Flag Desecration and the Freedom of Speech

Boy Scouts retiring an American flag

The flag of the United States is a powerful symbol. It has been a symbol of military might as it has led countless troops into battle and is now worn on the combat uniforms of American service personnel. The flag was a symbol of victory when it was raised over Iwo Jima on February 25^th, 1945. The American flag served as a symbol of unity during the Civil Rights Era when it flew in Civil Rights Marches, most famously by the lectern in front of the Lincoln Memorial when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. It has been a symbol of scientific progress as when it was raised on the moon July 21^st, 1969. It serves as a symbol of patriotic pride when flown on Independence Day and other patriotic celebrations. A flag draped over the coffin of a serviceman or woman signifies sacrifice.

Americans rendering honors during the
performance of the National Anthem.

Because of its symbolic significance, the American flag evokes strong emotions from most Americans. When they see the flag, they take pride, and render proper honors, placing their hand over their heart, or rendering a salute if they’re veterans when hearing the National Anthem, watching it pass in parade, or when it is being lowered ceremoniously.

Occasionally, people stand with their arms at their sides or perhaps won’t stand at all, even if they’re able to. Perhaps it is because they have never been taught proper flag etiquette and don’t know they’re supposed to render honors. In many cases, not rendering proper honors to the flag is a form of protest. For these people, though they may love America, the flag is not a positive symbol.

Children on an Air Force base improperly
rendering honors during evening colors.

While these people love the ideals of America, they do not feel that America has lived up to its ideals. The flag, rather than representing America’s achievements represents America’s failures. Failing to render proper honors certainly makes a statement, but unless someone with celebrity status fails to honor the flag, such protests go unnoticed or are ignored.

Often people protest the government in public demonstrations with pickets, shouting slogans, and making speeches. Articles, essays, and books are published criticizing America and its government. Making speeches, writing articles, and petitioning the government sometimes doesn’t make much of an impact if any. To show their displeasure, to make their point, or to just get attention, people occasionally desecrate or even burn the American flag.

Some react strongly to the desecration of the American flag starting counter-protests or even becoming violent. Incidents of flag desecration are historically rare. From 1777 to 1989 there were only 45 recorded cases of flag burning, most of which happened in the 1960s during the Vietnam conflict (Reasons). In spite of flag desecration being so rare, federal, state, and local governments have passed laws on numerous occasions to protect the American flag from desecration. The first of these laws was a federal law called the Uniform Flag Act passed in 1917. Most state and local governments patterned their laws after the 1917 law (State). The language of the Uniform Flag Act is still part of federal law in Title 18, United States Code § 700.

During the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam Conflict during the 1960s, the incidence of flag desecration increased resulting in Congress passing the Flag Protection Act of 1968 (Timeline). Most of the cases regarding flag desecration that came before the Supreme Court were in regards to people either speaking disrespectfully about the flag (Street v. New York), the flag being worn as a piece of clothing (Smith v. Goguen), or physically altering the appearance of the flag without actually damaging it (Spence v. Washington). In each case, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of the lower courts on first amendment grounds. Flag burning did not come before the court until 1989 (Texas v. Johnson).

In 1984, during the Republican National Convention being held in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Johnson burned a stolen flag in front of the Dallas City Hall as part of an organized protest. He was arrested for violating a Texas law which prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. Johnson was fined $2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison. The case was appealed several times. It was upheld by the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on First Amendment Grounds. The State of Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was heard in 1989 (Texas v. Johnson).

The Supreme Court struck down Texas’ law in a 5 to 4 decision that saw staunch Constitutional conservative and Reagan appointee, Antonin Scalia, along with two other known conservatives, Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, and Anthony Kennedy another Reagan appointee joining the majority. Because of the strong conservative presence on the court at the time (6-3), the decision came as a surprise to many (Lubet). Congress responded immediately with the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Supreme Court overturned this law as well in 1990 when it heard the case, United States v. Eichman, in a 5 to 4 decision that mirrored the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson (U.S. v. Eichman).

(Carrol)

With flag protection laws overturned, politicians have tried many times to pass differing legislation and even a constitutional amendment. Some polls indicate that a majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, each attempt has failed in congress (Carroll). Considering the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation going back more than a century, it seems like this should be a settled issue and yet, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion and debate. This also isn’t a right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue with neatly divided lines. While conservatives typically are in favor of protecting the flag, as demonstrated above, conservatives on the Supreme Court were instrumental in overturning flag protection laws on first amendment grounds. In 2005, Utah Republican Senator, Robert Bennett introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. While it was unsurprising that a Republican introduced the Flag Protection Act, what many found very surprising was that it had four Democrat cosponsors, three of whom are well known progressive liberals—Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Mark Pryor (United States).

In order to really understand if banning flag desecration is appropriate or even necessary, the arguments in favor of protecting the flag must be taken into consideration. Some of the main arguments in defense of protecting the flag can be found in the Congressional findings listed in the Flag Protection Act of 2005, but others will be considered as well.

The Congressional findings make four arguments in favor of the Flag Protection Act: 1.) The flag of the United States is a symbol of the nation and its values, 2.) The Bill of Rights should not be amended to restrict freedom of speech, 3.) abuse of the flag causes distress to some people and such actions can amount to fighting words, and 4.) destruction of the flag can be used to incite violence instead of just making a political statement (United States).

(@realDonaldTrump)

Many of these points can be conceded, but also countered with further information that favor flag desecration as protected free speech. First, the flag does represent the United States as well as the “republic for which it stands” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. The definition of the American republic is laid out in the Constitution of the United States which includes the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and, as the Supreme Court has found time and again, freedom of expression which included disrespectful language about, disrespectful use of, and defacing and destruction of the American flag (What). The American flag represents the freedom of its own destruction as a form of protest and expression. Second, the Bill of Rights should not be amended and yet, that is exactly what the Flag Protection Act, the Flag Desecration Amendment, and similar legislation seeks to do.

