It's time now, and this can be a very good thing to undertake!

In today's (Monday) thread entitled "BPA refuses to pay for Indian rain dance ceremony", both racially insensative comments were made and the 'race card' was pulled. Before reading on here, please read thru that thread and learn where things turned bad, where comments should have been worded differently (including mine) despite anger over an issue, and where things were mistakenly assumed that were not really there. Many of the foibles of human communication were clearly on display; as in many past threads here. Anger, insensativeity, misunderstanding, escalating argumentative anger, further misunderstanding, unfortunate but understandable thoughts of turning away instead of working this out, and onward to namecalling. And that was just what was in Hey_Yall's post. You should have read the rest of it! OK, obviously kidding, and in a thread that is not funny at all - but I just want to loosen this up right from the start so we can have a more productive discussion with minimal anger present. Let's learn some things together and hopefully have a healing post that we could all use! Not just about racism, but angry miscommunication in general with all people. ...

Since this is mostly about racism between some people with Native American ancestory and some people with Euro ancestory, I have e-mail invited respected Native American BB member Letty Potter to join in a peaceful disussion in search of understanding what is true racism to people (from both side's perspective), what is only insensativity, and what we can all do to improve relations herein. These principles likely will apply to all races of people. ...

These are some subjects to help us get underway; add any you feel will be helpful. ...

- What is the difference between benign racial insensativity and true racism? (There are going to be a lot of difference of opinions here - so explaining why you take a position about the above important question will help understanding).

- What sterotypical, or specific, communication manner bothers you as a Euro or Indian, from the other race of people?

- What do you suggest for an alternative way to address people of a different race?

Let's make some progress on these questions before we get into more deep seated specifics about such as our ancestor's wrongs and current Treaty rights and wrongs, and general rights and wrongs. Please alert some more Native Americans to join in on this thread to help us all to at least come to a better understanding of each other - and strive and hope for more than that. We are all fishers here, and we can help the fish along the way in later disussions after we address the above basics first. Thanks - Steve (RT)

I will try to get the ball rolling toward coming to an understanding of these questions. Please get involved and help me out here. Before I give my take on these issues, I am going to state that I think at the very bottom of racial hate lies the thought that the other race does not respect or like me and my brother and sister; and aren't fair to me. So you 'think' you hate them for that. But I believe in reality that it's not real hate; but rather just an exageration of negative feelings because your inner pride is being hurt. If people would just understand there is no real basis in the modern world to hate - there is only a basis to hate the way some stupid people behave - then healing and relations can occur. ...

The questions:

- What is the difference between true racism and benign insensativity?

~ I think this is the central issue in most all racism in this country. There is true racism by each race to other races of people - it's not just racism when a majority race does it to a minority race, it's also the other way around. I do have the opinion that racism was mostly started by Euro settlers in this country; mostly wrongs against Native Americans and Africans and African Americans. There were very wrong atrocities committed by some Euros against these people in the 1800's. There were also wrongful atrocities committed by Native Americans against Native Americans and Africans against Africans. If you better understand why this likely occured it may reduce your hatred of what happened to your ancestors. The truth of the matter is that all the world's people and races back then were even more intrinsically preservationsist by nature than we all are today; by necessity. That made it more than natural, it made it necessary to form tribes of like peoples for their very survival. Right or wrong, that was the basic law of the land and world mindset as we entered the 19th century. And as I said, it wasn't just tribes of races, it was also tribes within races. But perhaps the biggest historical mistake as I see it was when Euro settlers developed a mindset of superiority over the other races due to numbers of people and better weaponry. This has unfortunately prevailed to this day among some white anglo Americans - and it is not correct, it is "true racism". To think that you are a superior white person that deserves more privilage than minorities is "true racism". It's ugly. So is the same upper class white society mindset of superiority and oppression of the lower white classes in this country. Ugly! And it still exists intensely in a few stupid white Euro people who are racially derogatory and separatist; which unfortunately plays right into the bottom line of "they don't respect or like us" so I feel hatred - unfortunate because that thinking is often placed on the whole white race because of a few bad apples. Fortunalely, it's a minority of whites that truely feel this way - not the majority as I sense many minority races of people think. This syndrome also exists in some minority people; among Blacks and Indians (BTW, I was told by a Native American that it is acceptable to them to be refered to as Indian - correct? - it is easier to type) and other races. They have strong attributes that make them feel superior - that is true racism if used derogatorially and separatist against other races, rather than just kept as pride within. An example of a minority's true racism; "get out of our gym honkey, you can't jump" - that has been said by some Blacks to a lot of very good white basketabll players (I have personally wittnessed this many times). Another form of true racism is making an innocent individual of another race an outcast or uncomfortable near your space just because you disdain that person's race. It still happens by white Americans often in this country - but it is the stupid minority of whites that do that, not most of the race. And it is true racism for Blacks and Indians to disdain all the more common non-racist whites because of those stupid whites. Just as it is for some whites to disdain all Blacks because their is a little higher crime rate statistic for that race. It also happens to some whites by some individual Indians on their sovereign land or even in common fishing areas - as reported on this and other fishing BB's many times. But that is not a reason to disdain the Indian race! It happens to white individuals by some Blacks if the white person goes thru their "territory". But don't disdain all Blacks because of that! Those things are ugly wrongful true racism by some individuals of all races. And as I stated above it is mostly born of the mindset that the other race doesn't respect or like me, and thus isn't fair to me. If that simple notion could be irradicated magically then racism would be reduced to a tiny fraction of what it is overnight! But it is going to take a lot of communication and understanding to irradicate this over time. ...

