To: Les H who wrote (47538 ) 9/9/2025 8:04:38 AM From: Les H Read Replies (1) | Respond to Israelis Were Silent About the Occupation and Got a Genocidal Government Who are these people, who break into a home at night, beat a teacher in his sleep, injure his wife and throw stones at girls? They are clearly upstanding citizens, since the police don't arrest them. It's not Gaza yet, and in the absence of drones they use clubs or iron bars. But the local incident echoes the larger reality: blind bloodlust against civilians at night, in their sleep. The Jewish public sees and is silent; supports and funds. "When you hit someone in the head, the intent is to kill," Halima said. The Palestinians "need a Nakba from time to time to feel the cost," former Military Intelligence head Aharon Haliva said, "and it doesn't matter if they are children. I'm not speaking out of revenge. I'm talking about a message for future generations." The message is clear: ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Including against children. It's hard to find words to describe Ahmad's concern as he watches his daughters riding their bikes. And there are not enough words to shout at the sight of children who are being crushed under the hatred of murderous leaders. The most successful "protest shirt" in my closet says, in Hebrew and Arabic, "We were silent about the occupation, we got a dictatorship." I wait, broken-hearted, for a shirt with the updated slogan: "We were silent about the occupation, we got genocide." Haaretz Creating fear: Media instilled fear of Native Americans to promote violence, such as with articles leading up to the Wounded Knee Massacre. Colonial papers had previously stirred up settler outrage by reporting government bounties for killing Native Americans.Romanticizing conflict: Journalists frequently glorified cavalrymen like General Custer and romanticized the Indian Wars. This created a biased narrative that favored westward expansion.Portraying Native Americans as threats: Indigenous peoples were portrayed as "savage" and threatening to justify violence against them. Early films, popular "Wild West" shows, and publications reinforced this stereotype, suggesting they were violent and lacked compassion.Dismissing Native resistance: In articles like one published by the Virginia Enquirer in 1836, Native American resistance was framed as "unwarranted". Any blame for the resulting violence was assigned entirely to the Indigenous people. Advocating for removal: Pro-Jackson newspapers championed the president's push for removal, framing it as necessary to open land for white settlement. President Andrew Jackson himself sent a letter to a Tennessee paper to promote a treaty with a pro-removal Cherokee delegation, painting removal as beneficial for Native people.Using dehumanizing language: Newspapers used loaded terms such as "savage" and "barbarous" to describe Indigenous people. This language contributed to the dehumanization necessary for justifying the dispossession of Native lands.Manufacturing consent: During the lead-up to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, biased U.S. news outlets published fabrications to drum up support for the legislation.Spreading the "vanishing Indian" myth: 19th-century media and art perpetuated the idea that Native Americans were a "vanishing race" whose extinction was unavoidable. This narrative helped to justify removal policies and the erasure of Indigenous culture. First independent Native newspaper: In response to these external pressures and biases, the Cherokee Nation established the first Native American newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix , in 1828. It published articles in both Cherokee and English, covering events that led to the 1830 Indian Removal Act and advocating for the rights of the Cherokee people.Native journalists pushing back: The Cherokee Phoenix and other Native-run publications directly challenged the lies and fabrications of the non-Native press. They provided an outlet for Indigenous voices, promoted cultural identity, and fostered resilience against colonial forces.
