Campus Free Speech

Political Correctness: UW-Stout Censors 'Harmful' Native American Murals

Diversity Team complains that historical depictions are racist and offensive, even when they're not.

|

Traders
Cal Peters

The University of Wisconsin-Stout has removed two historic murals from their places of prominence after members of the Diversity Leadership Team complained that they might make Native American students feel uncomfortable.

It's hard to see why. Both murals are rather innocuous. One depicts fur trappers and Native Americans canoeing down a river. The other depicts an American fortress from colonial times. There's no violence depicted in the works of art. Indeed, the white traders and natives seem to be getting along perfectly well.

Ah, but the murals could theoretically be offensive to someone, so they have to go.

"There's a segment of Native American students, that when they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them, and they feel bad when they look at them," said UW-Stout Chancellor Bob Meyer in an interview with NPR. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meyer is right, of course, to note that Native Americans were victimized by white settlers. But we can't change that by pretending it never happened—by censoring history. A public university has a responsibility—an obligation, even—to explore the truth, not shield its students from it. Grappling with the imperfect and the unsavory aspects of American history is a necessary way of studying it.

I would understand, I suppose, if students were bothered by a mural that, say, depicted an extremely bloody battle between settlers and Native Americans. But these murals show nothing of the sort. The trappers and the Native Americans seem to be getting along perfectly well in at least one of them. Why is this offensive?

One gets the feeling that any depiction of Native Americans would be deemed problematic by UW-Stout's administration. Ironically, the university is apparently caving to the wishes of the campus's Diversity Leadership Team, which objected to the paintings on grounds that they were "harmful" and perpetuate racial stereotypes, according to The Daily Caller.

Again, the murals do nothing of the sort.

"American history and representations of that history can be ugly and offensive," said UW-Stout English and philosophy professor Timothy Shiell. "But hiding them doesn't change the past or the future."

The university plans to move the murals to different locations on campus, where the risk of them being seen by actual students isn't as large.

NEXT: Philly Chinese Restaurants Looking to Get Late Night Curfew Lifted

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Grievence industry is grievous

  2. Things that give minority groups the sad defined by upper class white liberals. Who’s the racists?

    1. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

  3. “There’s a segment of Native American students, that when they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them, and they feel bad when they look at them,”

    Hey Bob, I’m willing to bet a year’s salary that none of them were around then to have “land and possessions were taken away from them.” Are we on?

    1. I’m a white geezer libtard who was Amerikkkan Injun (and shit on) 8 lifetimes ago, says my past-lives hysterical historical regression therapist, so I am ENTITLED to speak for the shit-upon Injuns!!!

      So THERE!!! Now, disprove my theory, if’ ya dare…

  4. Fucking Taliban wannabe art-hating motherfuckers.

    -jcr

    1. Pretty much, yep.

      These are murals, too. They can’t just put them in storage until this madness passes (if it does). They will either be destroyed or heavily damaged, is my guess, unless they let some art preservation types take charge of covering them up so they can be uncovered later.

      1. Oops. Just saw they are going to move them.

        What the everlovin’ fuck? Are they less offensive because they are in a different building? This compounds stupidity with pointlessness.

        1. Why don’t they just put plywood over them, and paint a new mural. Might I suggest an effeminate looking man receiving a marriage license in a Creation of Adam type motif? Perhaps God can be done in the image of Kim Davis– the clothing wouldn’t need that much interpretation.

          1. Not a marriage license – Barack Obama gifting an androgynous, ethnically ambiguous disadifferently-abled individual with a health insurance contract.

            While angeTitle IX Coordinators and EEOC Inspectors look on.

            1. Like Conquistadores in Tenochtitlan, but reversed – tear down the old edifices and toss up the new gang’s take on the same totalitarian fantasy bullshit.

              History repeats or rhymes or something-something.

          2. A towering depiction of Pajama Boy.

  5. RE: Political Correctness: UW-Stout Censors ‘Harmful’ Native American Murals
    Diversity Team complains that historical depictions are racist and offensive, even when they’re not.