So what is benign racial insensativity? To me it is when we do or say things that are exagerated by the other race as being racist when the true racism described above is not present. That obviously needs to be corrected on here and everywhere. Try not to be insensative for sure. But perhaps more important for all races of people is not to make too much of a big deal about benign insensativity! Like one guy said in that controversial thread "be a little more thick skinned", or as I say "understand that the disrespect you feel is very often not as strong as was intended, or even meant at all"! All races cut down on racial defensive mindset and we have gained a whole lot! Lighten up when it's appropriate - and it often is. ...

I also have the opinion that many minority race individuals use what is often refered to as the "race card". This is where the defensive racial mindset is used improperly - such as when improper blame is placed on present day white ancestors of wrong doers the century before last. In fact, many white's ancestors were not involved at all in the wrongs comitted against Indians or Blacks way back in another lifetime! Mine weren't - so I dislike and disrespect a minority that holds some degree of inner disdain for me because I'm the same color as those wrong doers I'm not even related too. That is a very big issue that many Blacks and Indians must understand! And must get over! Be very sure of true racism before you use the race card! It is both unfair and angers the other race. ...

To help heal these ills mentioned above it will be helpful to discuss the other 2 questions. Due to the length of this post, I will give my take on those questions in the following posts. Please join me.

Steve (RT)

Here are the other 2 questions to discuss. I will give it a try tomorrow. Please join in and help this good cause. ....

- What sterotypical, or specific, communication manner bothers you as a Euro or Indian, from the other race of people?

- What do you suggest for an alternative way to address people of a different race?

We need lots of people's opinions on this subject, hopefully including some Native Americans that will register and join in the discussion.

RT: I realize that you are in the position of moderator here and as such, you don't have near the latitude that the rest of us do. I went over and over the BPA thread, and honestly could only find one comment that was overtly racist. It made reference to smoking a piece pipe, getting high, and the attacking the indians. Even though the remark was racist I honestly believe that the individual who posted it was simply making an attempt at humor. I would like to think that I have a fairly good understanding of what is and isn't racist. Some of the things we said were a bitt harsh, bordering on insensitive, but not racist. There were some stereotypes used and as I stated before, those stereotypes were not fair to all native americans, however, what classifies a statement as being a stereotype is that whereas it may not apply to the entire group it addresses, it is gennerally true about the group as a whole.In this case I am talking about the statements and innuendos that were made regarding the indians as drunks. Those satatements weren't very nice and probably shouldn't have been said, but since we are talking stereotypes........ IT is a fact that the Native American is more predisposed to alchoholism than any other race of people on the planet. Yes, even more so than the Irish. So you see, the natural thing to say about native americans is to make jokes about them drinking too much. No it's not very considerate, and it's also not racist. I generally hate to see the "R" word come up anywhere. It is my opinion that it gets screamed way too much, by indians, by jews , blacks, latinos, by anyoone who is other than white. It's a cure all word for whatever ails the person who is saying it. I didn't get that job because the bussiness owner was racist. I'm in prison because some racists cops caught me dealing crack to a bunch of kids. How dare those racists *******s on the bulliten board mock our Rain Dances. Don't you see? Anytime a white and a non white have a difference of oppinion, the race card will inevitably be pulled. I know, it's not a real warm fuzzy post, but it's true.

