Cowboys and Indians

Oh, eww. Just eww. A draft of the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual included "radical Native American organizations" as an example of terrorist groups. They've taken it out for the final draft, but don't think that sort of thinking isn't widespread amongst Canadian settlers.

The passage in question:

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims. Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ("First Nation") level, through the threat of, or use of, violence.

Right, because defending your land (for the most part, non-violently) against invaders who would steal it, kick you off, and build golf courses over the bones of your ancestors, is totally terrorism. (Commenters on conservatism, many of whom also believe that "illegal" immigrants are stealing their country largely agree that only settlers have the right to defend their homes and lives.)

Note that the revision to the manual—supposedly for use in Afghanistan—does not remove all attempts to racially profile so-called terrorists, unless the Tamil Tigers have been skulking around Kandahar lately. The manual's scope sounds much broader than that and is likely, among other things, intended to guide the quelling of domestic dissent.

Cowboys and Indians

Oh, eww. Just eww. A draft of the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual included "radical Native American organizations" as an example of terrorist groups. They've taken it out for the final draft, but don't think that sort of thinking isn't widespread amongst Canadian settlers.

The passage in question:

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims. Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ("First Nation") level, through the threat of, or use of, violence.

Right, because defending your land (for the most part, non-violently) against invaders who would steal it, kick you off, and build golf courses over the bones of your ancestors, is totally terrorism. (Commenters on conservatism, many of whom also believe that "illegal" immigrants are stealing their country largely agree that only settlers have the right to defend their homes and lives.)

Note that the revision to the manual—supposedly for use in Afghanistan—does not remove all attempts to racially profile so-called terrorists, unless the Tamil Tigers have been skulking around Kandahar lately. The manual's scope sounds much broader than that and is likely, among other things, intended to guide the quelling of domestic dissent.