Einstein

Albert Einstein was certainly right about relativity, more specifically, about frames of reference.  Yesterday, out running in 6 degree temperatures didn't seem nearly as cold as 22 degrees this AM.  The wind wasn't particularly strong today.  It just seemed colder and I was out there about an hour later than yesterday.

Speaking of my run, I continue to be amazed, impressed, and inspired by my blind running buddy, Michael Holmes.  He and I ran between five and six miles this AM, around a track by his house in Clawson.  (He's leery of the pounding his legs get on the roads after knee surgery a while back.)  It's really another instance where I ask myself what I would do in another's shoes.  Would I run, like Michael does, if I was blind?  Boy, that he trusts others (even me!) to be his "eyes" is pretty trusting.  I came across a couple of articles I did on Michael some years ago.  In speaking with a couple other of his guide runners, I noted their reticence in running with him.  Each mentioned the responsibility, the "great responsibility," of guide running.  I guess I never think about that; I just do it.  Michael has mentioned, though, that he's fallen with me more than all of the others combined.  I always wonder if he's pulling my leg, as he's quite a joker.  I did laugh at him this AM, though.  He had his stocking hat pulled down well over his eyes, halfway down his nose.  When I laughed and mentioned it, he just chuckled and asked, "What difference does it make?"  Right again, Michael.

Why is the state Dept of Civil Rights sticking its nose in local matters again?  Now, it's petitioning the federal government (throught the Civil Rights Act of '64) to force local schools to drop Native American nicknames, mascots, logos, etc.  I understand what these people are trying to do.  They mean well, as all do-gooders mean (I often called them "doo-gooders"), but they are off-base on this one.  Yep, former nicknames of schools, such as "Redskins," were offensive and racist.  Despite the insistence of those resisting changes of such names ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), they are racist, have negative historical connotations, etc.  Those names deserved to be replaced.  Yet, the new offensive takes aim at names that are not offensive.  These names include "Chiefs" (Why isn't it "Chieves?"  Of course, why is it Toronto Maple Leafs, not "Leaves?"), Warriors, Braves, and the like.  Tribes such as the Hurons and Chippewas have officially supported the use of "Hurons" and "Chippewas" as respectful and even flattering--schools wish their students/athletes to exhibit desired characteristics associated with Hurons and Chippewas.  But the doo-gooders prevailed, at least at one state university, despite losing the logic battle.  (I am told that the "ones state university," at the behest of the Hurons, is bringing back references to "Hurons."  Methinks it's also an attempt to reconnect with older alumni and their money.)  Warriors, Chiefs, Braves are not at all offensive, any more than Vikings, Dutchmen, Britons, Fighting Irish, or, for that matter, Hurons and Chippewas.  "Redskins?"  Yes, it's offensive.  But the others?  Nope and the doo-gooders should find another crusade, one that really matters.

Speaking of Indians--and harkening back to a post of a day or so ago--I am reading a book that reminds me of "pretend history."  We are often taught that the Indians were peaceful, pacific, etc., until forced from such lifestyles by the Europeans.  Films of more recent vintage and even textbooks and history teachers re-inforce that image.  The problem, as this book I'm reading demonstrates, is that such an image is false, very false.  It's "pretend history."  (This is not to defend the aggression of the Europeans and their own savagery.)  For instance, the Iroquois were quite belligerent, toward the Algonquin, the Eries, etc.  In fact, the Iroquois often went considerably out of their way to attack, in areas they didn't need for hunting, living, etc.  The Eries were particularly hard hit and, to a lesser but still considerable extent, so were the Fox and Sauk.  The Chippewas were devastated by the Iroquois.  This didn't just include battles/wars, but slavery and butchery that included torture, scalping, and cannibalism.  And, of course, the Iroquois are just one example.  Again, such brutal slaughters as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, as well as rotten larger episodes like the Trail of Tears and the whole "reservation" travesty, shouldn't be overlooked or forgotten or sugar-coated.  They should be revealed for exactly what they were, some of the worst episodes in US history.  But we also shouldn't make up history to make other groups look better.  History should be about the truth (Napoleon, Hitler, Burgoyne, and other manipulators notwithstanding).  More about that in the near future.