Good post RT
In regards to the native americans however the issue of soveriegn nations within our borders make things more complicated. I'm not a historian nor a lawyer but our country's treaties with native americans seem to be based on racism.

Since I only read the article and not the original post. I'll just comment on the article. I think the BPA should pay the relatively measly amount of 30 G's to the Yakamas. In a year like this who's to say that the tribe did or did not help out, other than the rain dancers themselves...

Also to stimulate this thread, I'll toss this bone out, I think that the god-fearing dudes running the show need to stop being so culturally insensitive...

--------------------------------------------

No, "Pray for surf" is not Hawaiian

RT and LittleZoZo, for the record I was one of the people playing the race card and I am a white guy. So don't try and play this off as a tribal member trying to take the easy out of an arguement. It wasn't that way at all.


I to agree that the race card gets played far too often. I think that there are hypersensative people who make way too much stink over small or non issues out there. I would agree that there are groups of people who think the system is baised against them who in reality don't want to take responsability for their actions. Those people should wake up and get a clue. We aren't talking about those people here. What we are talking about is a group of guys who didn't have a good arguement to make who resorted to stereo typing another group to make them look foolish. You ask if those comments were racist or insensative. I say they were racist in the context that they were used. You ask what is insensative and what is racist. I say that simply stereotyping a group is insensative. Stereotyping or degrading a group to for your own purpose or agenda is racist.

I believe that there is a fine line between insensativity and racism. This is a forum were you aren't able to hear or see who you are communicating with, so it is way too easy to misrepresent yourself or mistake the point that others are trying to make. Based on that fact alone I think that we should be a little more careful about how we try to get our points across.

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Vic ]

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Vic ]

WOW... Very true RT, Best talk about this issue in a calm sane manner without personal views affecting ones judgment. Funny thing about racism is that it isn't prejedice. It affects all races no matter what your skin color or national origin. When I fill out a form that requires me to state my race I always check other and write in AMERICAN. I spent 8 months in the Gulf war fighting for a country I believe is worth fighting for. The bullets didn't care what skin color you have! Now, I will admit at times I am prejedice. I spend thousands of dollars a year for a chance to hook a Stealhead or Salmon. Every year I have more regulations placed on how I can do this while passing Native Americans using aluminium/nylon nets filling thier plastic coolers with as many as they can. I do respect the heritage of others but when I meet the same Native Americans at the store the next day trying to sell them it really starts my blood boiling. I just turn and walk away. My opinion is there is only one that can judge and it sure the hell isn't me. What ever happened to the statement One Nation Under God? No matter what you believe in the nation is tearing itself apart from within because of ignorance. Everybody should be eqaul! Racism breeds off of ignorance and it's a never ending cycle.

There is a real challenge to criticizing tribal actions. One tries to stayed removed from mentioning race when complaining about a river being over harvested by gillnets, or many hundreds of elk killed on the side of the road in the winter time on feeding grounds. But it is because of the Tribes race that they get to do such actions.
Comments that use steroetypes to put down a group is not right and I feel it is racist. But, I feel far to often, when tribes don't like the criticism, they claim it is racist, and void the criticism. This allows the tribe to avoid responsibility of their actions. Sort of a "Get out of Jail Free Card." It is no wonder, why most politicians won't touch tribal abuse issues, with a ten foot pole.

Perhaps this may seem like a fine point but the Tribes did not get their fishing/hunting rights because of their race. Race has nothing to do with the issue. The Tribes have these rights because of legally binding treaties they signed with the Federal government before Washington or Oregon or Idaho became States. Those treaties extinguished all Tribal claims to the lands that many of us call home. They agree to this only if they got in return, the continuing right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places (along with education and health benefits in some cases).

The Federal government could make that same deal with anyone at anytime regardless of their race or ethnic origin. That includes middle aged white guys living in Vacouver, Washington (like me). Race is irrelvant.

