The Ole Seagull

An April 21 article in the New York Times entitled “In Push Before Vote, Obama Sharpens Tone, reported “In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider.”

 On August 23 Obama announced his selection of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Biden has been a Senator from Maryland for about 35 years, the sixth longest period in officer for current senators, unsuccessfully ran for President in 1998 and 2008, and is currently concurrently running for senator in 2008.

An Ole Seagull cannot help but wonder what the difference is between Clinton and Biden is in terms of being a “compromised Washington insider?” To him Biden is as much a “compromised Washington insider,” as is Clinton and more so. It would be interesting to know Obama’s definition of “compromised Washington insider” and why Mrs. Clinton meets it but Biden doesn’t or, in the alternative, why it should have been a factor in Clinton’s case but not Biden’s?

The Ole Seagull is certainly not a liberal but does anyone see the irony in todays AP story on the fact that North Korea has just set off an underground atomic test. Comparatively speaking, in terms of known weapons of mass destruction potential, prior to the invasion of Iraq, on a scale of 1 to 10,  Iraq posed a threat of what as compared to North Korea?

The Ole Seagulls columns, appearing in the Sunday edition of the Branson Daily Independent and on line in the Branson Courier, normally involve the happenings of small town America, as illustrated by life in Branson, Missouri. His September 24 column, entitled “At least ten things that the Ole Seagull is positive about,” contains an interesting perspective on what an “opinion columnist” is and their value to their readers. For the most part that perspective is discussed under “positives” 1 and 10.

Can someone help an Ole Seagull understand exactly how the movement for reparation, payment of some sort, to today’s black Americans by the rest of today’s Americans because of slavery in America’s past, does anything but help divide our nation? Is the term “African American” a term of unification or division? Does it not remind all Americans “of the vestige of slavery?”

These and other questions came to mind as the Ole Seagull read a recent Associated Press story by David A. Lieb entitled, “Mo. to Fly Confederate Flag.” The story quoted Mary Ratliff, president of the Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as saying, “It is just appalling to me that the governor would again raise a flag that is so humiliating and reminds us of the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years.”

According to the story the governor had “ordered that the Confederate flag be flown Sunday [June 5] at a state cemetery where former rebel soldiers were buried, a move denounced by black leaders.” The story was very clear that the flag would be flown “for one day at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site in Higginsville, where a service is planned to mark Confederate Memorial Day.”

Will someone give an Ole Seagull a break here, what “reminds us of the vestiges of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” more? Is it a Confederate battle flag waving from a flag pole at a Confederate Memorial State Historic Site or the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past that Ratliff, the NAACP, and some black leaders use to imply that today’s black Americans are owed something because their ancestors were slaves?

No right thinking person can condone slavery or the concept that one person can be another person’s property. That’s why, were the Ole Seagull a betting Seagull, he would bet that about as many non black Americans living in America today own slaves as there are black Americans living in America today who are or were slaves.

Is it totally inappropriate to suggest that it is the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past, in the attempt to obtain preferential treatment and economic advantage for today’s black Americans, at the expense of, among others, today’s white Americans, that divides this nation far more than the display of the Confederate battle flag. Comparatively speaking, exactly how divisive to our nation is the display of the Confederate battle flag for one day, over the graves of Confederate soldiers “at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site,” in connection with a service “to mark Confederate Memorial Day?”

Is it as divisive to our nation as was the practice of bussing? Might some Americans view the practice of affirmative action where, among others, black Americans are given preferential treatment over white Americans, merely because of the color of their skin, as divisive?

It’s an amazing thing to an Ole Seagull how those who call themselves “African Americans,” instead of just “Americans,” can talk about being either reminded about the vestige of slavery or something being divisive. Was not slavery a well established institution in Africa before European traders arrived? Was it Americans who enslaved black Africans or was it their fellow black Africans?

History testifies to the fact that it was black Africans who enslaved their fellow black Africans. Then, after enslaving them, they sold their slaves to, among others, European slave traders and transported the purchased slaves out to the slave ships.

In terms of black Americans not being reminded about “the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” may an Ole Seagull make a suggestion? Why not put the same effort that is currently being expended against the display of the Confederate battle flag, in not just in this situation but nation wide, into encouraging black Americans to use the term “American” rather than “African American?”

“Ah Seagull, is that politically correct?”

“That depends on who is determining what is politically correct.”

An Ole Seagull would echo the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, “I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

A Mar. 18 AP story entitled “McGwire Evades Questions on Steroids Use” reported, “In a room filled with humbled heroes, Mark McGwire hemmed and hawed the most. His voice choked with emotion, his eyes nearly filled with tears, time after time he refused to answer the question everyone wanted to know: Did he take illegal steroids when he hit a then-record 70 home runs in 1998…” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion one would have to be a hero first to be a “humbled hero.” Based on the actions described in this and other articles one could wonder if the term should have been “humbled caught cheaters” instead or if their “records” are really records at all.

A Denver Post article published on Feb. 3, entitled, “Regents won’t fire Churchill” said “The American Indian Movement of Colorado, which counts Churchill as one of its leaders, also entered the fray Wednesday, saying in a statement that Churchill ‘is under attack by racists who would prefer to silence indigenous voices altogether.’” Give me a break, does one have to be a racist to be offended by the comments of Wade Churchill in his essay, entitled “Some People Push Back,” wherein he called those killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11 “little Eichmanns?”

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11, Professor Ward Churchill, of the University of Colorado, wrote a essay entitled “Some People Push Back,” containing his perceptions about why the attack took place and what it bodes for the future. To an Ole Seagull, statements such as “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.,” indicate he could be a few slices short of a full loaf. Oh, well, interested or not, he’s “hearing about it!