GLIMMERS AND INTIMATIONS: What we did on our pre-holiday weekend!


The demographication rules: We're told that Thanksgiving occurs this week, presumably on a Thursday.

Inevitably, that meant it was time for the Washington Post to publish a certain, currently mandated glimmer and intimation.

We refer to the lengthy news report from which we'll quote below. It appeared in the online Post on Saturday morning. As far as we can tell, the lengthy report hasn't yet appeared in the paper's print editions.

The report was written by a young journalist—a young journalist who graduated from college this very year. We don't offer that as a criticism of this journalist. It does strike us as a possible comment on the possible cynicism of her editors at the Post.

As almost everyone knows, the lengthy report this young journalist wrote has become standard fare in the past few years. The mandated headline says this:

These Native Americans focus on family amid Thanksgiving’s dark history

By now, everyone knows what the various versions of this report are going to say. They're going to say that while we Anglos (and Afros?) love the holiday in question, it's a very painful occasion for (many?) Native Americans.

It's going to say that the traditional history is all wrong, which everyone already knows, and that vicious historical brutality followed from there. 

Everyone already knows those things! But, to borrow from the famous old joke, while all these things have already been said, not every member of our tribe has had the chance to say them.

In this case, the report began as shown below. In the passage we've highlighted, we experienced our first point of puzzlement:

CHERY (11/19/22): For centuries, Thanksgiving has been billed as an opportunity for friends and family to gather, with peace and gratitude in their hearts. But for Native Americans, celebrating the autumnal holiday isn’t as simple.

The short-and-sweet story told in schools depicting the first Thanksgiving as a harmonious harvest celebration between Native people and Pilgrims “was a very romanticized, Whitewashed education about Indigenous peoples,” said Jordan Daniel, who’s a member of the Lower Brule Sioux tribe.

In reality, 1621 was not the first celebration of Thanksgiving between the English and the Wampanoag people, said David Silverman, a George Washington University professor who specializes in Native American history. The Wampanoags tried to ally with the English for trade and to maintain political independence from another Native group after an epidemic dwindled their numbers.

“Tensions built for years as the English population grew and began dispossessing, subjugating and evangelizing Native people,” Silverman said. Finally, war broke out around 1675, and after the English won, they enslaved about 2,000 American Indian prisoners of war, he added.

In 1970, the United American Indians of New England began commemorating Thanksgiving Day as a National Day of Mourning to honor their ancestors who experienced cultural genocide at the hands of European colonialists.

Native Americans as a whole say they’re still fighting for what’s rightfully theirs...

Already, we were puzzled. According to the Post report, Professor Silverman had said that "1621 was not the first celebration of Thanksgiving between the English and the Wampanoag people" (our emphasis). 

We were curious blue. Since the English (the "Pilgrims") had only settled in Wampanoag territory in 1620, we didn't know what previous celebration was being alluded to. 

The remarks by Silverman which were actually quoted didn't speak to that question. Nor did we know why that claim would be relevant to the larger, spectacularly familiar story which was (once again) being told. 

Skillfully, we clicked the link which appeared beneath the words, "In reality." We were taken to a version of this mandated new report which appeared in last year's Post.

(Last year's version: "In 1621, some pilgrims and some Wampanoags shared a feast. It wasn't the first meeting between the two groups and it wouldn't be the last, but for many reasons—including the American Civil War—the anniversary of that meal took on both an outsized importance and a whitewashed simplicity.")

Had Professor Silverman really said that the officially whitewashed "First Thanksgiving" actually wasn't "the first celebration of Thanksgiving between the English and the Wampanoag people?" 

We have no idea. In fairness, that isn't a major point in the glimmer and intimation the Post was offering here.

What did we do on our pre-holiday weekend? In large part, we traumatized ourselves by spending hours looking at the proposed guidelines for the state of Virginia's public school social studies curriculum.

We're speaking here about the (barely readable) 402 pages of guidelines which had been formulated before Glenn Youngkin took over as Virginia's governor. For background on this very poorly-reported issue, see Saturday's report.

What did we find when we looked at those 402 pages of guidelines? We saw the nightmare of incoherence and pomposification which seems to emerge from our blue tribe's public school leadership cadres whenever they're given the chance.

