So some critics would be tempted to say that Amherst--the town named after a supposed mass murderer who spearheaded biological warfare against Native Americans--can fly their 29 American commemorative flags for a 250th Anniversary Parade, but not to commemorate the almost 3,000 Americans slaughtered on the morning of 9/11.
And if the flags were simply celebratory flags that only flew on holidays like July 4, Labor Day, and Bunker Hill Day, that would be one thing. But they are, after all, called Commemorative Flags--and they do fly on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, both somber reminders of the cost of our freedoms so very many take for granted.
How many TRUE americans died when Lord Jeffrey Amherst was at war with them? We should raise 29 commemorative flags to honor their loss, not the tragic loss of life on 9/11 due to our slack-jawed Federal government that never was at loss for an excuse for its misfeasance.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what the Hell you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly Lord Jeff turned down the opportunity to command British forces against General Washington and his rag-tag band of Minutemen.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYour energy would be well-served leading the charge to change the town name. It's like like living in a town called Hitler or Pol Pot.
Sorry, in addition to being a journalism freak I'm also a history freak. Lord Jeff got a bum rap.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't know the original Americans were American Indians who lived here before the Europeans arrived? Some history buff.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 10:50 AM
From one history buff to another, you are wrong on this one. I usually can see your point, but just BING ol'Lord Jeffrey and read.
ReplyDeleteSorry, he was BAD.
I have no idea what the Hell you are talking about either (all Anon's are alike).
ReplyDeleteLord Jeffery Amherst is accused of ordering germ warfare against the Indians assaulting Fort Pitt, although he only suggested it as a PS in a letter to the fort commander who was clearly spooked ("Every tree becomes an Indian!")
Mr. Kelley is correct: we've gotten the thought crime of Lord Jeffrey mixed up with the crime itself.
ReplyDeleteThis is the easy superiority of moral judgment done in retrospect, without any reference to the context of the time. We need to be a little more cautious about these things.
For example: a quick show of hands for all those who want to take full responsibility for the daily cruelty that puts meat on our tables. It's the same kind of easy finger-pointing. The point is that, in the end, we're all eventually guilty of some form of moral backwardness by some future Monday-morning quarterback sitting in an easy chair.
Some people take risks with their lives, and some people sit on their asses and pass judgment.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
ReplyDeleteYeah, I read those webpages (more than a few times now).
ReplyDeleteThe author fails to note that a white guy who was captured by the Indians and held in captivity for over a year escaped and reported that small pox was already raging among the tribes a year before Lord Jeff suggested it in a PS, in a letter to the Fort Pitt commander, who was clearly starting to lose it.
And I'll take your native American website and raise you one measured professor, Kevin Sweeney at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=513041947701
In short, no one comes out smelling like a rose, BUT it's simply wrong to single out Lord Jeff.
There already was plenty of smallpox around killing native Americans, before Lord Jeff put his nasty idea to paper.