The Massacre at Wounded Knee and 18 Medals of Dishonor

On Friday December 29, 2017 I came across a news article regarding Oskar Groening. Oskar was an accountant who served in the SS in Nazi Germany at Auschwitz, an extermination camp used in the genocide of Jewish people during World War II. In 2015, at the age of 93, he was found guilty of accessory to 300,000 murders for his role in providing administrative support at Auschwitz. He appealed his sentence because of both his age at the time of sentencing and, the fact that his activities came to light due to his decision to speak publicly about his service at Auschwitz in an effort to counteract and silence holocaust deniers. But, on December 29, 2017, several news agencies reported that his appeal had been denied and he would serve his 4-year jail sentence.

This story stood out to me because December 29th is also the day that approximately 200-300 Minneconjou Sioux men, women and children were slaughtered by the US Army in 1890. The event is known as the Massacre at Wounded Knee. Here is a short description of the massacre:

"From the heights above, the army's Hotchkiss guns raked the Indian teepees with grapeshot. Clouds of gun smoke filled the air as men, women and children scrambled for their lives. Many ran for a ravine next to the camp only to be cut down in a withering cross fire. When the smoke cleared and the shooting stopped, approximately 300 Sioux were dead, Big Foot among them. Twenty-five soldiers lost their lives." (Eyewitness to History)

A few items should be noted about this massacre. First the US Army was using Hotchkiss guns, and some accounts report that a total of four Hotchkiss guns were utilized at Wounded Knee. "The guns were ideal for use in rugged terrain, such as the West, since the entire weapon weighed only 362 pounds, and could be broken down into parts so that a gun and its ammunition could be transported on three mules. The gun could fire quite rapidly since it was used fixed (but separately primed) ammunition. In fact, this was the first U.S. artillery piece to utilize fixed metallic-cartridge type ammunition. (International Military Antiques)" Comparing their weapons to this, the Sioux never stood a chance.

Second, it was recorded that "many [Sioux] ran for a ravine next to the camp only to be cut down in a withering cross fire."

Most people are not aware of this, but the United States awarded 24 Medals of Honor to US soldiers for their actions throughout the Sioux Campaign of 1890, and 18 of those medals were given specifically to soldiers who participated in the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

The US Army website contains a section detailing the Medals of Honor that have been awarded throughout our country’s history, listed by war and conflict. Between 1839 and 1898, it records that a total of 425 Medals of Honor were awarded to US Soldiers who fought in the ‘Indian War Campaigns’ (but that unfortunate fact is the subject for another article at a later date). The site also records that 3 of the Medals of Honor from Wounded Knee were awarded for the following reasons:

Austin, William G. - "While the Indians were concealed in a ravine, assisted men on the skirmish line, directing their fire, etc., and using every effort to dislodge the enemy."

Gresham, John C. - "Voluntarily led a party into a ravine to dislodge Sioux Indians concealed therein. He was wounded during this action."

McMillan, Albert W. - "While engaged with Indians concealed in a ravine, he assisted the men on the skirmish line, directed their fire, encouraged them by example, and used every effort to dislodge the enemy."

So, let’s review. On December 29, 1890, the US Army surrounded an encampment of Minneconjou Sioux men, women and children. When peace talks broke down and shots were fired, the US soldiers opened fire with their full artillery, which included up to 4 Hotchkiss guns. Many of the Sioux ran for cover in a nearby ravine. And 3 US soldiers were awarded Medals of Honor for directing fire into, and dislodging the Sioux out of, the ravine, where they could be more easily exterminated by the soldiers above it.

The United States and Germany have similar histories of white supremacy and racially motivated genocide. But while Germany is working hard to deal with their shameful history of ethnic cleansing, the US has chosen to publicly honor its.

On December 29, 2017 most of the major US news agencies, including ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, and Fox News, reported on Oskar Groening losing his appeal in the German Courts. A search, during the same news cycle, returned almost no references, on mainstream media, to the 127th Anniversary of the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

The United States of America needs a national dialogue on race, gender and class. A conversation on par with the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that took place in South Africa, Rwanda and Canada. I'm calling it Truth and Conciliation, and the goal is 2021.

Because until we have such a dialogue, we will continue to be a nation that not only ignores its incredibly violent, unjust and genocidal history, but also brazenly honors and celebrates our war crimes, such as we do with 18 medals awarded to the US Soldiers who participated in the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

(Updated Dec. 29, 2022 to include more accurate information re: the Hotchkiss guns in paragraph four.)

The Hanging of the Dakota 38 and the Troubling Legacy of Abraham Lincoln

In the museum located at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, there is a plaque hanging on the wall which states:

"I would save the Union. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

I have stood near this plaque and watched lines of people pass by. Most simply read it and move on. Almost no one pauses or even raises an eyebrow. But when I stop them and point out that this plaque is literally stating that according to Abraham Lincoln "Black Lives Don't Matter," they look at me, turn around, read the plaque again, stare at it in disbelief, shake their heads, and then pull out their cameras to take a picture.

I then educate them on even more troubling history regarding our 16th President.

On December 26, 1862, the largest mass execution in the history of the United States, the hanging of the Dakota 38, took place, by the order of President Abraham Lincoln.

In the fall of 1862, after the United States failed to meet its treaty obligations with the Dakota people, several Dakota warriors raided an American settlement, killed 5 settlers and stole some food. This began a period of bloody conflict between some of the Dakota people, the settlers, and the US Military. After more than a month, several hundred of the Dakota warriors surrendered and the rest fled north to what is now Canada. Those who surrendered were quickly tried in military tribunals, and 303 of them were condemned to death.

"The trials of the Dakota were conducted unfairly in a variety of ways. The evidence was sparse, the tribunal was biased, the defendants were unrepresented in unfamiliar proceedings conducted in a foreign language, and authority for convening the tribunal was lacking. More fundamentally, neither the Military Commission nor the reviewing authorities recognized that they were dealing with the aftermath of a war fought with a sovereign nation and that the men who surrendered were entitled to treatment in accordance with that status." (Carol Chomsky)

Because these were military trials, the executions had to be ordered by President Abraham Lincoln.

Three hundred and three deaths seemed too genocidal for President Lincoln. But he didn't order retrials, even though it has been argued that the trials which took place were a legal sham. Instead he simply modified the criteria of what charges warranted a death sentence. Under his new criteria, only 2 of the Dakota warriors were sentenced to die. That small number seemed too lenient, and President Lincoln was concerned about an uprising by his white American settlers in that area. So for a second time, instead of ordering retrials, he merely changed the criteria of what warranted a death sentence.

Ultimately, 39 Dakota men were sentenced to die. And on December 26, 1862, by order of President Lincoln, and with nearly 4,000 white American settlers looking on, the largest mass execution in the history of the United States took place. The hanging of the Dakota 38.

Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States during an incredibly tumultuous time. Disappearing were the days when explicit forms of racism, such as the enslavement of African people and the ethnic cleansing of Native people, were socially acceptable. The country was not necessarily growing a conscience, but it was becoming increasingly difficult to continually justify the actions of 'modern' American society that were so blatantly evil and racist.