We suffered flashbacks from our interactions with similar posthuman pseudo-verbiage dating back to the 1970s. The traumatization remains, but we'll probably try to force ourselves to return to this topic, if only briefly, in the days to come.

We spent some time fighting our way through that punishing verbiage. We also wandered about, as we now do every year, in the current mandated version of the Thanksgiving story.

That version has replaced the "whitewashed" version which may (or may not?) still prevail in the nation's schools. That new version of the Thanksgiving story now appears in our major newspapers every year.

What did we find when we tilled those fields? We found glimmers and intimations of the way our own blue tribe struggles to keep The Other Tribe from voting in the ways we'd prefer. 

We'd also say that we saw glimmers of our tribe's demographication rules, which we expect to describe in the days and weeks ahead.

Alas! We were reminded of the last two points on Kevin Drum's recent seven-point list—two of the things centrist voters (and, presumably, conservatives) allegedly don't like about us:

Drum: "Things centrist voters don't like about us" 
Point 6: They think wokeness is ridiculous. They want us to stop talking like academics from another galaxy. 
Point 7: They do not like being called racist.

In some ways, we thought about the first of those points when we reread this interview with Professor Silverman—an interview conducted by the Smithsonian back in 2019.

Just to be completely honest, we also thought about this:

We thought about the Native American kids who will be born tomorrow. We thought about the various ways their interests may or may not best be served.

We thought about the various ways various peoples around the world sometimes have and haven't dealt with the unmistakable facts of the world's unmistakably brutal history. We'll admit that we thought about the way some of those peoples may seem, at times, to cling to those brutal histories in way which may, or perhaps may not, best serve the planet's future.

What should children be taught about our nation's history in Virginia's schools? What might serve the interests of the children who will be born tomorrow all across this giant land?

There's a lot to ponder in the report that freshman journalist penned for the Post! On the whole, she was simply reworking a current standard story—a current story which is replacing an earlier standard story. 

In the process, was she producing a helpful new mandated story for readers to memorize? Does this process serve the interests of the nation as a whole—of the children born tomorrow?

Tomorrow: Continuing in the Post's current report:

"Native Americans as a whole say they’re still fighting for what’s rightfully theirs. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe still doesn’t have control over their entire ancestral land." 


  1. Are we sure these native Americans aren't just saying this to make "the Others", who we need to respect more, feel icky about themselves?

  2. “Everyone already knows those things!”

    On what basis does Somerby make this assertion? His blogging tends to show how stupid and uninformed Americans are. The notion that they know the things mentioned here is dubious at best.

    Also, the last I heard, there are new generations of American citizens being born every day, who don’t know these things until they are taught them, so they bear repeating.

    And they won’t be taught them if certain factions have their way.

    Does the Native American side of the story conflict with Somerby’s possible desire to “whitewash” American history?

    BS from Bob Somerby.

    1. weirdly Somerby says yeah yeah we all know about the true history and about your performative virtue caring for an accurate representation of history between the settler colonizers and the indigenous people, and then proceeds to make clear he knows nothing about the history.

      bitter and out for blood, Somerby never fails to also make a fool of himself.

  3. "Had Professor Silverman really said that the officially whitewashed "First Thanksgiving" actually wasn't "the first celebration of Thanksgiving between the English and the Wampanoag people?"

    We have no idea. "

    Why does Somerby have no idea? It seems pretty clear that Silverman said there were other meetings but that this particular one was adopted for purposes of creating the holiday in 1970

    Is Somerby saying he doesn't believe Silverman? On what basis? Somerby is disputable historical facts with a historian, and he offers no evidence to support a challenge to Silverman's statement.

    Is it OK to challenge these corrections to whitewashed history strictly by complaining that they are blue? Somerby doesn't even know what Silverman's politics might be. It isn't as if the Democratic party were pushing this revision, which appeared in the Washington Post and provides additional info about the upcoming holiday. Shouldn't it be important to everyone to (1) get the facts straight, (2) include the Indians' version of what happened in order to include them in our national celebration, (3) stop perpetuating myths that are harmful to minority groups, in this case the Wampanoags?

