My reference to "trashing the environment" was alluding to extinction of the passenger pigeon, depletion of the ozone layer, increasing the level of green house gasses globally, dumping radioactive waste in the ocean, etc. These are what I think of as "trashing the environment." I am thinking of global, persistent pollution, and actual extinction. These are problems on a vastly greater scale than what you assumed I was talking about. My bad assumption was that you had some knowledge of these things.

Even if your statement is true, that one band of Sioux "did a great deal to put the buffalo on the path to extinction." it would be trivial compared to these other "trashings" of the environment that I was referring to. Further, the best example of the Sioux "trashing the environment" that you came up with was that they depleted the buffalo in a particular region, it does not even compare with the actual near extinction of the buffalo which occurred across the buffalo’s whole range (most of the US) not just in the limited range of the Sioux. Further, is simple "overhunting" really, literally, an example of trashing the environment. I don't think so. Your assumption of what I was referring to was faulty.

I raised a point in my "role-play" about massacres "[they] may have done massacres, just not so many as yours."

When I apparently referred to a number ("not so many") that was probably not a good idea, but actually, I was thinking about all massacres done by either side across the whole US, not just in the plains, as your answer assumed. (Another faulty assumption.) Even so, your comment actually supported my main idea that both sides were involved in performing massacres, thus one side does not have the moral high ground over the other on that, thus my central point stands. Try dealing with my main point this time instead of marginal details.

In Mr. Thurman's response of 5/14 he uses the term "stereotypes." His version of me has a lot of "positive and negative" stereotypes. He demands to know my views on "stereotypes." First, let's check the meaning of this term (again Merriam-Webster http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=stereotype*1+0)

"stereotype noun [C] DISAPPROVING (a person or thing that represents) a fixed set of ideas that is generally held about the characteristics of a particular type of person or thing, which are (wrongly) believed to be shared by all the people and things of that type."

My views on stereotypes. "I think the Sioux are a diverse group." I think most of the "wrongs" Mr. Thurman accused me of are actually not "stereotypes" but actually are "historical myths." The support for these allegations are erroneous assumptions which I described above.

Mr. Thurman made the assertion that I said the Sioux had had this name since "time immemorial," please site a source on that one. Regardless of whatever figurative remark I may have made (if I even made it) my point is in the here and now. This is their name here and now. I have said that over and over again. To say otherwise is just another false description of my position. Now, I did specifically provide a dictionary definition which traced the name back to the 1700s (and that is a fact), the 1700s were not "time immemorial."

Mr. Thurman, endless citation of irrelevant historical events are not persuasive to me because my case for changing the mascot is in the here and now. His erroneous assumptions about what I have meant cannot hide the fact that I did specifically reply to his questions, while he has been actively avoiding responding to mine. A reader can read what I wrote for themselves, and I invite them to do so. They don't have to rely upon inaccurate assumptions and mischaracterization. The reasons I have sited for changing the mascot are in the here and now.

Another error you have made is to state that no reasons for taking offense have been given. Reader, take a look at what has been written and see for your self. Find any reasons?

I hope other people who read this are not intimidated from contributing to this discussion by the personal attacks that have been made on me here. I believe that we all have a right to be heard and not have our ideas mischaracterized or interpreted with faulty, erroneous, misleading assumptions.

-- Bernard Schuster, Find Your Online Graduate School (posted 5/15, 10:00 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.