And President Lincoln was a product of his time. He did not free the slaves because he believed Black Lives Mattered. Nor did he change the criteria of what warranted a death sentence for the Dakota warriors because he believed Native Lives Mattered. As the quote hanging at the Lincoln Memorial states, he was merely trying to save the Union, an institution with foundations that were written specifically to protect white, land-owning men.

And when you are the leader of a nation whose Declaration of Independence refers to natives as "merciless Indian savages"… When you are the government official constitutionally responsible for appointing judges to a Supreme Court that uses the dehumanizing Doctrine of Discovery as a legal precedent for land titles… When you are the Commander and Chief of a military that (ultimately) awards 425 Congressional Medals of Honor for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native peoples…  When you are the democratically elected President of a white male supremacist Union whose Constitution specifically excludes natives, and women, and counts Africans as 3/5th human… Then saving that Union comes at a cost…for people of color.

So you free the slaves but still tell your base that black lives don't matter.

You reduce a mass execution from 303 to 38 but still trample the human rights of native peoples, and thus keep clear the path for your settlers and your nation to complete its self-proclaimed Manifest Destiny.

The challenge we face as a country is that we do not understand the fundamental flaws with our foundations. We think our challenges arise from corrupt individuals who we believe trample our values, like Andrew Jackson. And we think we are justified by other individuals who we believe hold true to the values of our foundations, like Abraham Lincoln.

But the problem is not the individual, the problem is our foundations.

To this day the United States Constitution contains 51 gender specific male pronouns regarding who can run for office, who can hold office and even who is entitled to all privileges and immunities of US citizenship. To this day, we have never completely abolished slavery (the 13th Amendment merely redefines and codifies slavery under the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system). And as recently at 2005 the United States Supreme Court referenced the Doctrine of Discovery in regards to a legal question of Native American land rights.

The Unites States of America is not systemically racist and sexist in spite of our foundations. The United States of America is systemically sexist and racist because of our foundations.

We need a national dialogue on race, gender and class. A conversation on par with the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that took place in South Africa, Rwanda and Canada. I'm calling it Truth and Conciliation, and the goal is 2021.

Because until we have such a dialogue, we will continue to be a nation that buries its troubling history, like the hanging of the Dakota 38. And we will continue to be a people that holds as heroes Presidents who literally stated, "Black Lives Don't Matter."

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

December Nineteenth - An Annual Reminder

Painting by Navajo Artist - Elmer Yazzie

This past Tuesday I tried to have a normal day. I knew it was December 19. I knew that day was the eighth anniversary of House Resolution 3326.

H.R. 3326 is the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. It was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback (Republican), passed by the US Congress and signed by President Barack Obama (Democrat) on December 19, 2009. It is a 67-page bill laying out the appropriations for the DoD for 2010.

However, unbeknownst to most people, on page 45 is sub-section 8113 which is titled "Apology to Native Peoples of the United States."

What follows is a 7-bullet point apology. This apology mentions no specific tribe, no specific treaty and no specific injustice. It basically says, "you had some nice land, our citizens didn't take it very politely. Let's just call it all of our land, and steward it together." It then ends with a disclaimer stating that nothing contained in this section is legally binding.

To date, this apology has not been announced, read or publicized by the White House or by Congress.

I learned about this apology by accident on December 19, 2011 and was appalled. How could our nation, and our leaders, bury something like this in a Department of Defense Appropriations Bill???

That day, I committed to do whatever I could to publicize this apology. And on December 19, 2012 I had the privilege of hosting a gathering of approximately 150 friends, partners and fellow citizens. We stood in front of the US Capitol and publicly read this apology.

We read several pages of the sections before the apology (to highlight how inappropriate it was to place this apology in an Defense Appropriations bill).

Jim Northrup reading the apology in Ojibwe

We had the apology translated into the languages of Navajo and Ojibwe. This was to model for Congress and the White House, that when you apologize, you not only do it publicly, but you also make EVERY effort to have the apology as accessible and understandable to the offended party as possible.

We then gave people in the audience an opportunity to react and respond to the apology. Because that's what you do when you apologize. You let the offended party speak.

I respect President Obama and Governor Brownback. Both men have gone far beyond their predecessors in reaching out to native peoples. And I had hoped and prayed, up until the last moment, that one of them would step forward to take ownership of this apology. I invited them both to attend.

But unfortunately, they both declined.

So, in their absence, after the apology was read, and the people had a chance to respond, I stepped forward, took the microphone, and encouraged our native leaders, our communities, and our people to not accept this apology.

I was not trying to be divisive, nor was I trying to shame these leaders or our nation. But I did have an understanding of the situation and an appreciation for who our audience actually was.

This event was not about me, nor was it about President Obama, Governor Brownback, or the 111th Congress. This event was about the historic relationship between indigenous peoples and our colonizers throughout the world.

That morning, in front of the US Capitol, December 19, 2012, our audience was not just the 150 people standing in front of us, nor even the people watching online. That morning our audience was the entire globe. Our audience was history.

The United States of America is a leader in this world; its words are scrutinized, and its example followed.

If Native Americans were to accept this apology, in the vague, politicized, disrespectful, and self-protecting way it was given, then we would be condoning our government’s actions and making a model of their methods. We would be communicating to indigenous peoples everywhere that we are still subservient to our colonizers, that we are not their equals, and that we should just be grateful for whatever scraps they bother to throw our way.

I could not let that message get perpetuated. I have too much respect for myself, for my elders, for my country, and even for our elected officials. So, I took a stand, and encouraged our Native peoples to not accept this apology. Not out of anger, bitterness, or resentment, but out of respect. Native peoples deserve better and our country can do better.

...

It is now 8 years since this apology was given, and 5 years since we publicly read it in front of the US Capitol. But not much has changed.

President Obama left office without ever publicizing it.

And President Trump...well, you know...his campaign rhetoric, environmental policies, blatant racism and sexism, and his unabashed love for Andrew Jackson, all speak for themselves.

To this day, most Americans do not know about this apology. And our nation still has not dealt with its history.

December 19th is no longer just a normal day. It is an annual reminder. A reminder to not get stuck in anger or resentment. A reminder to press on.

A reminder that there is much work to be done.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

Lamenting the Lost Hope of Advent

Advent is the season of hope, the season of waiting for the coming of Christ. As Christians we believe that our hope is found in Christ, and that the church, the body of Christ, is God’s chosen instrument of revelation.

But how do you offer hope when the Church itself is the oppressor?  When the Church has committed countless violations in the name of Jesus?

About 18 months ago I had the honor of visiting an Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) elder and dear friend. He was a Vietnam Veteran, an accomplished writer, and a boarding school survivor. Boarding schools were a forced assimilation tactic employed by the US Government and American Churches in their ongoing efforts to “kill the Indian to save the man.” My friend had been diagnosed with cancer and had only a few months to live. He and his wife decided that his limited days would be spent cherishing every moment and relationship. After a long journey, I arrived at his house to spend a few hours with him. In his weakened state he did not have the energy for prolonged visits, and most of our time was spent sitting on his porch, with me listening to his stories.