    I get it that Somerby wants his holidays left alone, to celebrate in his family's traditional style (which he seems to assume everyone else does too, except those ratty Indians and their blasted professors). One can still have their Thanksgiving dinner with family -- but keeping in mind that there is little connection between this modern day and what happened to the Wampanoags is important too, especially to those and other Indian peoples. And what does it cost Somerby get things right once in a while.

    So Somerby denial, without any factual basis, strikes me as churlish and bigoted, and his main argument appears to be that he personally doesn't like what the news has done to his holiday, which after must be done in exactly the way he has done it from childhood, without the intrusion of any annoying minority groups. And that makes Somerby very different from most liberals, who might not be fascinated by the way history has changed that event, but at least recognize a responsibility to honor the reality instead of the cover up, a whitewashed Norman Rockwell version of peace between indigenous Indians and the immigrants from England. And pity the poor immigrant who doesn't want to know how his forebears gained a foothold in this continent.

    1. The Thanksgiving holiday was instituted by Lincoln, borne from guilt about the Dakota war of 1862 - the Feds were attempting to starve the Dakota to death, some fought back and Lincoln stomped that out by summarily hanging 38 Dakota men.

      I like that Lincoln was against wage slavery, sadly the current status of our society, (him being against chattel slavery is no great moral stance, it is the bare minimum) but lawdy he was a brutal man, although he was facing the fascist slavers of the South, so he had little choice.

    2. Thanksgiving Holiday created in 1870 not 1970. The 1970 date was the Indian National Day of Mourning.

  4. The curriculum should include a thorough study of the theory of relativity.

  5. “We found glimmers and intimations of the way our own blue tribe struggles to keep The Other Tribe from voting in the ways we'd prefer. “

    Translation: Don’t tell the truth about thanksgiving, even to adults, because the white working class (aka conservatives, apparently) just want to watch football and eat turkey and anything else makes them vote against Democrats.

  6. "We were curious blue." This is a play on the title of a Swedish x-rated film from the 1960s, "I am curious Yellow". I am curious blue is the sequel.

    This is Somerby's way of calling Professor Silverman a vehicle of left-wing wokeness, simply for being a historian and challenging the details of the Thanksgiving myth. This is not the first time a professor has challenged the facts of a national cherished belief. We are told these days that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and said "I cannot tell a lie...". There is a group of historians who have studied how the new nation deliberately created a series of national myths in order to foster the unity of the new country formed out of the colonies. It was felt that explicit and deliberate creation of such a shared national history would enhance the survival of the new country. Does Somerby know this? It too is part of our history and he would have been taught it in his American History course, had he taken one, at Harvard. The correction of such myths was not a leftist endeavor but came from scholars who wanted to make it clear what actually happened, and who thought it was interesting that our nation engaged in myth-creation as part of nation building. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely given the proportions of Republicans and Democrats in academia, that some of those myth-correcting historians were red not blue.

    And are we to assume that all of the Wampanoags are similarly Democrats? Does Somerby even know whether they are citizens and can vote? Native American are citizens of the United States and have the right to vote in federal, state and local elections. As citizens, do they not have a right to have their history recorded accurately and given the same respect as the Irish and Italians who came later? Does it make them automatically blue tribers if they want their history to be remembered?

    And is Somerby assuming that the hapless new reporter who was assigned to interview Dr. Silverman must himself be a blue triber. On what basis? Because he just graduated or because Somerby thinks all college students are blue (except the Young Republicans possibly)? Somerby doesn't note this reporter's college, so he perhaps didn't attend an ivy league school. If he had, Somerby would cite that as another reason to disparage him and the facts in his article.

    1. This comment is a lie.

    2. No, but it is mistaken because the reporter is female not male — no surprise there. You are perhaps trying to be cute about George Washington.

    3. 8:33 I believe 8:24 is mocking Somerby by presenting the Liar's Paradox.

    4. It failed the condition of being self-referential.

    5. This comment, which refers to itself, is a lie.

      It’s too bad the Swedish flag has only two colors. The world needs a third “I Am Curious” film.

      The kids today don’t care about the theory of relativity.

  7. How can native Americans participate fully in our country without having their history portrayed accurately as part of our shared national history?