    The UW-Sout censors are quite right when employing the wonderful form of censorship called political correctness. This way the little people who have paid an obscene amount of money to be re-educated will not be able to draw conclusions for themselves or be exposed to the heinous crime of seeing the indigenous population placed on an ugly canvas which depicts them as they were many years ago. This way the student population will get their money’s worth of political correct indoctrination and the native Americans will be forever wiped out in the Amerikan art sector forever.
    Isn’t that what art should be?

  6. What is with the desire to wipe out all references to American Aborigines in history, art, and popular culture?

    1. It doesn’t fit the narrative. We only need murals depicting the peaceful and ultra sophisticated native Americans being robbed and enslaved by barbaric evil white devils with guns.

      1. +Noble Savage

      2. It’s the depiction of the white trappers and Indians actually peacefully cooperating that’s offensive.

    1. That’s deep.

  7. Don’t tell them about the Crazy Horse Memorial until it’s finished (so probably in a hundred and fifty to two hundred years).

    1. Is that the one with all the strippers?

  8. Indeed, the white traders and natives seem to be getting along perfectly well

    Which is why it is so offensive and politically incorrect.

    1. objected to the paintings on grounds that they were “harmful” and perpetuate racial stereotypes
      The paintings are considered “harmful” because they don’t perpetuate stereotypes.

      1. Exactly

  9. So who are they to deem what’s offensive to other people or not?

    1. Look, what will happen to minorities when rich white liberals are not around to tell them to vote Democrat and get on welfare? Back to slavery!

  10. “Fuck Off” would have been the appropriate answer.

    1. I think perhaps we’ve been too quick to write off the overuse of drugs for mental illness. Over-medicating the crap out of young people is a lot less intrusive way to address their inability to handle reality, rather than trying to turn the entire country into a giant safe space.

  11. Diversity Leadership Team complained that they might make Native American students feel uncomfortable.

    Is this what Adam Carolla was talking about when he referenced people whose profession was to be offended for other people?

  12. Meyer is right, of course, to note that Native Americans were victimized by white settlers.

    Phew, got that out of the way.

    1. White settlers like Donald J Trump’s pimp grandfather

      1. Interesting character.

    2. Meyer is right, of course

      Obligatory

      Or

      But of course, Trump is worse than Hitler will also do.

  13. Meyer is right, of course, to note that Native Americans were victimized by white settlers. But we can’t change that by pretending it never happened?by censoring history.

    You’re right, of course, who could forget the time that white settlers came unarmed, collected weapons inside a community and began massacring women and children?

    Oh wait, that was the Powhatan.

    I’m sorry, right, we’re here talking about not censoring history. I’ll just let Robby get back to his ahistorical narrative of the poor Indians solely being horribly victimized by the white man, and there never, ever being any back-and-forth atrocities by both sides that might warrant discussion.

    1. Just tell them the Indians were being culturally enriched by wonderous diversity.

    2. I’m beginning to think he throws the “of course” bit into every one of his posts solely to troll his detractors.

      1. I personally think it’s less ‘to troll his detractors’ and more ‘the American education system continues to teach this ‘noble savage’ bullshit’ in this case.

    3. I think it’s retarded to hold people centuries ago to our contemporary moral standards. That being said, I have nothing against the Apache or the Comanche who were hardcore about brutalizing their enemies. It was a perfectly valid and effective tactic to deter encroachment into their territories by settlers as evidenced by how long it took to subdue those particular tribes.

      Disease killed the vast majority of indigenous peoples in the Americas and that was obviously unintentional.

      1. I’m not aiming to project my moral standards on the past, more presenting a criticism of the moral preenings that immediately begins whenever someone tries to talk about Amerindian/European interactions.

        I.e. Stop projecting this stupid “victim vs. oppressor” narrative onto history and pretending that is history when it utterly lacks nuance. It completely undermines any serious discussion we can have about it by setting up obvious ‘protagonist’ characters/groups and ‘antagonist’ characters/groups and demanding we sympathize or demonize in specific ways.

      2. It wasn’t all unintentional: didn’t Lord Amherst give blankets from the smallpox hospital to natives, purposely in order to start a plague?

        1. No he never did such a thing. Amherst wrote in a letter that he would like too. A trader in Fort Pitt gave some to Delaware Indians who were besieging the fort.