Unfortunately, the issue of tribal fishing rights vs. State regulated fishing privledges gets clouded by race. It's an easy scape goat for both sides. Some sport anglers use it (witness some posts on this BB) and the Tribes blame the sport anglers complaints on "racist attitudes". Some sport anglers aren't always thinking clearly when they make such statements and the Tribes should seriously consider the issues posed by sport anglers without jumping to conclusions about racism.

I firmly believe the Tribes and the sport anglers should on the same side of many of the important issues regarding Pacific salmon conservation. The real enemies are hydropower, habitat loss, water diversions, overharvest in the ocean, and a range of other factors. It hurts to see two potential allies fighting when the fish and the fisheries are being lost on a daily basis. So next time anyone throws a dart at the Tribes over an issue, think about who is really being hurt. Too often it's the fish.

OK, enough preaching from me.......

cohoangler,

I don't agree. THe treaties were given to a race of people. Special rights and concessions generated from these treaties are given only to people of that race(or nation). How can you say race is not involved, I would say it has everything to do with race. The federal government is recognizing one race over another. Yes the federal government has made treaties in the past, with many groups of people, but every treaty is different. If the treaty has nothing to do with race then anyone could become a citizen of a tribal nation, and receive the special rights. I don't see this happening anywhere.

Put the original post back up this native did,nt get to read it.I,m used to reading that stuff on this BB anyway RT it don,t bother me at all.What really bugs me is when people are totally inaccurate in what they post about.You know when i,m standing on the bank fishing,or see them in the local tackle shop they don,t say a damn thing.Probably for the better anyway.

Mike K - I disagree. The treaties were negotiated between two nations - the U.S. Federal government and the Tribal nations that existed here for many years. Nations and races are completely different. For example, the United States is a nation, but it is NOT a race. The U.S. is made up of many races and ethnic denominations. Nation and race are completely different. It's gets real scary if you begin to merge those two concepts. (If in doubt, ask the Germans who lived through the 1930's and 1940's.)

Also, the right to fish and hunt in the usual and accoustomed places is a tribal right, not an individual right. Therefore only those tribes with treaty reserved rights can exercise those rights. If someone were a 100% full blooded Iroquois Indian from upstate New York and moved to the Pacific Northwest they would NOT have hunting and fishing rights because the Iroquois tribe does not have treaty reserved fishing and hunting rights. The fact that person is 100% Native American (their race) does not matter because they are not part of a nation (tribe) with treaty reserved rights. Again, their race is not the issue. What matters is the treaty reserved rights and who has them. The Yakama's do, the Iroquois don't. Nor do the Seminoles, the Ojibways, the Lakota, the Blackfeet, etc.

Lastly, since treaty reserved rights are tribal rights, the tribes have the authority to designate those individuals who have that right. If they decide that white guys from Vancouver can have treaty reserved fishing rights, I would have those rights. As you can guess, they are very careful about whom they select to exercise those rights. But don't think for a minute that it's only restricted to those persons of a particular race. It is not. Indeed, I know several non-indian guys who have been designated as having treaty reserved fishing rights. The reason they were selected is because they married a tribal gal (amoung other reasons), not because of their race, which is European American (i.e., white). Once again, race is irrelvant.

Although we seem to disagree on some of the issues, I respect your position and I'm glad we can have this discussion without generating alot of emotional responses.

cohoangler,

I can see your point about the difference in race and a tribe. I guess the point i was trying to make, was that a certain race/ethnic backgound usually make up these tribes or nation, or at least a major percentage. If it didn't, how could someone then be blamed for racism when complaining about a tribal abuse? Yes, I can see that the treaties were made for a different tribal nations, but being that these nations are made up of distinct races/ethnic makeup(major percentage) Is why cries of racism come up when complaining about actions performed by them. You don't hear cries of racism when people complain about the canadians salmon fishing policies, even when comments about canadian stereotypes are used.
I go back to my original point that it is a challenge to criticize tribal actions, because the "Nation" is made up of a certain racial/ethnic background. I submit that it is not due to their race, but their tribal affiliation. But 9 out of 10 times, being from a tribe is also being of a distinct ethnic background. And because of this, criticism of the tribe can be wrongly assumed to be a criticism of the ethnic group.
(I guess I should use ethnic background instead of race, I was using it interchangeably, probably wrongly so)

You made a point about different groups, being accepted into the tribe. I would argue that this happens very rarely. And tribal ethnic backgrounds are still unique. Especially these groups being given full fishing and hunting rights.
Also making comparison to the germans?!? They used race and nation as an excuse for completely different wrong purpose. The discussion here was about how criticism of a tribe is difficult, because of the major ethnic makeup of the tribe, and how tribal criticism can be wrongly related to ethnic group criticism. I really don't see How the two are even comparable, or relevant.
Though I don't think we agree on several points. I appreciate the discussion.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Mike K ]

Copied over from my ifish post in that similar thread (pertinent):

There are 2 recurring themes in many of these posts that need addressing; that the Government is to blame, not the Indians, and that the dams are to fault for us sportfishers getting shortchanged our due fishing opportunity. ...