Over our years of friendship, I heard a trickle of his stories, but that afternoon the dam broke, and his stories came flooding out. And they were gut wrenching. Stories about how he "converted" to Christianity in the boarding school, not because he liked Jesus but because he learned that students who said, "the prayer" were given bigger portions at dinner. Stories about how the school used cigarettes to manipulate the behavior of the young native students. Stories about the suicide attempts of family members, the strict punishments by the boarding school administrators, and, worst of all, the sex education he received, in the form of statutory rape, from one of his teachers at this church-run boarding school.

I had heard stories like his before from second and third-hand sources. I had read stories like his before, of people I did not know. But that afternoon, the firsthand stories of my friend shook me.  He was not angry, nor was he bitter. But he was honest. Brutally honest. And there were no words. There was nothing I could say. He was trying to make peace with his past and was deeply wrestling with his pending death. And there was nothing I could say. He knew I was a Christian, but he was not looking for Christ. Nor did I know how to offer Christ. So, we sat there. I listened. I hugged him. And we said our good byes.  He died a few months later.

How do you offer hope when the Church itself is the oppressor? When the Church has committed unspeakable violations in the name of Jesus?

I don’t know, but I believe it begins with lament. And this Advent Season I invite the Church to join me.

All of us have become like one who is unclean,

and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;

we all shrivel up like a leaf,

and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Isaiah 64:6

Mark Charles

(Navajo)

This reflection was first published on "Keep Watch with Me - A Daily Advent Reader for Peacemakers."

The Honor of the Navajo Code Talkers and the Shame of President Donald J. Trump

I am ashamed of President Donald J. Trump.

On Monday, November 27, at an event honoring the Navajo Code Talkers, President Trump took the name of a well-respected and loved historic figure from the Native community, Pocahontas, and used it as a racial slur in his ongoing and adolescent attacks on U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. Let me repeat that, in a speech meant to honor an incredible group of men, who not only used their sacred language to help the United States of America win a war, but many of whom are also boarding school survivors, who as young children endured the pain of having the US Government literally attempt to beat their language out of them in an effort to "kill the Indian to save the man." These men endured those beatings. They held on to their language. And less than a decade later they used that language to save the United States of America. And President Trump could not muster the self-control to hold his tongue long enough to honor their service.

On top of that, it is well a known fact that Donald Trump considers Andrew Jackson to be one of his heroes. On March 15, 2017, President Trump visited the Hermitage and, in honor of Jacksons 250^th birthday, laid a wreath at his tomb. In his speech commemorating the occasion, President Trump referred to our seventh President as "the very great Andrew Jackson...[who] was one of our great Presidents." And he concluded his speech by thanking Andrew Jackson for his service and committing to build on his legacy. 

But Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and his legacy as President was the ethnic cleansing and removal of American Indians.  President Jackson pushed for and signed the Indian Removal Act. This was the act which allowed the US Army, in practice, to forcibly remove native tribes from lands in the east to empty lands further in the west. This resulted in the Trail of Tears for the Choctaw, the Chickasaw and the Cherokee, as well as the Long Walk for the Navajo and the Pueblo. All told, about a dozen tribes experienced forced relocation due to the Indian Removal Act and tens of thousands of native people died as a direct result of this Act. At the Hermitage, President Trump attempted to dismiss this horrific history by calling Andrew Jackson “a product of his time.” That explanation may work to excuse an elderly grandparent who makes a racially insensitive remark at a dinner party. But it does not excuse a US President who knowingly and intentionally enacted a policy of removal and ethnic cleansing against an entire race of people.

And if you look at the picture of President Trump standing with the Navajo Code Talkers in the Oval Office, you can see very clearly in the background a portrait of Andrew Jackson.

I am ashamed of President Donald J. Trump.

The Long Walk occurred in the early 1860s. That is a mere 60 to 70 years before these Code Talkers were born. It was their grandparents whose crops, livestock and homes the US army destroyed as they rounded up the Navajo people to forcibly march us to Fort Sumner. It was their great-grandparents who the soldiers shot along the way. It was their elders who died of exhaustion, exposure, malnutrition and other unspeakable war crimes as the United States of America worked tirelessly to complete its self-proclaimed manifest destiny. The amount of pain, suffering, torture and dehumanization that the men who stood before President Trump endured, not for their country, but by their country, is beyond imagination.

And President Donald J. Trump could not hold his tongue. He could not find the courtesy to conduct the ceremony in a different location beyond the genocidal gaze of the seventh President of the United States. And he could not control his incessant need to keep the spotlight on himself, no matter what the context, or who his audience.

President Trump’s words and actions clearly demonstrated that he does not honor the immense sacrifice and incredible service of the Navajo Code Talkers.

I am not primarily angry, nor am I foremost disappointed, for both of those emotions would require me to have higher expectations of President Trump. No, I am ashamed. Ashamed that the United States of America has a President who conducts himself as a man who has no honor, no self-respect, and no relatives.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

A Native Perspective on Monday Night Football and the Las Vegas Shooting

Photo by Rhoda LeValdo

Last night on ABC/ESPN Monday Night Football, the visiting team came out of the tunnel with a racist mascot on their jerseys and helmets, and mere minutes after the playing of the National Anthem, the host team's fans were still on their feet, mimicking the throwing of tomahawks and singing some sort of pathetic war whoop. Both team’s owners seemed fine with it. No one in the broadcast booth said anything. President Trump declined to tweet about it. And all the sponsors and advertisers like GMC, Geico, Applebee's, several beer companies and many other mainstream corporations (both foreign and domestic) shamelessly hawked their wares throughout the entire event.

This all happened less than 24 hours after a white man (Stephen Paddock) shot his, legally purchased, fully automatic weapon into a crowd of people. Killing 58 in a horribly evil and incredibly tragic event in Las Vegas. But earlier in the broadcast, just prior to a moment of silence being observed, ABC/ESPN announcer Sean McDonough repeated a lie that many news organizations had been reporting throughout the day. That this shooting was the "deadliest mass shooting US history." Apparently, they forgot about the massacre at Wounded Knee, which left 350 dead, or the massacre at Sand Creek which killed nearly 200 men, women, and children from the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. Or perhaps they only meant massacres for which the U.S. Congress DID NOT award Congressional Medals of Honor.

On top of that, according to the broadcast, only one person (KC player Marcus Peters) did not stand during the playing of the National Anthem before this game. Unless you count me. That raised the count to a grand total of 2. Perhaps there were more. I hope there were more. But it was striking that less than a week removed from one of the largest stands of solidarity against racism the NFL has ever seen, and now at a game where both teams blatantly represented the implicit racial bias the league has against indigenous people, the cameras caught only one person protesting.

My mother is American of Dutch heritage, and I'm proud to be an American, but I lament much of our nation's history. My father is Navajo, from the Waters that flow together people and the Bitter Water clan. And I'm proud to be Navajo. The unspoken history of this country says that these two sides are fundamentally incompatible. I'm expected to stand for the honoring of a flag that literally represents a history of genocide against indigenous people. And then I must sit silently during a game where both teams, and their fans, openly mock and belittle native people.

