Jessica Hill

Protected Species for Some, But Not for Others
Because Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Jessica Hill’s article, “An ongoing battle:  Tribal members still harassed for pursuing aboriginal fishing rights,” fails to pose certain uncomfortable questions.  

The article presents so-called tribal members as victims without spine.  And perhaps indeed that is what they’ve become; that is what they’ve been encouraged to become! 

Tribal member Marcus Hendricks says he has been getting harassed often lately while fishing for herring.  People will yell at him or call the police and say he is trespassing or fishing illegally.  One woman approached him last week without a mask on and began to holler at him to stop fishing, he said. 

Well, perhaps Hendricks should have responded with a “screw you, Karen!”  [Karen is slang for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman.]. Did he have a mask on… or do natives not have to wear masks… in the name of Orwellian equal treatment under the law?  Hill mentions that some, perhaps many, people (i.e., non-aboriginals) are unaware “of aboriginal rights to fish and harvest.”  But she fails to wonder how special rights for some people reinforce the constitutional notion of equality, a supposed basic right in America.  Indeed, when will all people finally experience equal rights under the law?  How does giving more rights to aboriginals or any other group serve the important notion of equality under the law?  Clearly, it does not!  

Since January, the Massachusetts Environmental Police have received 12 calls from the public for alleged violations in state herring runs that were ultimately found to be tribal members legally harvesting fish, according to Craig Gilvarg, press secretary for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

Well, I was unaware that the state had a special police force for the environment.  Will it soon also have a Massachusetts Harassment Police force to respond to people who complain that somebody called them a name?  Are we not heading in that direction, in the direction where freedom of expression becomes a “harassment incident”?  Isn’t the term “harassment” being thrown around like “racism” to the point where it becomes nonsensical?  Hill further reports that “Hendricks said there are no repercussions for people who harass tribal members while fishing.”  But “harassment” has become such a vague term, which is why it has a precise legal definition, though really applied only to situations in work environments.  Does fishing for herring for sustenance legally constitute a workplace environment?  Likely it does not.  But if somehow it does, legally harassment means one person over and over bothering another person to the point where the latter can no longer perform his or her duties, in this case, scooping a net in the water.  

Hill notes, “The harvest of river herring was prohibited by the state Division of Marine Fisheries in 2006, but that does not apply to Native Americans.” She fails to mention why precisely it was prohibited.   One might reasonably assume herring was on its way to become an endangered species.  But if indeed that were the case, how does permitting some Americans to continue killing possibly protect the herring?  Shouldn’t native Americans also be concerned?  Do they really need to kill the dwindling herring to survive?  Would they starve to death if they too were not permitted to kill the herring?  What about federal and state handouts (i.e., grants et al)?  For the lack of transparency with that regard, examine “Newspaper finds access to tribal records irregular, especially if you are a believer in the Indian good/white bad stereotype.  

Hill reports that Hendricks also said, “We get harassed, but no one’s issued a citation, no one’s issued a verbal warning.”  Well, perhaps the reason for that might have been that no law was actually broken.  She then cites another tribal member, Natasha Cash:  “If there was a sign at every single fishing spot (and) herring run of what our rights were nobody would say anything.  Cape Cod is a peaceful, communal place. They’re not trying to cause trouble. They just don’t know.”  So, how about a sign like WARNING:  ONLY ABORIGINALS PERMITTED TO FISH HERE / WHITES NOT PERMITTED!  

Hill notes that “Although some residents may be aware of aboriginal rights, their perceptions of what Native Americans look like may be skewed. Tribal members have been approached and told they ‘don’t look Indian.’”  And so in this age of PC, oddly today we have environmentalist Karens harassing Native Americans.  What’s next?  Burning Karens at the stake?    

Cash said people often scold her and her children about taking herring, saying they are a protected species. Herring are back to their original numbers now, but many tribal members who fish are cautious about the populations, Cash said.  […] We can’t even afford food right now really.  We have to hunt and fish.

So, now we know the herring is indeed a protected species.  If “we” means all of us, then are all the Mashpee aboriginals really so poor that they cannot afford to buy food?  Do they not even qualify for food stamps?  Well, I google that and, according to the USDA, they certainly do qualify, as well as for other financial perks (see https://www.fns.usda.gov/program/assistance-native-americans).  Hill cites several others, including an aboriginal Cape Cod Times freelancer, Rachael Devaney.  

They’re tribal people, and they do have rights that not everybody has.  And people get so upset about it. A lot of people here say, ‘Well, I’m native. I was born here,’ and there’s just a huge distinction. It’s something that’s not talked about enough and it’s why all of this backlash continues to fall on Wampanoag people to prove who they are.