        2. SIV is correct on the later smallpox blanket plans. Grand Moff is referring to the much earlier Columbus Exchange pandemics that wiped out massive amounts of the Amerindian population in eastern North America, Mexico, etc.

          1. Oh, the Colombia introduced plagues weren’t definitely unintentional. I was under the impression that some later Europeans had purposely spread plagues.

            1. SIV is correct in this case. While the whole smallpox blanket idea was considered, it was never actually carried out. Most likely due to the obvious logistical issues, since anybody handing out smallpox blankets would probably get infected as well.

              1. Did they know what caused smallpox in those days? I don’t think they knew about germs and human immune systems and their knowledge was pretty sketchy about what caused most illnesses. Otherwise why would they bleed people and put mustard packs on their heads? It’s hard to have germ warfare when you don’t know what a germ is.

                1. They’d been doing germ warfare in sieges for years. Throwing dead rotting cow carcasses into a besieged town was considered good strategy. Also, being around sick people’s cloth things makes you sick is a pretty easy leap to make even if you don’t know what a germ is.

          2. Many of the plagues were pre-Columbus.

        3. How the hell could it be done “on purpose” when germ theory wasn’t even a thing yet?

    4. *sigh*

      Soave didn’t say there was no back and forth (I presume…I didn’t RTFA).

      And while you are certainly correct that Native tribes killed plenty of settlers, including women and children, (who from their perspective may have been invaders), it’s also true that there was eventually a systematic attempt to throw the tribes off their historical lands through force and war if necessary, with no respect for their property rights and little attempt to treat them as people with equal rights.

      1. Read above. I’m not excusing atrocities by either side (as my comment actually stated) I’m criticized Robby for immediately jumping into an ahistorical ‘victim vs. oppressor’ narratives that completely lacks any nuance. He’s complaining about censoring history while deliberately plastering a modern sociopolitical argument onto history and carving it into a narrative. It’s ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

        1. I hear you, but I think you are falling into the same trap you accuse Soave of.

          Is the noble savage myth a, well, myth? Sure, and I’m all for correcting an ahistorical narrative (but again, I don’t see Soave doing that here).

          Would the natives have acted similarly to the Europeans if they had the weapons? Probably, but so what? It shouldn’t be about who was oppressing whom, it should be about how much better the world is/can be when we respect everyone’s rights. The native tribes provided some teachable moments in that regard. The Europeans/Americans provided a whole hell of a lot.

          1. It shouldn’t be about who was oppressing whom, it should be about how much better the world is/can be when we respect everyone’s rights.

            Except that is exactly what Robby does. He immediately collectivizes literally thousands of cultures into ‘group that is oppressed/victimized’. Millions of people’s individual experiences are disregarded. My own ancestors are Wyandot/Huron peoples who were scattered by the Iroquois. Eventually they were able to assimilate into early French Canada at a time when their fellow Amerindians were hunting them. I’m sorry, but it’s just plain disingenuous to claim that part of my heritage was some horrible victimization process.

            And that’s just fundamentally ignorant, from both a historical and libertarian perspective. If you are going to talk about abuses, atrocities or other negative events do so from a contextual and historical mindset if you want to be called a historian, and from an individualist perspective if you want to be called a libertarian. A narrow minded racialist perspective is the worst way to perceive five hundred years of very complex history.

            1. I think you’re basically right here. Also worth noting that the Apaches and indeed the whole plains indian horse culture weren’t really historical tribes, they were created by the introduction of horses into North America by the Spanish. The tribes that acquired horses wiped out the tribes that predated them, as evidenced by the extinction of the Anasazi indians in Arizona a suspicious 500 years ago.

              However, it should be noted that the campaign by white settlers to displace the indians wasn’t just some product of ignorance and the morality of the time. This was still going on in the late 1800s, well after slavery was abolished. Luminaries such as Meriweather Lewis argued adamantly at the time in defence of the Native Americans and their rights too. So, people of the time were fully cognizant of the immorality of what was going on. They knew better and did it anyway, and then the history got retold to whitewash it by either saying that relations between the whites and natives were always hostile (they weren’t) or that the people in the 1800s didn’t know any better (they did). If anything there was more racism in the 1800s than in colonial times, because it served as a convenient justification for people to rationalize driving them off their land.