But I don't believe being both Native and American are incompatible. The problem is our country doesn't know it's history. The United States of America has a memory problem, we also have a race problem, a gender problem, a class problem and, most definitely, we have a gun problem. Therefore, I'm determined to do what I can to teach our history accurately and help create a common memory. Because unless we address these problems head on we're going to destroy ourselves.

George Erasmus, an Aboriginal leader from Canada, says, “Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.”

I'm convinced that the United States of America needs a national dialogue regarding our history. A dialogue on par with the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that took place in South Africa, Rwanda and Canada. Beginning this week and over the next several weeks I will be traveling to Tennessee, Michigan, Washington DC, Arizona, Virginia, California, Alaska, Connecticut, and New Mexico. I will be speaking about the Doctrine of Discovery, teaching American history, and inviting my fellow citizens to join me in initiating this dialogue. A national Truth and Conciliation Commission that I call #TCC2021.

Until we understand and acknowledge the racist and sexist history that our flag stood for, we will not be able to transform it into a reality that all Americans can stand for.

Mark Charles

My Twitter Thread responding to @RealDonaldTrump for calling #ColinKaepernick a Son of a B*tch for kneeling in protest during National Anthem.

On Friday President Trump was speaking at a political rally for Luther Strange in Alabama. During the rally he called Colin Kaepernick a "Son of a B*tch" because of his practice of kneeling in protest during the National Anthem. President Trump went on to state that any NFL player who kneels during the National Anthem should be fired by the NFL team owners. On Saturday, President Trump reiterated his statements on Twitter.

I travel throughout the country speaking about the Doctrine of Discovery and its racist and dehumanizing influence on the foundations of the United States of America. Over the past several years I have spoken to thousands of people, but I do not know how to get an audience with President Trump to speak with him about this history. So I decided to address him using his preferred method of communication. Twitter. I composed a thread of 36 tweets. This thread is my attempt to educate him on the Doctrine of Discovery and the work that needs to be done on our foundations. I welcome you read the thread. Some of the tweets are embedded in this post, some are shared as graphics and some are simply printed as text. You can also read the entire thread on Twitter by clicking on the embedded Tweet below.  And if you feel so inclined, please re-tweet any of them. Who knows, we just might get his attention.

Mr. President (@POTUS), at a rally in Alabama you called #ColinKaepernick a 'Son of a B-' b/c he kneels in protest during National Anthem.

— Mark Charles (@wirelesshogan) September 23, 2017

You state that you are not racist. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I must conclude you are unaware of our nations true history.

Please allow me to share with you a Native Perspective on American history and the Doctrine of Discovery.

Doctrine of Discovery was written 1452-93 by Church in Europe & used in US to justify white supremacy, slavery, stealing land, & genocide. pic.twitter.com/Aj0aL1jV88

— Mark Charles (@wirelesshogan) September 23, 2017

The founding fathers embedded the Doctrine of Discovery deep into US Foundations (I.e. Declaration of Independence, Constitution & SCOTUS)

Making it very clear that the only reason founding fathers used inclusive term All men is b/c they had a very narrow definition of humanity.

Article 1 Sec. 2 of US Constitution excludes women & natives, it counts black people as 3/5th human. This only leaves white men.

The purpose of the US Constitution is to protect the interests of white, land owning, men (in 1776 only land owners could vote).

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extends rights of citizenship to anyone born here under the jurisdiction of the govt.

But Section 2 still excludes women & natives and places the full rights of citizenship under jurisdiction of criminal justice system.

To this day, US Constitution contains 52 gender specific, male pronouns re: who can run for and hold public office or even is a citizen.

Marshall SCOTUS also references Doctrine of Discovery & rules natives only have right of occupancy while whites have the right of discovery.

This legal precedent and Doctrine of Discovery are referenced by SCOTUS again in 1954, 1985 and 2005.

In 1830 Andrew Jackson signed Indian Removal Act which results in Trail of Tears, Long Walk & deaths of tens of thousands of indigenous people.

19th century is filled with numerous massacres like Sand Creek in CO and Wounded Knee in SD.

Between 1839 and 1898 US Congress awards 425 Congressional Medals of Honor to US soldiers for ethnic cleansing of Turtle Island.

This is a hard fact to swallow, so here is the link to the recipients listed on US Army Center of Military History.
http://www.history.army.mil/moh/indianwars.html

Mr. President (@potus), The question is not "Why is Colin Kaepernick kneeling in protest?" The question is "Why aren't you?"

Our nation is at a crossroads. We can either choose to #MAGA and solidify our nations historic and systemic racism and sexism...

— Mark Charles (@wirelesshogan) September 23, 2017

Or we can commit ourselves to working hard to make the USA a nation where we the people finally means all the people.

Colin Kaepernick is respectfully kneeling in protest, doing his part to draw attention to the deep seeded racial problems that we face.

And you called him a “Son of a b-“ and said any NFL player who also kneels in protest should be fired by NFL.

When you are President of a nation that is systemically racist & sexist and you seek to silence the voices of those working for change…

you are either willfully ignorant or, blatantly sexist and white supremacist.

I tagged you in this thread so the prior will no longer be an excuse. But our nation needs you to decide…

As for me, I kneel with #ColinKaepernick, I stand with #BLM, I protest with #Dreamers & I share wisdom of my native elders/relatives #noDAPL pic.twitter.com/YsgRQytDCK

— Mark Charles (@wirelesshogan) September 23, 2017

The USA needs a national dialogue on race, gender and class. A Truth and Conciliation Commission on par w/ ZA, RW & CA. I call it #TCC2021

Respectfully,
Mark Charles
(Navajo)

And if you have a change of heart, my good friend @LeroyBarber is hosting a #NFLKneelDown protest in Detroit, Oct 8.
http://nflkneeldown.com/

The Most Egregious Thing President Trump Said Last Week

Even in terms of the Trump Presidency, last week was a doozy.

Even coming off the week prior, when President Trump threatened, on Twitter nonetheless, the citizens of North Korea with nuclear annihilation, last week was a doozy. Even for a President who campaigned to the alt-right, hired a few of them as his advisers, and filled a majority of his cabinet with spineless white, land-owning yes-men, last week was a doozy.

After a horrific Saturday, which saw the murder of a female counter-protester at a rally of white nationalists and white supremacists waving Confederate and Nazi flags, President Trump refused, on Sunday, to call out these vile and explicit public displays of racism and hatred. Instead, he merely condemned violence, and ultimately cast blame on "all sides."  But those were not the most egregious words spoken by President Trump last week.

On Tuesday, President Trump began his day early by passive-aggressively using Twitter to lash out at his opponents, re-tweeting, among other things, an image of a news reporter from CNN seemingly being hit by a Trump train. An eerie, childlike and reckless re-tweet coming just 3 days after a white terrorists ruthlessly murdered Heather Heyer, a female counter-protester, by running her over with a vehicle. This was a tweet (later deleted) which caused myself and probably many others to wonder exactly where did President Trump fantasize he could have been on Saturday had he not had to worry about the secret service and other confining restraints of the office of POTUS. But that was not the most egregious thing President Trump said last week.