Contending that it is our Government that should be blamed for the unfair advantages that desendants of Native American Indians get over and above the signed Treaties and Federal Court mandates of an equal split of the fish is partly correct, partly incorrect. (addressing current government, not the ancient government that signed treaties with the 50/50 split written in). The part that is correct is the improper Secretarial Order #3206 that came from the Fed. Dept. of the Interior mandating, mostly via the NMFS, that the Indians should be the last to lose fishing opportunity because of what they lost due to the dams. This is partly at the root of why the Indians got many times more fish than the sportfishers that paid for the fish (there is more reason, that I will address below). I agree in blaming the Government for this mistake. However, the dams were built by former generations, NOT us present day sportfishers who are paying for the hatchery replacement of the fish lost to the dams! And many of us sportfishers don't have any ancestors that took place in dam planning or building. Equally important, and wrongly overlooked by both the Dept. of the Interior and the wrongfully self-serving Columbia Tribal Fish Commission, is that the Indians have been using electricity as we have throughtout the previous century; and by the dawn of this new century are long into using an inordinate huge amount of electricity from said dams to run the hugely profitable Indian gambling casinos! And these exclusive casino rights were given to the NW Indians primarily for compensating lost fishing opportunity. So shame on the Gov. for the wrongful #3206 - the strongest order out of Wash. DC that contributed to the Indians getting 13 times the Col. fishing impact on this year's springers as the sportfishers got! ... However, this idea the Gov. is all to blame and not the Indians, is incorrect and more complex. Why? Likely at the forefront is the Columbia Indian Tribes have a long standing Fed. lawsuit threat on the table, brought forth in most fish allocation negotiations, to sue the Government in Federal Court to have all the dams on the Columbia removed within a set number of years and have replacement energy. While appearing like a grand idea for the fish and fishermen's cause, they know as well as anyone that is not only a sure armagedon to the entire NW economy, including theirs, but it is at least risky to the fish themsevles! Can you imagine the potential impact of immense amounts of mud and silt choking the Columbia River for decades will have on the fish? And there would be NO money left for hatchery propagation of salmon and steelhead. And all the while the Indians would continue to gillnet the remaining native fish into extinction. So I don't really think they want this to occur; especially with their huge windfall profits from the electric casinos going by the wayside with the torn down dams and torn down economy! BUT, they are smart enough to realize the States and NMFS worry enough about another stupid court decision coming down on the side of the Indians, as it wrongly did in the infamous Judge Boldt and Judge Belloni decisions, to cower to the unfair demands by the greedy and unethical negotiation scenarios of the Indians! Why else do you think they can get away with 13 times as many fish when the Treaties and Fedreal Court mandates call for an EQUAL split?!? All the while using the dam's electricity to run their fish compensation casinos! They deserve the criticism they are getting! And it is not racial, so shame on those of them trying to play the race card.

RT

RT, If I remember right, too bad the original thread was deleted, the racist insinuation was brought up by someone in the context of posts making fun of the Yakimas for submitting a bill to BPA for rain dance cerimonies. The thread degenerated into stereotyping the Yakimas as just a bunch of drunks that needed the 32G to pay for kegs of beer. I'm not shure how stereotyping the Yakimas as a tribe of drunken alchoholics pertains to racizm, but it is wrong.