    "Despite the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, many Native Americans living on reservations continued to be excluded from the democratic process. In 1948, Native Americans in New Mexico and Arizona successfully litigated their right to vote. Utah and North Dakota became the last states to afford on-reservation Native Americans the right to vote in 1957 and 1958, respectively. When the right to vote was finally secured, voter suppression laws kept Native Americans from voting and seeking elected office. In Arizona, for example, Native Americans could not fully participate in voting until 1970 when the Supreme Court upheld the ban against using literacy tests (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)). Today, the right to vote continues to be challenged through the passage of new laws and practices that either fail to consider, disregard, or intentionally target Native American voters."

    It is a short step from suppression of Native American history, as Somerby today urges, to suppression of the Native American vote:

    One shouldn't have to be "blue" or Democratic or "woke" or any other pejorative term Somerby wishes to use, in order to recognize the importance of including all citizens in our democratic processes. That is part of being patriotic. And being patriotic is not equivalent to a Swedish porn film, no matter how nostalgic our aging Mister Somerby is about his youthful experiences.

    Meanwhile, are Native Americans blue? About 54% are Democrats and 40% are Republicans. However, "According to the list of Native Americans in the United States Congress (see above), as of March 2021, there are four identifying Native Americans holding seats in the House of Representatives. Three of them are Republicans, and one is a Democrat."

    How woke is that?

  8. "What did we find when we looked at those 402 pages of guidelines? We saw the nightmare of incoherence and pomposification which seems to emerge from our blue tribe's public school leadership cadres whenever they're given the chance."

    Why does Somerby assume that the school board members that created that 402 page document were all Democrats? For one thing, Republicans blocked 3 of the Northam appointees in order to create 5 new seats for Youngkin to fill on the 9 member board. That gave conservatives the majority. But the board was not stacked with blue members prior to that because Republican would not approve the Democratic governor's appintees. That's how Republicans operate.

    At the time, this statement was issued: "“The board is not picked in a partisan manner,” Jillian Balow told 7News on Tuesday. “In fact, it’s very intentionally not a partisan board. So, I wouldn’t say it’s a conservative majority. The people, the appointees are selected because of the expertise and perspective that they bring to the board.”

    They also said they would focus on excellence in education. But these statements seem quaint in light of the excision of all of the curriculum changes made in the past 8 years intended to broaden inclusion, "provide a more holistic view of VA history," and create personnel policies to protect equity. It was claimed that Youngkin's appointees were non-partisan but that is not how they have worked.

    Calling the evolving committee effort a creation of a blue tribe cadre is ridiculous. But it is very clear who Somerby's sympathies lie with -- the conservative board members appointed by Youngkin.

    How many liberals refer sneeringly to blue tribe cadres? How many would undo equity and inclusion in a curriculum? Somerby pretends it is the number of pages that offends him, but it is the attempt to make VA's curriculum more historically accurate that bothers him, and that is because it would let students know how VA participated in the slave trade and fought with the secessionists in the Civil War, because they didn't want to disrupt a state economy build on slavery. So modern day black teachers must be kept out of positions in the classroom in order to protect the ignorance of white students and their bigoted parents. Racial equity shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it became one when the Southern Democrats fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans, making the red tribe the party of injustice and hate, in the name of protecting the Old South and its values.

    Somerby transition from a supposed liberal to a Trump excusing asshole is an interesting case history in the effect of living in the South for 50 years and imbibing all of those myths and attitudes without any correcting influence. That makes Somerby a walking illustration of why those VA curriculum improvements under Democratic governors were so important to the state's children.

  9. "We thought about the various ways various peoples around the world sometimes have and haven't dealt with the unmistakable facts of the world's unmistakably brutal history."

    Somerby thought about this, and then he decided it was A-OK with him to suppress discussion of MLK in VA classrooms. MLK is an example of the way in which the forces of good operate alongside the brutality. Yes, he was killed by brutal men who resisted racial change, but he also inspired his people and the larger white majority to work to create a better society for all. MLK's influence extended beyond the USA, as he inspired other struggling people, much as Gandhi inspired MLK. Suppressing the teaching about forces for good is the surest way to convince children that this is a hopeless and despairing brutal existence, but that is what Somerby reflects, not simply in this discussion but when he moans about our country sliding into the sea and pretends that Cassandra was not a tragedy for herself and her city-state. Children need inspiration, not just whitewashed lies that will discourage them further when they encounter the truth in college.