              1. I often wonder if the natives had a clearer concept of property rights that they could have held on to their land easier. Not having written maps and contracts worked to their disadvantage as well.

              2. as evidenced by the extinction of the Anasazi indians

                I thought they were actually aliens….

      2. “a systematic attempt to throw the tribes off their historical lands through force and war if necessary, with no respect for their property rights and little attempt to treat them as people with equal rights.”

        Which is not really any different than the various Native tribes were doing to each other long before white men ever showed up.

        The Aztecs enslaved surrounding tribes and practiced bloody human sacrifices before the Spanish ever showed up to spoil their fun.

    5. The natives weren’t any better or worse people than the Europens – they just weren’t as well armed.

      1. Not as well armed but also not as good with strategy. Hernando Cortes landed in Mexico in 1519 with 11 ships, 110 sailors, 553 soldiers with only 13 handguns and 32 crossbows. They had 10 heavy cannons, 4 light cannons, and 16 horses. The Aztec empire numbered around 5 million. His military arms were an advantage, but not nearly sufficient in the face of such numerical odds. The fact that he could persuade so many other Indian peoples to join with him against the Aztecs was what helped him bring down the empire. Not to mention the legend that the god Quetzalcoatl would return one day as a tall, light skinned, long bearded type worked in his favor.

      2. Oh I think you could make a pretty good case they weren’t better people. Theirs a reason western civilization is more free and wealthy, and we don’t have to play the culturally relativist game.

    6. I hope no one tells the story about white devils buying Manhattan Island for some glass beads and bobbles. That could trigger a pants shitting wave of Biblical proportion. Yes, this is supposedly debunked, but still..,

  14. An inventor walks into a chemist’s lab and says, “I have a great idea for a new product, but’s highly flammable. Do you have anything that will make it safe?”

    The chemist grabs a bottle off the shelf and hands it to the inventor saying “Here, this should do the trick.”

    “My God, man, doesn’t this cause cancer?” the investor asks, shocked.

    The chemist shrugs his shoulders and replies, “Yeah, but it’s asbestos as I can do!”

    1. That’s an original, kiddos. You’re welcome. Just don’t go all Carlos Mencia.

      1. “It’s asbestos I can do” flows much better.

        1. Bah, that’s what I meant to type in the first place.

  15. Hiding shit doesn’t change the future? You’re fucking-A right it doesn’t!

    …a bunch of goddamned retards up there.

    It would be really awesome if the Native American students got together and told these concern trolls that Natives can decide for themselves what is and is not offensive to Natives.

    In ten years, Problematic Studies is going to be a major.

  16. Well I for one am triggered by seeing people wearing pajamas as it reminds me of how those were cruelly appropriated from my people by the British. I demand you all stop wearing them immediately. I’ll post an address later for sending checks.

    Also, stop with the yoga already. Except keep the yoga pants; I Culturally Approve.

    1. Yes, please don’t take women wearing yoga pants in public away from me; it’s one the true joys in my life.

  17. UW Stout is an academic joke in the UW system and it some how one upped itself with this one.

    1. There’s always Stevens Point.

  18. One painting depicts French traders paddling with Natives, the other is of a French fort. The French and Indians were allies at this point in history, fighting against the imperialist monsters that spewed forth from British America. If these painting trigger anything it should be feelings of pride and reverence for these mighty warriors ready to fight the evil, encroaching America lurking just beyond the painting’s edge.

    The French and Indian War, anybody? Does UW-Stout not have any history professors that could point this out?

    1. Surely not. History is much too offensive.

    2. During that period the British controlled the Atlantic coast while the French controlled the inland areas, including Fort Duquesne in what is now Pittsburgh.

      George Washington led a scout force into southwestern Pennsylvania and ran into a French group lead by an officer named Jumonville. Washington got the jump on the French, but when he wasn’t looking Washington’s Indian scout buried his hatchet in Jumonville’s skill and was witnessed washing his hands in the guy’s brains.