Keta, you are very wrong about what you just posted here. There were a few racially insensative remarks. But no one said or infered that the Yakamas were a bunch of drunks! Not what-so-ever! I know; because of the criticism I got for not removing some posts I re-read the entire thread 3 or 4 times. Only one post alluded to the possibility of "beverages" being part of the Raindance ceremony; and that one had a jk in it (jk = just kidding -- does anyone have a copy of the original thread which was deleted by the first thread author? = first poster). It's misinformation such as yours that inflames things on public forums. However, the insensativities were wrong and I posted an appology for not removing them. I also started this thread to help avoid such in the future. It has also become an issue oriented thread as well, and I now think both concepts can be discussed together. ... Other people have also misread posts of others and mine; on both BB's. See the next post below. - RT

In addtion to Keta's post above, another occured on the ifish BB that went off the subject with misunderstanding. This is what I posted in reply; hoping to get the thread back on track (hoping it will here too):

Hey Beek, now I understand what you are trying to say. Not. I just can't make sense of some of the things you are trying to make a point about. And that's OK, miscommunication happens. However, one thing you said I did understand and it's undoubtedly incorrect. I know - you said it about me; essentially that I shouldn't hide behind the "past is the past" concept. I'm not hiding behind anything! And your contention of 'that statement is invalid' is incorrect by default alone, as well as in principle, because the past just happens to be the past. The only thing I see valid about the past as it concerns the present is what was learned from successes, learned from mistakes, and laws that are carried over as yet unchanged. The past is NOT an excuse to do wrong in the present (read this sentence a few times if you find that concept challenging - it's true and it's important). Furthermore, when will you and a few others get the concept that the complaints about Indian fishing aren't about their agreed upon rights. It's about the wrongs of the Gov., Tribal Comm.'s, and some lawless individual netters. Read "share the fish in common with" (signed Treaties), and "split the fish deemed harvestable equally" (Federal Court Treaty review mandate), and then read about the "Col. Tribes get 13% of the springers, everyone else combined gets 2%". There it is. What's so difficult to understand about this mistake? That may be correctable in the near future. ...


Back to the thread purpose for a minute ... if the Native American Tribes (particularly the members involved in fish netting negotiations) and the sportfishers can gain a better understanding of each other and learn to communicate better, chances would be better to come to more agreeable fishing allocation fairness; even if the chances aren't real high for a complete agreement. I have e-mail invited members of Columbia Tribes and NW Washington Tribes to access and read these posts here and on the Piscatorial BB. I explained that moderators will take out any inflamatory blatant racist posts. Several are already registered on Bob's site. But so far they have chosen not to reply, except one post on Bob's BB. I still hope they will. If they don't I'm sure most here will credibly figure they haven't because they won't be able to rightfully defend against the wrongs brought forth within this thread. And perhaps aren't interested in improving communication. If they were to invite me and/or some other members with varying views here to come up and visit with them about all this at their place, wouldn't we go and cummunicate; along with an unbiased rep of the media? I sure think so. ... I did finally come up with the e-mail address of Mr. Randy Settler, the high up Yakama official mentioned in the Tri-city Herald article by Mike Lee. He was the Tribal official that was involved in sending the Raindance bill to the BPA. I sent him an invitation to join our discussion, along with any pertinent Tribal members (sent 5/24/01). The Yakamas are members of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and one of the most involved Tribes in Col. fish netting allocation negotiations. Hopefully they won't also avoid communication. In case any of them ask me anything on here, I will be gone up to B.C. from early this Sunday to about late Wednesday or Thursday to fish for saltwater chinooks that will have no net marks on them. I hope when I get back to see Indian participation on here. And kept civil and productive by all. That would be great!

RT

just shut up and fish..........

A little more alert this morning, I went thru and re-read this thread too. I noticed in LittleZoZo's post he mentioned a reference to the word "drunks". Hey Zo, that word wasn't used in the deleted thread; unless someone deleted their post before I saw it, and in such a case shame on that one person and glad it got deleted. Please excuse me Keta if it was there and I missed it. However, after reading your post Zo I do now recall a post refering to a peace pipe or similar - I hope you are correct that it seemed to be a humor attempt; but that is the insensative stuff that should be avoided in heated threads. Thanks Zo. ...

And Native Pride, thank you too for your post above in this thread. I definitely agree with your quote of "anyway RT it don,t bother me at all. What really bugs me is when people are totally inaccurate in what they post about." BTW, you now aren't the only Native American to reply here. ...

... Blueback has chimed in with his wisdom. Hey Blue', sounds like you been hangin around with the "Renegade White Man" too much. Ya, let him get a ticket next time. ... Oh ya, we'll shut up and fish when we are allowed to also.

RT