  10. "On the whole, she was simply reworking a current standard story—a current story which is replacing an earlier standard story."

    You have a story whenever you arrange events in chronological order with a beginning and an end. There is nothing inherently wrong with such an arrangement because that is how we live our lives going forward in time, so stories are more comprehensible to human readers.

    Isn't it better for a story about historical events to be based on truth (or as close an approximation of it as possible) rather than political expedience or fantasy wrought by a guilty national conscience?

    We have wronged Native Americans so much and so many times in our history that we would be right to fear their hatred and retribution. Luckily for us, they mostly don't carry such grudges, but they also are not fooled by the revisionist white histories of conquest followed by happy cooperation. It is obvious that the Thanksgiving myth is a fantasy aimed at assuaging the guilt of the white immigrant majority, just as stories about the happy darkies singing spirituals on the plantation and birthing those babies were guilt-driven revisionist white fantasy. If you doubt that, listen to the interviews with newly liberated slaves talking about what their slave experiences were like, in our Library of Congress. There are books with transcripts available too. This is the reality and it is part of everyone's history. Just as what actually happened between the colonists and the Wampanoag is a part of our shared history, while Thanksgiving is a holiday in which people enjoy their families, with a made-up justification rooted in lies we tell children, sort of like Santa Claus. No one in their right mind would make Santa Claus part of historical curriculum -- he is instead taught as part of our culture, along with other works of fiction and traditions, like blowing out candles on your birthday. It is a mistake to confuse fantasy with reality, no matter in what context.

  11. "she was simply reworking a current standard story"

    Note that this is unsurprisingly a female journalist Somerby is attacking today. He accuses her of working from script when she actually worked from historical sources and an interview with Dr. Silverman. There is a lot more effort involved in her article than simply repeating that the Indians weren't as happy with the settlers as originally claimed. Somerby never misses an opportunity to disparage female writers -- that is one of the ongoing signs of his misogyny and sexism. She is also blamed for being young and starting her career with assignments given to her by her editor. What a horrible flaw! There's no coming back from that one!

  12. ""Native Americans as a whole say they’re still fighting for what’s rightfully theirs. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe still doesn’t have control over their entire ancestral land." "

    I wonder if Somerby knows that there are still Irish fighting for control of their ancestral land, occupied by the British?

  13. "In the process, was she producing a helpful new mandated story for readers to memorize?"

    Somerby shows huge disrespect for readers with this remark. Did he memorize the story himself? Why would he assume that readers of newspapers are not active instead of passive consumers?

    What harm is there in knowing how Native Americans were treated? It might explain what those Indians trying to regain their ancestral lands are upset about. When you learn the truth about anything, you are better able to understand the world going forward. How can anyone make good decisions without understanding reality, which means knowing history and not accepting myths in place of facts.

    Someone who doesn't know the history of the struggles on the VA State Board of Education, and how Youngkin was able to pack it with conservatives after three Democratic appointees were denied participation (much like Merrick Garland was denied confirmation to the Supreme Court), may draw wrong conclusions from Somerby's complaints today, especially when he says people are only worried that the curriculum guide is too long.

  14. This matters:

    "The Pennsylvania Senator-elect’s wife talks to the New Republic about the nonstop attacks and threats she gets from Republicans.

    Said Giselle Fetterman: “The right-wing hates women. They especially hate strong women, and I think that’s what you’re seeing. The fact that a spouse of a senator-elect has been attacked nonstop for the past 24 hours and everyone’s okay with it and everyone thinks it’s normal … it’s not normal.”

    She added: “My inbox has been completely filled with threats and horrible things. And that’s because I’ve been a non-stop loop on Fox News. Hopefully it’s not like this forever and hopefully it’s not like this for the next young Latina or person of color or spouse who enters this space.”


    This is how spouses wind up being attacked by red tribe stochastic terrorists with hammers.

    The nuts on the right who own guns and explosives and are encouraged to be angry angry angry are just looking for targets to express their rage. Shooting gays with an AR-15 in a bar, aimed that direction by the ongoing neverending hate on Fox News and from mouths like MTG, is not a normal part of life either. Neither is attacking an 82 year old man with a hammer simply because he is married to a politician.