Later that same Tuesday, during a news conference that was supposed to be about infrastructure, President Trump, in response to questions about Charlottesville and racism, lost his composure. He went very far off script and once again blamed the violence on both sides, which he now termed the alt-right and the alt-left. But even these unscripted and from-the-heart words, which left the nation and the world flabbergasted, were not the most egregious words President Trump spoke last week.

Even when he was ‘good’ and simply read the script given to him by his advisers, President Trump’s words missed the mark. After being raked over the coals by US citizens, social media, the regular media, other politicians (including those from his own party), and the global community for his tepid response over the weekend, President Trump came out on Monday like a chastened child being forced by his parents to apologize for an act he clearly felt deserved no condemnation. He carefully read the statement crafted for him by his staff and advisers and took no questions.

In his remarks, President Trump called out racism and hatred. That was good. He labeled as repugnant the KKK and white supremacists. That was also good.  Two for two.  President Trump was on a roll. If only he had stopped there. If only he had ended his remarks with those two condemnations. But he didn't. He over-reached. President Trump tried to be a political healer and as a result he repeated the destructive and damaging rhetoric that all politicians, from both parties, use when they want to unite this nation. He repeated the lie of American exceptionalism.

"We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law, and we are equal under our Constitution."

This lie is smooth because it repeats a sentiment that Americans want to believe about ourselves.  We want to think that we are a nation founded on the "truth that all of us are created equal.” We want to believe that we are all equal under the law and under our Constitution. But that is not even close to what the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution intended to communicate. Many of the founding fathers were white supremacists, and nearly all of them were white nationalists. They largely envisioned a racially homogeneous country where white men ruled over subservient women and people of color.

Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, they participated in the ethnic cleansing of natives, they broke treaties, they stole land. They were quickly becoming enamored with talk of Manifest Destiny. In their Declaration of Independence, they labeled natives as savages. And in their Constitution, they never mentioned women, they specifically excluded natives and they all agreed to count Africans as 3/5th of a person.

Even when they tried to fix it, they didn’t. The 13th Amendment doesn’t actually abolish slavery. And the 14th Amendment still specifically excluded women and natives.  Even today, the legal precedent for land titles is based on the dehumanizing Doctrine of Discovery and the Constitution is still peppered with 51 gender-specific, male pronouns in regard to who can be President, run for (or hold) office and, is a citizen.

But his appeals to the mythology of American exceptionalism were still not the most egregious words President Trump spoke last week.  That prize is reserved for this statement: "Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

Photo by Anthony Crider

How dare President Trump state such an egregious lie! He campaigned to that bigotry. He exacerbated violence. It was the alt-right, white nationalists, and white supremacists who got him elected. And President Trump knows that. He rose to political prominence riding the racist waves of the birther movement. He boasted that he was the only one able to publicly humiliate the first African American President of the United States by forcing him to show his birth certificate on the global stage.

At his first campaign event, Donald Trump labeled immigrants from Mexico as rapists and murders.  Throughout his campaign he continually demeaned and objectified women. He rallied his base by promising a Muslim ban. Before a conservative Christian audience at Dordt College in Sioux Center Iowa, he boasted that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue (NYC) and shoot somebody and still not lose voters. He was even caught on a hot mike mentoring a younger, white land-owning male, that celebrity and status gives the right to sexually assault women.

President Trump is so dependent upon the support of the alt-right that in 2016, after he was endorsed by David Duke, the former grand marshal of the KKK, he stumbled and took his time to condemn such groups and their racism. And David Duke remembers that, because, last week, after President Trump tweeted "We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one!" David Duke (whose Twitter account has since been suspended) rebuked him by tweeting, "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the Presidency, not radical leftists."

Donald Trump fanned the flames of bigotry, intolerance, violence, hatred and racism. He knows our country is conflicted. He sees our racial, gender and religious divides. And as a businessman, turned reality TV celebrity, he made a calculated bet that he could use those divides to further elevate his brand and financially line his pockets. But his calculations were off. All Donald Trump wanted to do was feed his ego and enrich himself. He never wanted to become President. But he egregiously underestimated how alive and well racism, hatred and intolerance is in our country. And I believe he resents the fact that every morning he is reminded of his miscalculation, when he wakes up still confined to the Office of President of the United States of America. Because embracing bigoty, racism, sexism, hatred, and intolerance did something that Donald J. Trump never expected. It propelled him all the way to the White House.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

Authors Note: For the past six months I have mostly occupied a place of sorrow and lament, but am slowly moving towards a space of intentional, non-violent and prayerful action. I began to make that move about 10 days ago with two articles calling for President Trump to resign (re: Indiscriminate Attacks and Christendom). And I am continuing that transition today with this article calling out the explicit racism and hatred that we have been witnessing for the past two years.  I am convinced that Donald Trump is not fit for the Office of President of the United States and invite you to pray with me that God will give him the courage he needs to resign.

A Call for President Trump to Resign (2 of 2): The Destructive Role of Christendom

Throughout its history, the United States of America has considered itself to be an extension of a medieval institution known as Christendom. And it has continuously, and eagerly, engaged in religious warfare. Christendom is the prostitution of the Christian Church to the empires of the world. A plain text reading of the New Testament books of the Bible, especially the four Gospels, make it abundantly clear that Jesus did not come to earth to create, or even restore, an imperial religious state. He came to make disciples, heal the sick, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf and to care for the poor. And ultimately, he came to willingly surrender his life and die on a cross so that the entire human race might have an opportunity for restored relationship with Creator.  Jesus both stated and demonstrated throughout his life that “his kingdom was not of this earth.”

In the fourth century, Constantine became Emperor, converted to Christianity and decided to “Christianize” Rome. In direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus, Constantine created a Christian Empire, known as Christendom. In the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo (later Saint Augustine) wrote, regarding the role of a Christian King in a Christian Empire, that “he serves Him (the LORD) by enforcing with suitable rigor such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the reverse.” Augustine also concludes that the subjects of a Christian King, when necessary, could be led to worship God after “being first compelled by fear or pain.”  In the thirteenth Century, the theologian Thomas Aquinas, concludes that if the state has the right to execute people who forge money “and other evil doers”, how “much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”

And that is Christendom. A heretical Christian state that considers itself empowered and sanctioned by God to use the resources of the state, through fear and pain to compel people to worship, and if necessary, to execute those who believe falsely.

It was this type of heresy that led to the writing of the Doctrine of Discovery by the Catholic Church in the 15th Century. The Doctrine of Discovery is essentially the church saying to the nations of Christendom, wherever you go, whatever lands you find not ruled by white, European, Christian rulers, those people are less than human and the land is yours for the taking. This was the Doctrine that justified Europe’s colonization of Africa and the enslavement of the African people. They did not believe the Africans to be human. This was also the Doctrine that allowed the nations of Europe to claim the right of “discovery” over Turtle Island (later known as the Americas). If you think about it, you cannot discover lands already inhabited, unless you consider the people who are there to be sub-human.