      Washington was like, “What the FUCK, man?” Word got back as to what had happened and Jumonville’s brother was beyond pissed, marching a larger group of French troops down there, kicking Washington’s ass and forcing him to sign terms of surrender.

      See what trouble those savages brought.

  19. It’s interesting how comfortable the white man is here with judging the validity of our feelings.

    1. Thing is, fuck your feelings. One group’s feelings don’t have any privilege over another groups. Work it out like men (or women).

      1. Fuck my feelings? Easy for the white man to say, I suppose. But my ancestors were here to greet the Mayflower, and while I can’t speak for all of my people, I will. I can tell you any time we see murals like that it reminds us that we are a second class citizen, forced to drink our fire water collecting much wampum at heap big casinos segregated from the laws of pale face. As my brother, Jimmy Melts in Sunlight, once said to me, no roundeye gonna judge my feels!

        Imagine if whites were forced every day to walk past a mural depicting, oh, I don’t know, a mayonnaise factory blowing up or a canceled Dave Matthews Band concert or something. Yeah. Not so funny now is it?

        1. +3 diamonds.

          1. I don’t get it. It is the anniversary of the Nagasaki bomb that blew up the Mitsubishi plant, but what’s that got to do w this?

  20. I saw an interview with the Parks & Rec cast, where they said the murals in Pawnee City Hall were based on real murals the producers saw when they were researching the background for the show. So, there is hope (if you’re not familiar, Parks & Rec had some violent-ass murals).

      1. We also need better, less offensive history

        That about sums up this whole thing, eh?

    1. Let’s also not forget the Great Seal of the Village of Whitesboro, New York.

      Despite the fact that town residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of keeping the seal public outcry when the story was run nationwide has caused the mayor and city council to promise to change it.

      The facts are that the seal depicts a friendly wrestling match between village founder Hugh White and an Oneida Indian. But we live in a post-reality society so that is entirely irrelevant.

      1. The original seal had White bash the Indian with a folding chair.

        1. That could be why Stossel doesn’t live there.

  21. Ask the “Diversity Team Director” (Cultural Commissar) for a definition of diversity. I guarantee you it’s meaningless goobledy-gook.

  22. “There’s a segment of Native American students, that when they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them, and they feel bad when they look at them”

    Paleface have head up ass, our warriors heap brave, not scared of pictures.

    But we prefer Post Impressionists, except Great Hawk, him partial to Pre Raphaelites.

  23. So when will UW-Stout get rid of this other hateful painting by hate-painter Cal Peters?

    1. Too many white people. Offensive.

      1. No it’s the title: “Learning, Industry, Skill and Honor”. Nobody can live up to that standard!

  24. “to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them”

    That applies to every culture that’s ever existed. Should Rome be torn down because they once took the French’s land?

  25. It’s not about murals. It’s about banning things, especially things related to culture and history, and speech and expression. They left figured out that they couldn’t just outright repeal the first amendment and take history lessons out of school, so they went down this route. And it appears effective so I suspect they’re going to double down, soon.

    First of all, they don’t want you knowing about history because you will see how badly their ideology has failed. Second, they don’t want any dissenting opinions expressed and debated. They only want their own opinions to be allowed. All of this outrage and being offended stuff is just useful idiots being used to further an agenda, nothing new.

    1. as my idiot prog friend said, whenever someone says “political correctness”, just say “kindness” instead.

      i mean, it’s all about being nice to each other

      1. Kindness? Sure… at the barrel of a gun.

    2. Anyone who wants more of this PC crap, you’ll get it if Hillary wins.

      If you want less of this PC crap, you’ll get it if Trump wins.

  26. “Meyer is right, of course, to note that Native Americans were victimized by white settlers. ”

    We should all learn our American history from comic books and hang cheesy paintings of Indian braves raising their arms to rainbows while wolves and horses gambol about.

    1. We need to check with Lieawatha.

      I heer tell she an expert on all things Injun.

    1. I’m most offended by FDR

      1. check the inscriptions on the 3 pres monument

      1. In San Francisco we’ve got things named after Harry Bridges, now known to have been a Soviet spy and the man in charge of sabotaging West Coast ports should Stalin had ever asked.