    This needs to stop. It won't stop until red tribers like Somerby speak out against it. Notice however that Somerby never comments on this domestic terrorism. He saves his support for miscreants like Kyle Rittenhouse, who now has a podcast, as if killing unarmed people gave you something to say to good decent people.

    Somerby can prove his own decency and goodness by telling those Others that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, not normal, wrong, and something you can go to hell for doing (Somerby can say this, as an Irish Catholic). Conservatives need to speak out against this, because it perhaps seems too self-serving for blue tribers to do it, even though it should be the most obvious thing on our planet that no one should be doing this to the wife of a newly elected Senator. Will Somerby be brave and speak up? Don't hold your breath.

    1. It's a shame they behave so stochastically.

    2. If their choice of targets were not random, we might be able to capture them before they attack someone. But, as is being pointed out with respect to this current killer, he committed a prior domestic violence attack against his mother, kidnapping her and threatening to bomb her neighborhood, using guns and explosive, and was not red-listed, was not even charged for those prior crimes.

      So, even knowing who will commit a crime where doesn't seem to help law enforcement deal with these hate crimes. And then there was Uvalde, where officers witnessed a crime in progress without doing a god damned thing. So stochasticism isn't really the problem, is it?

      Republicans need to stop enabling and egging on these hate criminals.

    3. Who could have predicted there might be a hate crime committed against Nancy Pelosi -- amirite?

    4. A stochastic hate crime.

    5. A stochastic crime can be anywhere from 0 to 100% likely. The term stochastic means that one cannot predict exactly where and when and how that crime might occur, but one can predict how likely it is that it will occur. Hate speech creates the environment for such crimes, making them more likely than if people were not engaging in hate speech.

      stochastic definition: "randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely"

      Maybe you are making an unfunny joke, but a hate crime is not a person, it is an act against an object motivated by hate. That means it doesn't make predictions -- people try to do that in order to prevent such crimes. At this point, a history of prior domestic violence is the best predictor of (has the strongest correlation with) subsequent hate crimes.

      The actual term is stochastic domestic terrorism, because this violence is happening in the US and is being done for political reasons.

    6. The crime is more or less stochastic. The guns and the bombs and the planning involved make it stochastic or stochastic adjacent at the very least.

    7. I think they make it a violent crime.

    8. Stochastically speaking, yes.

    9. Never stochastic, but always sarcastic.

  15. There needs to be more of this on Fox News:

    "A Fox News expert said on Sunday that hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community happen because children are not taught tolerance in elementary schools.

    Following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado over the weekend, Steve Rogers suggested to Fox News host Arthel Neville that laws limiting LGBTQ+ inclusion in schools do not help stop hate crimes.

    "How do we tamp down hate crimes across the board?" Neville wondered.

    "I think it begins in our schools, our educational system," Rogers explained. "We have to do a lot of educating in elementary school with regard to, yeah, people may be different in your eyes but they're people, they're American citizens and they deserve to have the constitutional protections that all of us have."

    "So, it begins at the elementary school level and we have to make sure that it continues throughout our entire lives," he added. "We need to stop the hateful rhetoric on the internet, by our politicians, by everyone! And we need to bring the temperature down and understand that, you know, we're all God's children and we have to respect each other."

    In recent years, Republicans have sought to pass laws against teaching tolerance, inclusion and diversity in public schools. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) campaigned on the state's "Stop WOKE Act" which limits the discussion of LGBTQ+ topics.


    And obviously, the efforts to undermine equity and inclusion in the curriculum guidelines of the VA State Board of Education.

  16. It is plain to see that all the events narrated by Somerby did not come to pass naturally, and are referred directly to because Somerby, as we have shown, does not aim at explaining things by natural causes, but only at narrating what appeals to the popular imagination, and doing so in the manner best calculated to excite wonder, and consequently to impress the minds of the masses with devotion towards conservatives and their ilk.

    1. cmon this is the copy paste moron (although he did successfully con Cecelia in a hilarious manner) today he quotes Spinoza - none of his comments are his own words. he could be doing a subtle call back troll of deadrat, the contrarian moron that used to comment here before he copy pasted one too many times and got severely owned. hmmmm

  17. Somerby might have more sympathy for Native Americans if he knew any, but he no doubt knows a few women and he doesn't seem to have any sympathy for them, so maybe not.