It was the heretical belief in Christendom that led United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall to reference the Doctrine of Discovery as a legal instrument when writing the ruling, that later became the legal precedent of land titles, in the case Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823). This case distinguished the difference between Aboriginal Title, otherwise known as the right of occupancy which SCOTUS concluded is held by indigenous people, and Fee Title, otherwise known as the right of discovery, which the court ruled, is the absolute title to the land and belongs solely to white European “Christian” nations. This precedent, and the Doctrine of Discovery were referenced by the United States Supreme Court as recently as 1954, 1985 and 2005.

It was the heretical belief in Christendom that allowed John Winthrop in 1630 to co-opt the narrative of Old Testament Israel and claim that the Christian colonists were in the New World to establish a “City on a Hill.” He then went on to imply that the lands of the Americas were their promised land. For white Americans, this re-appropriation of the identity of the people of Israel is critical, because it is the theology of Promised Lands that, according to commands of God in Deuteronomy and Joshua, orders and even sanctifies oppression and genocide. This is what morally paved the way for the ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples from the continent of North America. For Christendom, Manifest Destiny is simply god-ordained genocide.

And President Trump, along with most of the Christian right, believe adamantly in the heresy of Christendom. This is how he campaigned on a theme of religious liberty, while simultaneously promising a “Muslim Ban.”  President Trump, and many Americans Christians, do not believe in, or even want, religious liberty. They desire Christian liberty. They don’t want just any prayer in school, they want Christian prayer in school.  They don’t want a law that allows an LGBTQ baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a “Christian” wedding, but they will fight adamantly for the right of a “Christian” bakery to refuse to bake a cake for the wedding of an LGBTQ couple.

After the terrorist attack in London last March, Clay Higgins, the Republican Congressional Representative from the third District in the state of Louisiana posted this in his public Facebook wall:

“The free world... all of Christendom... is at war with Islamic horror. Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.”

Again, these are the words of a “Christian” United States Congressmen from the state of Louisiana in the year 2017.

On Monday of this week, after President Trump threatened North Korea with an attack of “fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before." And then followed up that threat with a tweet stating that “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely…” Robert James Jeffress Jr., a white evangelical Southern Baptist pastor from Texas, who has been a longtime supporter of President Trump and serves as an Evangelical adviser to POTUS, stated that "in the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un."

I call on Donald Trump to resign as President of the United States of America. According to the teachings of Jesus, upon which the Christian Church is based, there is no such thing as Christendom. The heresy of Christendom is just as dangerous, and as threatening, to global security as that of ISIS and other radical religious extremism.  The world does not want, nor does it need, another radicalized religious zealot with a short temper and an itchy finger on the trigger of a nuclear arsenal that is “locked and loaded”.

Religious wars suck. Religious wars have no rules. And religious wars bring out the absolute worst in humanity. Religious wars are not Christian, nor are they Muslim. Religious wars, whether fought by ISIS or Christendom, are nothing more than the justified and “sanctified” destruction of the enemies of one’s god based on the heretical interpretations of their founder’s teachings. And damned is anyone who gets in the way.

I do not deny that the rogue nation of North Korea is an international threat that needs to be addressed. But I am certain that the solution to this problem will not come from any nation, or leader, who feels that they alone are fighting in the name, and the authority, of God. War is horrible, and at times, perhaps, maybe even necessary. But it should never be sanctioned by religious leaders.  The church, the mosque, the religious, should always call for peace and be the prophetic thorn in the side of politicians, generals and other leaders, who, from time to time, may need to make the regrettable and lamentable decision of humbly and sorrowfully resorting to military warfare and violence to resolve conflict. But war should never be celebrated. The ability to destroy should never be flaunted. And the violence, the killing, and the horror of our unresolvable disagreements should never, ever, be religiously sanctified.

After months of observation and long periods of lament, I have concluded that the sincerest prayer I can, and do, pray for President Trump is that he will have the courage to resign. I honestly do not believe that holding the office of President of the United States is healthy for him, our nation, or the world.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

Also see: A Call for President Trump to Resign (1 of 2):  Indiscriminate Attacks

A Call for President Trump to Resign (1 of 2): Indiscriminate Attacks

The United States of America has a history of extreme, indiscriminate, military violence resulting in the mass killing of civilians. This is most evident when our country feels threatened, provoked or attacked. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US Military base in Hawaii. This attack killed a total of 2,403 people, of which 68 were civilians.  Between January 1944 and August 1945, the United States firebombed the nation of Japan targeting some if its most populous cities. This included Operation Meetinghouse, a massive bombing raid of Tokyo that left 100,000 people dead. And of course, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed another 120,000 people. The targets of these bombing raids were not specifically military nor were they precise and therefore most of the causalities were civilian. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines Indiscriminate attacks as those “of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”

By precisely attacking Pearl Harbor, a military target, Japan limited the number of civilian deaths to 68. Three years later, the United States of America retaliated with a 20-month bombing campaign that can only be categorized as "Indiscriminate.” How can I say this with such certainty? Because had Japan dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Honolulu and Los Angeles and firebombed Chicago or New York, there would be no debate, academic, intellectual or otherwise. Such bombings would most definitely be categorized as "Indiscriminate" and probably even decried as war crimes.

On Tuesday of this week, President Trump threatened the country of North Korea with an attack of “fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."  Given our history, this can only mean a nuclear attack, which, by definition, is indiscriminate.  On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, reiterated the threat to the civilian population when he told North Korea to "cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and destruction of its people.” Also on Wednesday, President Trump tweeted, “My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before ... Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!” On Thursday, President Trump stated, regarding his “fire and fury” threat that “Maybe it wasn’t tough enough.” He also refused to take the option of a preemptive strike off the table. And on Friday, he tweeted that “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely…”

This flaunting of indiscriminate military destruction and blatant disregard for civilian life and international norms by the Trump administration is appalling.

I do not deny that the rogue nation of North Korea is an international threat that needs to be addressed. But I am certain the solution to this problem will not come through bragging about our nuclear arsenal or through our willingness to destroy an entire nation. Such rhetoric is evil and removes any shred of moral authority that the United States may have. If we preemptively, or even in retaliation, destroy an entire nation, we had better be prepared to live the rest of our days in isolation and fear. Because I doubt the international community will live without protest under the dictatorial threat of nuclear destruction by our nation that not only flaunts, but also exercises (will be three times), its ability to indiscriminately destroy entire populations whenever we feel threatened.

