always be prepared for the white man to break his word, of circumstancial necessity.
Or haven’t we learned anything at all from our own history?