And so I send this to the Cape Cod Times since the subject is “not talked about enough.”  Will it publish it?  From my long experience with the Times, it will likely not! 

Jessica Hill, Cape Cod Times

The Whitewashing, uh, Blackwashing of BLM
Questioning and Challenging the Parrots

This counter-essay was sent to Jessica Hill, News Reporter for the Cape Cod Times.  I do not expect her to respond [and indeed she did NOT respond!] because debate and dialogue are NOT embraced by many, if not most, journalists today.  The free press is NOT free.  It is corporate owned; it is ideologically bound; it tends to despise free debate and free expression.  Such dialogue is certainly not embraced by the editors, past and present, of the Cape Cod Times, who reject any criticism with their regard.  That has certainly been my experience over the past decade.  In essence, a reporter’s job depends on his or her echoing/supporting the editor’s and publisher’s narrative.   How can that be considered freedom of the press?  

Hill’s headline story, Falmouth residents concerned by flyers, theft of Black Lives Matter signs, essentially promotes, rather than challenges, an ideology.  It grabbed my attention because it serves as an egregious example of journalist dereliction of duty, quite common nowadays.  Few questions, if any at all, were raised in the article.  The alleged victim, Adam Subhas, in the story got to tell his story and broadcast his opinions.  That was it.  The incident, however, was alleged—not necessarily based on facts and reality.  Given the number of hate-crime Bubba Wallace-noose and Jussie Smollett-like hoaxes, pushed in an effort to inflate, if not encourage, black victimhood and thus BLM, the reporter ought to have raised that as a possibility.  She did not.

Hill began her reportage with the following statement:  “After a West Falmouth resident’s Black Lives Matter signs were stolen, he says he found flyers in his mailbox promoting white supremacist and racist views.”  Unfortunately, Hill did not bother to examine and discuss what BLM is.  Might it actually be an anti-white racist and black supremacist movement?   Hill does not mention that Subhas is a well-to-do, if not wealthy, scientist employed at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.  Might he also be a Pakistani or Indian immigrant?  If so, why immigrate to such a racist country like the USA?  Why work in such a racist area like Cape Cod?  Money?  Is money more important for Subhas?  Well, maybe he’s not an immigrant.  In any case, Hill omits the information.  BLM is, by the way, a Marxist/communist organization that clearly does NOT advocate for freedom of expression.  It has also apparently broken the law by advocating openly for the removal of President Trump.   Apparently, money donated to BLM has ended up in the coffers of the Democrat Party.  According to Nonprofit Expert:  “For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’”  Will BLM be held accountable in this Age of Unaccountability and have its 501c3 status removed?   

Interestingly, Hill states regarding the alleged three flyers that Subhas allegedly found in his mailbox: “One flyer compared the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. Another described George Floyd as an armed criminal, and another explained that the word racism was created as a ‘method of control’ by Leon Trotsky.”  Hill does not discuss whether each of those thoughts are factually false.  In fact, they might actually be factually true.  Floyd did steal the cop’s taser and aimed it at the cop.  He was also a criminal with a fairly long record.  Communism and Nazism are closely related.  Both reject freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  

Subhas stated, according to Hill, that “I feel like I was targeted, not because of who I am but because I put signs up, not necessarily anything about my identity.  If I’m being targeted indiscriminately, you can just imagine the myriad ways in which people of color and Black people and minorities are targeted because of their color or identity.”  BLM promotes and encourages black victimhood.  That is obvious.  It is an odd situation because I, as a white man, would be more afraid to post a White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter sign in front of my house, than a BLM sign.  I’d also be more afraid to post a sign like Islam Hates Free Speech.  Why?  Well, that would be an interesting point of discussion.  

It seems BLM protest/rioters can be quite violent.  Also, on Cape Cod the white nationalist nazi-hype seems entirely unfounded in reality and seems to be very rare, if at all existent.  But BLM needs it to exist so that it can promote its principle stereotype:  black victim/white victimizer (i.e., black good/white bad).  Now, it has become evident, thanks in part to BLM hype, that whites are being targeted because of their skin color.  Ain’t no way I’d walk in a black neighborhood at night!  Paranoia or reality?  Well, if you’re white and believe the former, then why not prove it by taking that walk?  And sometimes, it doesn’t even have to be night.  Hell, I was beaten and robbed in Baton Rouge by three blacks in the daytime, and the local newspaper, The Advocate, refused to cover the story.  What then is that newspaper advocating?  The narrative!  