        1. I remember, before the archives were unsealed, reading about the persecution of the poor innocent Harry Bridges by the forces of right-wing evilism.

  27. Look out pioneers dudes! The injuns are sneaking up on you!

  28. The university plans to move the murals to different locations on campus, where the risk of them being seen by actual students isn’t as large.

    Oh, FFS! What would these low-risk locations be? Math and physics classrooms?

    1. The transgendered only bathrooms?

  29. Painting idea: I recently found a mid-1800s map of the Dakota Territories online and, in the northwestern corner of where SD is now established, I noticed a group of buttes labelled “The Hills Where the Crows were Killed.”

    Curious, I dug deeper online and found an Indian forum where they talked about how, around 1820, the Lakota attacked a Crow settlement and, to get the heat off of their women and children, the Crow warriors climbed a butte but ended up getting surrounded by the Lakota under a boiling summer sun.

    The Crow ended up dying of thirst and, apparently very quickly, the Lakota were stricken by an awful disease (smallpox?) and crawled into a ravine where they all died!

    The place is now called The Canyon of the Skulls.

    1. The Indians were committing atrocity after countless atrocity against Indians of other tribes. It was a savage, stone-age culture. The didn’t see whites as anything special, just another tribe to contend with. They were not especially offended by whites, or especially victimized.

      I remember reading about a couple of tribes that were having trouble in the Lake Charles area (notorious cannibals) sending a party of 100 or so to New Orleans to seek protection from the whites. By the time the party arrived it consisted of exactly one. All of the others had been killed by other Indians on the trip.

      1. It was a savage, stone-age culture.

        Bronze-age.

        1. Interesting.

    1. They should replace the cig with a walkie-talkie.

    1. Studying Hayek was my favorite part of econ.

      1. Studying Hayek is my favorite part of self-pollution.

  30. “The university plans to move the murals to different locations on campus, where the risk of them being seen by actual students isn’t as large.”

    So to the transgender bathroom?

  31. Now this is a complaint campaign I can get behind!

    However that Ferris wheel of fried foods is fantastic. It doesn’t belong amongst the rest of these, stupid, ideas.

    1. Plates are so bourgeois, man.

      1. Serve me the food of the proletariat on a platter made from the death of capitalism!

        1. Let the strong wind of farmed fish blow across your plate!

          1. Farmed fish? I thought that was Hillary!

    2. By Crom, the best serving dish is the skull of your defeated enemy.

      1. +1 loincloth

  32. Speaking of grievances run amok:

    http://www.foxsports.com/colle…..byu-080816

    “On Monday, Athlete Ally, a non-profit that conducts LGBT awareness campaigns for sports leagues, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, sent a letter to Big 12 administrators detailing what they believe are discriminatory policies by BYU, a religious institution owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

    The First Amendment won’t be destroyed in a fire or anything like that.

    This is how it will first recede and then be rendered impotent. One grievance at a time.

    1. You are only as free as your culture allows you to be. The government can restrict your freedom but it can’t make you more free than your culture allows. Reason can’t seem to understand that. They think “well as long as the government is involved” it must be okay. Ah, no it is not okay.

    2. And why the hell would a gay want to go to a Mormon college? The idea that the solution to something you don’t like is “I won’t go there” never occurs to these totalitarian bastards. The LGBTQWERTYUTVSLK activists or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves today. They are just appalling. And reason hired a writer, Scott Shackleford, whose entire job consists of apologizing and excusing their behavior.

      1. Whatever happened to ‘live and let live’? Them going after a private Mormon institution jumps the shark.

        1. It is what they do. They don’t give a shit about being gay or gays. Hell, I think most of the them are not really gay in the sense of being attracted to the same sex. I think the “activists” just use being gay as an excuse to be a pain in the ass and demand attention and fuck with people. They are not gay. They are just assholes.

  33. This is a list of how far your money goes in each state and DC.

    DC is dead last.

    And these fuckers have so many idiots convinced they can improve the economy.

    1. Its only dead last because your are competing with people who have stolen millions and millions of dollars via lobbying and such.

      And as hard as it is to believe, Yglesias and several other journalists were claiming a few years ago that Washington DC was a model for how other cities’ economies should work. I am not kidding. It was like a real life Steve Martin skit.