I call on Donald Trump to resign as President of the United States of America. Throughout his campaign and during his tenure in office, his public comments, tweets and unscripted rhetoric have demonstrated that he does not hold a comprehensive value for life, especially the lives of anyone he considers to be an opponent. And now he is touting his disregard for international law and threatening the entire civilian population of North Korea. The world does not want, nor does it need, an entitled American President with a short temper and an itchy finger on the trigger of a nuclear arsenal that is “locked and loaded”. We have already pulled that trigger twice and no one appreciates our President's perceived eagerness to pull it again. I ask Donald Trump to voluntarily step down from the Office of President of the United States before making himself, and our entire nation, war criminals.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

Also see: A Call for President Trump to Resign (2 of 2): The Destructive Role of Christendom

The Unfortunate and Extremely High Cost of Bi-Partisanship in American Politics

Early this morning, in a stunning rebuke of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and even President Trump, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) voted against the GOP proposed "skinny repeal" of the Affordable Care Act. His was the deciding vote, joining 2 other Republican Senators and all 48 Democrats in opposition to the bill. Some were surprised by his vote, but anyone who listened to his speech on Monday, when he returned from receiving cancer treatment to make an impassioned plea from the Senate floor for bi-partisanship, had some inkling of his intentions.

"The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America’s problems and to defend her from her adversaries. That principled mindset, and the service of our predecessors who possessed it, come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world’s greatest deliberative body. I’m not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today."

He went on to say,

"But they (our Senate deliberations) are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember.”

He even included himself in the rebuke,

"Both sides have let this happen...We’ve all played some role in it. Certainly, I have. Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason."

It was a stunning speech that earned him a standing ovation which extended across the aisle.

Unfortunately, towards the end of his speech, after he rebuked both Democrats and Republicans, and after he made his impassioned plea for bi-partisanship, he laid out what he believed their cooperation could be built on, American Exceptionalism.

“We are the servants of a great nation, ‘a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’

Senator McCain was of course referring to the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, which boldly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

However, he failed to mention that a mere 30 lines below those iconic words, the Declaration of Independence refers to natives as "merciless Indian savages", making it abundantly clear that the only reason the founding fathers used the inclusive term "all men" was because they had a very narrow definition of who was actually human. But instead of acknowledging that bleak part of the Declaration and the resulting black eye on our history, Senator McCain, who was building his theme of American exceptionalism, went even further.

"America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter and the greatest defender of that order."

I am quite sure that many African Americans and other people of color, both descendants of, and current victims to, America's long-standing institution of slavery could raise legitimate exception to Senator McCain's claim of America's commitment to liberty. And yes, I did say 'current victims of slavery.' Because contrary to what most Americans believe, the 13th Amendment did not actually abolish the institution of slavery.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The 13th Amendment did not abolish slavery, it merely redefined and codified it under the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system. And it should not surprise anyone that the United states incarcerates our citizens at the highest rate of any country in the world. And we incarcerate people of color at a rate 3 times higher than that of white citizens.

But Senator McCain did not mention this travesty. He was too busy developing his theme of bi-partisanship, which required, instead of acknowledging the deep, systemic injustices of our nation, that he continue building his case for American Exceptionalism.

“We aren’t afraid. We don’t covet other people’s land and wealth. We don’t hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity."

Really???

From the years 1839 to 1898, the US Congress awarded 425 Congressional Medals of Honor to US soldiers who participated in the Indian Wars. This included 20 medals of honor given to US soldiers who participated in the Massacre at Wounded Knee, a massacre where approximately 300 Lakota men, women and children  were slaughtered in a single day. During the period of the 19th century, nearly 30 states were added to the Union. The non-native population, a majority of which were white, ballooned from just over 5 million to well over 75 million. Meanwhile the Native population shrank from 600,000 to just under 250,000.

It was during the 19th century that Congress passed, and President Andrew Jackson enacted, the Indian Removal Act resulting in the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk and nearly a dozen other forced re-locations. The Massacre at Sand Creek took place, Indian Boarding schools were instituted, the hanging of the Dakota 38, the Dawes Acts. The list of atrocities of the 19th century goes on and on as the United States of America fulfilled its self-proclaimed Manifest Destiny by ethnically cleansing this land from 'Sea to Shining Sea.'

But Senator McCain knows this history. He represents the state of Arizona which is home to over 300,000 American Indians. An article in the UK in 2013 referenced a 1996 letter by Senator McCain, where he argued against rescinding the Medals of Honor given to US soldiers who participated in the Massacre at Wounded Knee. Senator McCain represents Native people who, to this day, are suffering from the Historical Trauma caused by the coveting and ethnic cleansing of our lands by the United States of America.

So why would he say these words?

Because American Exceptionalism is the single most unifying theme in our country, not only for the dominant white culture, but also for many segments of our minority populations. And the theme of American Exceptionalism is utilized by politicians nearly every time they want to build bi-partisan consensus.

This is not helpful and is evidence of the poor job we do of teaching the true history of our country. Much of American history, while it may be great for white land-owning men, has been a nightmare for indigenous tribes, people of African descent, women, and countless other minorities who have had to fight the American government and the white male majority, tooth and nail, for every ounce of liberty and freedom that we partially enjoy.  Instead of building bi-partisan consensus on the mythology of American Exceptionalism, we should instead work to increase our unity by creating what George Erasmus, an Aboriginal leader from Canada, refers to as common memory.

“Where common memory is lacking, where people do not share in the same past, there can be no real community. Where community is to be formed, common memory must be created.” (- Georges Erasmus, Dene Nation of Canada)

Our country is in great need of a common memory that is accurate and honest. A memory that appreciates our accomplishments but also acknowledging when and where we frequently fall short.

Can we stop talking about when we were great and how soon we might be great again, and instead focus on working to build a nation where 'We the People' actually means 'All the People'? The prior requires the continued oppression of minorities, while the latter challenges us to learn how to both acknowledge, and learn from, the injustices of our past.

Senator McCain was partially right and I appreciate his willingness to stand with Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) as the only GOP Senators to vote against the “Skinny Repeal.” The US Senate does need more cooperation. Our country needs more constructive discussion on difficult topics. We need rigorous political debate. But I would add that, more importantly, we need common memory. Because without common memory, there is an unfortunate, extremely high, and even oppressive cost to our bi-partisanship.

Mark Charles
(Navajo)

Where Augustine Goes Off the Rails

San Agustín by
Antonio Rodríguez
(1636 - 1691)

For those who have been following my work on the Doctrine of Discovery, you know that I have been offering a critique of Saint Augustine's Just War Theory for some time now. In his writing on the 2 kingdoms, Augustine is quite clear that Christendom is not the Kingdom of God. But the general sense I get from him is that while he acknowledges Christendom is not perfect, he also does not reject it entirely. He seems to take the attitude that the church needs to find a way to work with it. Almost as if to say, Christendom, for all its faults, is at least better than being persecuted.  And his writings on Just War appear to be an attempt to make Christian Empire work.

I do not think it is bad or incorrect for a separate and independent church to prophetically challenge the secular state to be more just in how it engages in the act of war. But I do believe it is entirely inappropriate for a Christian Empire to justify why its Christian citizens can fight in the wars of Christendom by using a doctrine of Just War.

Throughout his ministry, Jesus reacted strongly, often with a rebuke, against anyone who attempted to combine his teachings with the power of Empire (secular or religious).