The Cape Cod Times has yet to cover my story of being permanently banned w/o warning or due process from my neighborhood library in Barnstable.  Well, I digress… or sort of.  But are those occurrences “deep and systemic” to use Subhas’ words, as in “I think we just need to recognize that, because there’s no way we’re going to get over it unless we recognize how deep and systemic some of this stuff goes.”  Is there deep and systemic racism against whites by blacks?  Why is that question never posed by journalist reporters?  Bias!  Egregious bias!  Why are the latter so afraid to be individuals with backbone?  Why have so many of them become mere pc-parrots?  Parrots for BLM!  The American press has become rotten to the core like Pravda, the state and ideologically-controlled press of the former Soviet Union.  Our democracy cannot continue with a press like that, with a press like the Cape Cod Times!  

Hill notes that “Gwyneth Packard, who is on the leadership team of Engage Falmouth, said a previous member of the organization found similar flyers two years ago when her signs were stolen. She did not feel comfortable going to the police, Packard said.”  Well, does she think I, as a white man, felt comfortable when three cops suddenly entered the room where I was working alone in Sturgis Library, frisked me, and told me to leave or I’d be arrested?  Oh yeah, I must have done something wrong like write an open letter critical of the intrinsic hypocrisy of the library collection development statement, “libraries should provide materials and information that present all points of view.”  Well, my point of view and that of others I publish have been permanently banned!  

Hill notes that “In February, a visiting scientist in Woods Hole found flyers espousing white supremacist ideology attached to a telephone pole. That incident was reported to Falmouth police and the Anti-Defamation League’s New England office, Packard said.”  And so, what happened?  Is it a crime to attach a piece of paper on a telephone pole?  Why doesn’t Hill inform her readers with that regard?  In essence, it might be considered a crime of littering.  How many cops were deployed to investigate it?  Why doesn’t Hill point out that BLM might in fact be a black supremacist ideology like Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam?  Why are so many citizens so willfully ignorant?  How can a democracy, as opposed to communism, possibly survive when the people do not educate themselves?  

According to Packard, as reported by Hill, “The Black Lives Matter sign is about countering acts of violence and about promoting justice.  That’s what the signs symbolize. It’s a collective effort to address longstanding anti-Black racism in our society and asking for an end to the violent death of unarmed black people.”  And yet BLM protesters have been quite violent!  And didn’t one of its prime leaders, Hawk Newsome, state, “if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?  And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation. […] I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting.”?  And what about the five cops murdered in 2016 by black BLM advocate, Micah Xavier Johnson?  Why is none of this information included in Hill’s reportage?  

Finally, what is legal and what is not legal?  Our laws are extremely vague, which benefits of course the great multi-billion dollar lawyer industry.  Sadly, the press does not help educate the populace regarding that very question.  The hate crime, if it actually occurred, was theft of several pieces of cardboard.  Is it illegal to put a piece of paper into someone else’s mailbox?  I do not know the answer to that.  It is however illegal to intimidate, but intimidating is a vague concept.  And what about all the intimidating and crimes committed by BLM rioting looters, uh, peaceful protesters according to the MSM?  Aren’t some of them also hate crimes?  Why doesn’t the free press report on those crimes too?  

Alternate opinions to those promoted by the press ought to have been included in the report.  

Hill could have encouraged readers to submit such opinions, but she did not.  Perhaps she could have educated readers with facts and statistics that do or do not support the victim’s opinion of ubiquitous anti-black racism on Cape Cod, which is nothing more than an echo of BLM ideology.  The enemies of ideology, of course, are REASON, LOGIC, and FACTS.    Ideology is killing the free press from within.  Hill obviously supports Freedom of the Press, since the only photo of her available on Google depicts her wearing a teeshirt with those very words on it.  But there can really be no such thing if Hill and the press in general continue to mimic Pravda.   So, what might happen if I placed a sign, ALL LIVES MATTER, or worse yet, WHITE LIVES MATTER, on my front lawn?  Would my house be burned down?  Or would Princeton part-time teacher BLM advocate Claira Janover hunt me down and stab me?  “The next person who has the caucasity [sic] to say all lives matter, I’m gonna stab you!  I’m gonna stab you!” she declared on social media.  If anything, Janover serves as an egregious example of the utter failure of the very idea of multiculturalism.  Nonviolent?  Hmm.  Am I even permitted in this Age of Linguistic Multiculti Control to write such a hypothetical deed?  Or might that too be considered a hate crime?

NB:  I cc’d the essay to Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy.  His response was the following.

From: Dan Kennedy <dan.kennedy@northeastern.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:40 AM

To: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Cc: jhill@capecodonline.com <jhill@capecodonline.com>; Hilljhill@capecodonline.com <Hilljhill@capecodonline.com>; asubhas@whoi.edu <asubhas@whoi.edu>; jlipkin@capecodonline.com <jlipkin@capecodonline.com>; abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>

Subject: Re: Jessica Hill and Adam Subhas satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon, etc.

 

My response:

Zzzzzzz.

DK