  34. ***Trigger Warning***Safe Space Advised*** I’m confused, if these snowflakes refuse to study history and uncomfortable things then how do they know that the evil white man stole their ancestors land? Can’t we just send them through a UW-Stout revisionist history class that says something completely different to soothe their troubled intellect? After all the white devil didn’t stomp all of the savages and steal their land, some of it was traded for shiny trinkets (see Manhattan Island).

  35. “There’s a segment of Native American students, that when they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them,

    Speaking of alternative medicine – we should find out how these Native American Students have stayed alive and active for so long that they’re going to college now, a good 150 years after all that land and those possessions were taken away from them.

    And then ask them why they’re mad about that old stuff instead of the current regime of stuffing them on reservations, feeding them welfare, and then using the BIA and tribal ‘governments’ to stifle any chance of getting ahead?

    1. Now now, don’t sell the natives short – they are perfectly capable of having their own corrupt governments handing out patronage and cronyism at the expense of the common tribal members.

      1. Oh, you did mention tribal governments.

        1. Its like peanut butter and chocolate – two corrupt and mendacious levels of government together are better than separate.

          1. My SIL got elected to the tribal council as part of a “throw the bums out” election.
            The cronyism and nepotism didn’t end, it just was switched to a different group of people.

            1. If the nepotism continued, I hope you at least got in on it.

              /just busting your balls

              1. (Good thing it’s only the Indians who practice nepotism, and not this great multicultural nation which is about to elect the First Woman President on her merits alone)

  36. I, for one, am not offended by pictures of a man in a canoe.

        1. I’m not at work. You guys had a lot more freedom to work with.

        2. The Axe of my childhood?

  37. The university plans to move the murals to different locations on campus, where the risk of them being seen by actual students isn’t as large.

    Try the entrance of the campus library.

  38. “… it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them.”

    And hundreds of years later, the government still abuses eminent domain.

  39. Meyer is right, of course, to note that Native Americans were victimized by white settlers

    God you’re fucking insufferable.

    1. Cruz should go cry in his pillow and take a snooze, even in 4 years, he will lose. What will he choose, panckackes, or some pocket booze, whoring from state to state giving blowjobs in a caboose?

      Maybe he’ll be a televangelist on the TV, trying to Peter Popoff the shit out of you and me. He’ll sell you that crappy bread, robbing folks with grins and glee, while that miracle spring water is made from someone’s well hydrated pee.

  40. Go to your safe space and spray yourself with mace. Then find the nearest wall and run into it first with your face. Maybe you’ll enjoy sipping food and cum through a straw with the brace that’s on your jaw. I’m sure you’d have no problem forcing ur feels on others through the law. And have those jack booted thugs swoop in to lock folks up like a macaw, all while stealing the childrenz cole slaw, threatening them with a jagged tooth wood saw.

  41. Please invite me in, offering a pint of your blood is not a sin. If you prefer, I can give you some gin, or some really cool things from my creepy looking storage bin.

    You won’t fight when I bite, you’ll most likely cream in your pants and wish this could last all night. I can’t stay too long, no I won’t get burned by the morning light, I actually have to be on time for our Vampire flight.

  42. Don’t you like chilling in the breeze? It’s so relaxing, like watching Bob Ross painting happy little trees. I wonder if he ever made one with little bees, that went off to attack an army of fleas, while producing special honey that cured some disease.

    1. Someone’s moving in on Agile Cyborg’s territory.

      1. No. AC is the poet, which apparently you didn’t know it, for it is I who had to show it. I just rhyme some of the time.

        Agile’s poetry is something no one can move in on. Because his territory I protect, of which vioators will be gone.

        So gamer from the jump, don’t be like Trump, and rush to conclusions so fast like someone rushing to take a diarrhea dump. I don’t think you’re trying to start shit like a chump, because if you were, Crusty would be sent to ravage your rump, of which afterwards you would be hobbling around like the young Forrest Gump because he is the size of a Redwood stump.

  43. TSA is not going to intrude into your everyday life, guys.

    1. They can always hire a hooker to dress in a TSA uniform and give them a “full patdown.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.