1. In the Gospel of Luke, John the Baptist sent his disciples to question Jesus because of the reports that he was healing Centurion's servants and raising widow's children from the dead. These actions were contrary to the expectations that he, and most of Israel, had for the Messiah. They expected a savior, coming in power to overthrow their oppressors, much like what was prophesied in Daniel 7 and Malachi 4.

When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?’ At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” Luke 7:20-23

Jesus' message was very strong, even to John the Baptist. "God is doing something that even you did not expect. Either get on board or step aside."

2. In Luke 21, Jesus and his disciples entered a Samaritan village to teach. But because they were headed to Jerusalem, the Samaritans rejected them. On their way out of the village, James and John asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven to destroy them?  This was how God worked throughout the Old Testament. Both through his prophets and the nation of Israel. When there was sin, God sent a prophet. If the people listened to the prophet and repented, God showed mercy. But if they rejected God's prophet, God judged them, at times even by sending down fire from heaven (Sodom and Gomorrah, Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Elijah and King Ahaziah).  What James and John are asking Jesus is only what they had learned from the stories of the Old Testament. But Jesus turns and rebukes them, as if to say, "No. That time is over." He then takes them to yet another (most likely Samaritan) village.

3. In John 6, after Jesus fed over 5,000 with a few loaves and fish, the people were so excited that they came to make him their king. But, "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself." (John 6:15)

4. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. And Peter identified him as the Christ. Jesus then taught them that he (the Son of Man) was going to be persecuted and crucified. This thought was so contrary to the image that Peter had of who the Christ, and the Son of Man, was that he took his own teacher aside and began to rebuke him.  "But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. 'Get behind me, Satan!' he said. 'You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.'” (Mark 8:33)

Every time Jesus was presented with the expectation or temptation to collude with Empire, or create an earthly Kingdom, Jesus reacted strongly. He was not here to establish an earthly empire. He was here to make disciples, plant a church, and offer himself as a living sacrifice. He was here to lay down his life, not save it. And he warned his disciples that they should expect, and do, the same.

So when Constantine, a new Christian, made the decision to Christianize Rome and create Christendom, he was doing so in contrast to the teachings and model of Jesus. The Church needed to rebuke him. But unfortunately, that is not what happened. Instead, the church leaders, thinkers, and theologians sought for a way to make Christendom work. That was what the doctrine of Just War was about. How does the church function now that it has imperial power? Throughout his life, Jesus reacted strongly to this type of thinking, but unfortunately the church did not. Jesus rejected an earthly religious empire. Augustine sought a way to justify it. The actions of Constantine and the collusion of Augustine were "Get behind me, Satan!" moments. But the church was silent.

In my work, I am seeking to understand how the church got from Luke 7 to the Doctrine of Discovery. How did it get from following a savior who was persecuted and executed for his faith, to a church that enacted persecution and executed its enemies in the name of Christ? How did we get from God enabling his disciples to speak the languages of the nations in Acts 2 to Christian missionaries washing out native children's mouths with soap for having the gall to speak their own languages?

It is because of Christendom. The prostitution of the Church to the Empire. Jesus laid down his life. The Empire must save its life. Jesus emptied himself. The Empire must protect itself.

The contrast between Jesus's teachings and Christendom becomes very clear in this quote by US Congressman Clay Higgins. He represents the 3rd district in the state of Louisiana. On his website, Rep. Higgins identifies himself as a Christian who is known “for his refreshing focus on the power of the individual to be redeemed.” But Clay Higgins also believes in Christendom and that the US is a Christian nation. As such, after the recent terror attack in the UK in June 2017, he posted this to his Facebook page.

“The free world... all of Christendom... is at war with Islamic horror.

Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.”

Clay Higgins’s words are the fruit of Christendom. This is where it leads. And this is what needs to be rebuked.

So, I have been looking for the quote. The line of thinking where, when Augustine voiced it, Jesus would have responded with the rebuke "Get behind me, Satan!"  I spent almost a year looking for that quote in his writings on the 2 kingdoms and Just war. But the quote is not there. Instead it is found in his teachings on heresy in the book, "On the Correction of the Donatists".

The Donatists were a schism group that was teaching heresy. They were leading people astray from the commandments of God and the doctrines of the Church. And Augustine was struggling theologically with what to do with them.  In Chapter 5, Augustine accepts the reality of Christian Empire and is questioning the role of a Christian King.

"How then are kings to serve the Lord with fear, except by preventing and chastising with religious severity all those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For a man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that he is also king. In that he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully; but in that he is also king, he serves Him by enforcing with suitable rigor such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the reverse."

In this chapter Augustine concludes that the role of a Christian King is to enforce (with suitable rigor) the commands of God and (by extension) the doctrines of the Church.

In Chapter 6, Augustine makes the argument that it is better to confront heresy, and lead men to worship God, through teaching. But if that does not work, it is permissible to compel them through "fear of punishment and pain."

"It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word."

These quotes are two very clear examples of where Augustine goes off the rails.  He is concluding that the role of the Christian king is to use the resources of the state to enforce (through fear, punishment, and pain) the commandments of God and the doctrines of the Church.

This is not what Christ taught. This is not what Jesus modeled. When James and John wanted to punish the Samaritans' rejection of Christ by calling down fire from heaven, Jesus rebuked them. When John the Baptist questioned Jesus's anti-Imperial methods, he was told "Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me." And when Peter rebuked Jesus, telling him he did not have to die, Jesus immediately rebuked him with the words “Get behind me, Satan.”

Augustine’s theological acceptance of Christian Empire, his collusion through Just War and his justification of imperial power to enforce Church Doctrine sets the stage for both the Crusades in the 11th century and, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas. In his work “Summa Theologica”, Question 11 on Heresy, Article 3 “Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?”, Thomas Aquinas concludes:

“With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.”

Constantine creates Christendom. Augustine does not rebuke it, but colludes with it and determines that the role of Christendom and a Christian King is to prevent and chastise “with religious severity all those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord.” And then Aquinas concludes that the Christian Empire, which he calls the church, now has the authority to “not only excommunicate (heretics) but even put (them) to death.”

In the 13th Century the writing of the church begins referring to a sub-human class known as the infidel. And in the 15th Century Pope Nicolas V begins creating the Doctrine of Discovery with these words:

“ invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit.”

Jesus's goal is not an earthly kingdom. In his teachings, there is no room for Christian Empire. In Mark Chapter 2, Jesus tells a parable comparing himself to a bridegroom. In Ephesians 5 Paul writes about Christ’s love for the church using the analogy of marriage. “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

Jesus loves the Church. He laid his life down for it. And he does not want his bride to prostitute itself out to a worldly Empire.

That is why, I am quite certain, had he been physically present to hear Augustine's conclusions about the Donatists, Christendom and the role of a Christian King, Jesus would have responded strongly. He was not afraid to rebuke a man who would later become known as Saint Peter, and I am sure he would not hesitate to rebuke someone we refer to as Saint Augustine.

"Get behind me, Satan! …you are not on the side of God, but of men."

For, as Jesus would later say to Pilate,

“My Kingdom is not of this world.”

Mark Charles

(Navajo)