Stephen Lendman

On February 10, indications were he'd step down. He didn't, but now it's official, vice president Suleiman saying he resigned, handing power to Egypt's military. A New York Times alert said "a historic popular uprising transformed politics in Egypt and around the Arab world."

Times rhetoric way overstated reality as resolution remains very much in doubt, though odds strongly favor continuity, not populist change. More on that below.

For the moment, however, huge Tahrir Square crowds erupted in celebratory euphoria, perhaps forgetting their liberating struggle just began. It didn't end with Mubarak's resignation. That was a baby step, removing an aging dinosaur Washington and Egypt's military wanted out. Now he's gone. Focus must follow through on what's next, requiring sustained popular protests. Otherwise, everything gained will be lost.

Behind the scenes, Washington and Egyptian military maneuvers were involved. They're always crucial, not visible orchestrated events. As a result, discerning reality is crucial. Hopefully, Egyptians understand, knowing the folly of letting up now and losing out.

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen believes Obama waffled to buy time for CIA operatives to secure and purge Egypt's torture and rendition files, dating from when Attorney General Eric Holder was Clinton's Deputy Attorney General in the 1990s.

He also said Secretary of State Clinton wanted her husband protected, and former White House chief of staff (now CIA head) Leon Panetta had the same aim. Doing so, of course, requires keeping Washington-favorites in power, permitting no uncertain alternatives, people Egyptians need for real change.

Besides short-lived confrontations, orchestrated street violence was avoided. Whether it continues, however, is unknown as Egypt's military is notoriously brutal, a different reality than most on Cairo streets believe. Among them were hundreds, perhaps thousands experiencing its harshness, for the moment at least lost in a sea of celebratory humanity.

More »

Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Politicsusa

Minnesota Land Grab

(Author’s Note: This is Part 2 of a 3-part series. As of yesterday, February 10, 2011, Indian Country reports that the offending AFA blog post to which I refer here has been taken down. No point in letting up on the pressure though – Hrafnkell)

Historian Francis Paul Prucha calls government policy one of “paternalism”. That is, the white government had an obligation towards its wards just as a parent would, looking out for their interest and doing things that they themselves might not want to do, in other words: as a child does not know what is best for them, so too the Native American. Prucha points out the positive and negative aspects of this sort of viewpoint, the worst outcome being exploitation, a crime all too many parents are capable of.

Good or bad be the parents, children seldom get to choose. Neither did the Dakota. The land they would live on according to the reservation system in lieu of their old haunts was chosen for them by the United States Government, and from what follows, it does not seem as though the government negotiators looked at anything to do with the proposed reserve other than maps, ignoring what we would today call “the facts on the ground.”[1]

The reserve marked out for the Dakota (you can see the narrow band on the map above, flanking the Minnesota River) did not impress either agents or superintendents, who saw it as far inferior to the lands they had been dwelling on. Territorial Governor and therefore Superintendent, Willis A. Gorman, deplored the terrain of their new home upon seeing it for the first time: “From the vicinity of the new agency there commences a vast prairie of more than one hundred miles in extant, entirely destitute of timber.”[2] A year later, the Sioux Agent, Robert G. Murphy also mentions the “great scarcity of timber in the neighborhood.”[3] However, Murphy found the land good for farming purposes even if there was no game to hunt, and the fact that timber was so scarce was seen to benefit the Dakota in another way: “It…has not sufficient timber to be a temptation to white settlers.”[4]

More »