Law professor and self-described liberal, Steven Lubet claims in his essay, Banning the Desecration of the American Flag Would Not Be Censorship, that the Flag Desecration Amendment “… would not limit freedom of speech very much at all. No words or beliefs would be prohibited, no opinions would be suppressed.” This is another point that must be conceded. However, he goes on to point out:

“The classic ‘slippery slope’ argument, a staple of liberal analysis, posits that small restrictions may lead to bigger ones. But in this case, that is not true. It is tremendously difficult to amend the Constitution—requiring a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—so it is extremely unlikely that the flag amendment will be quickly followed by others.”

The problem with this line of thinking is that the Constitution doesn’t need to be amended for freedom of speech and expression to be abridged. History has shown that all it takes is complicity between the three branches of government to abridge first amendment rights. In 1798, Congress passed, President John Adams signed, and the Supreme Court upheld the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws prohibited any criticism of the government whether that criticism was spoken, written, or implied. This was only seven years after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution! Three of the laws were repealed under Thomas Jefferson’s administration, but the fourth, the Alien Enemies Act remained in effect and was used by President Woodrow Wilson as a justification to silence protest against entering World War I as well as jailing political opponents and journalists who criticized him in the media. The administration of President Franklin Roosevelt also refernced the Alien Enemies Act to justify the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent as well as deporting American citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during World War II. If all those things can be done without an amendment to the Constitution, then an amendment that is frankly injurious the first amendment would be the gateway drug to fascism.

Third, the Flag Protection legislation seeks to prevent acts that “amount to ‘fighting words’” or can be considered an incitement to violence. The term “fighting words” as used by politicians stems from a 1942 Supreme Court Case, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire where a man was arrested for verbally assaulting a Jehovah’s Witness who was street preaching. While the Supreme Court upheld the arrest, the Supreme Court has narrowed the meaning of the terminology and courts tend to use the term “incitement” instead. It is hard to imagine an instance where simply desecrating the flag would incite violence unless the flag desecrator or their opponent had already used inciting language. In that case, there are already laws that can be used to curb such acts and there is no need to abridge the freedom of speech.

Lubet also argues in his essay that banning flag desecration would actually give such acts more weight. If a person is willing to go to jail as part of their speech or expression, that makes the message all the more powerful. Again, that is certainly true, but there are rights we now take for granted that were once oppressively regulated. John Bunyan, author of the Christian allegorical classic, Pilgrim’s Progress, spent 12 years in jail for preaching the gospel without a license from the Church of England (Deal v.). Many Colonial printing presses were run underground because a license from the crown was required. Colonial printers caught printing without a license were arrested and jailed, and their presses were confiscated or destroyed (Petersen 10-12). Thanks to the first amendment, both practices are now protected under the first amendment. If we’re going to ban flag desecration, why not require preachers and printers to get special government permission? That’s working really well in China.

Freedom cannot survive when the government can ban expression with which it disagrees. America was built on speech and expression that was offensive to the government. Colonial Americans wrote speeches against the King of England and his agents in the colonies, they operated underground (illegal) printing presses in protest of stamp taxes, they burned the King in Effigy all of which were illegal. Making offensive activities illegal doesn’t prevent them from occurring. Sometimes, making certain activities illegal makes them more thrilling. One only needs to consider the disastrous effects of the Prohibition Era ushered in by the eighteenth amendment or the violent and ineffective war on drugs. Drugs and alcohol actually have negative health effects, but what negative side effect is there to desecrating the flag? People get angry, some special snowflakes get their feelings hurt, and even more rarely the flag desecrator is assaulted. Flag desecration would become the ultimate victimless crime, but a crime nevertheless. With America’s out of control debt, homelessness, unemployment, the threat of terrorism, and a slew of other issues, the matter of flag desecration pales in comparison. Government officials and politicians need to focus on what is truly important before they consider abridging freedom of expression.

Works Cited

Carroll, Joseph. “Public Support for Constitutional Amendment on Flag Burning.” Gallup. Gallup 2006. Accessed 29 Nov. 2016, www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitutional-amendment-flag-burning.aspx.

Deal, William S. “Introduction.” John Bunyan: The Tinker of Bedford, Good News Publishers 1977.

Lubet, Steven. “Banning the Desecration of the American Flag Would Not Be Censorship.” Censorship 2007, Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.

Petersen, Christine. “Permission to Print.” The Printer, Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2011.

@realDonaldTrump. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Twitter, 29 Nov. 2016, 3:55a.m., twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944.

“Reasons to Oppose the Flag Desecration Amendment.” American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU 2016. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.aclu.org/other/reasons-oppose-flag-desecration-amendment.

 “State flag-protection laws.” First Amendment Center. First Amendment Center 2002. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.firstamendmentcenter.org/state-flag-protection-laws.

Supreme Court. Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire. 9 Mar. 1942.

Supreme Court. Sidney Street v. State of New York. 21 Apr. 1969.

Supreme Court. Smith v. Goguen. 25 Mar. 1974.

Supreme Court. Spence v. Washington. 25 June 1974.

Supreme Court. Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson. 21 June 1989.

Supreme Court. United States v. Shawn Eichman et al. 11 June 1990.

“Timeline of Flag Desecration Issues.” ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association 1999-2016. Accessed 25 Nov 2016, www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm.

United States Cong. Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee. Flag Protection Act of 2005. 109th Cong. United States Congress. Accessed 26 Nov. 2016, www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1911/actions.

“What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Accessed 26 Nov. 2016. www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources.

The Concerning Case of Esteban Santiago

I'm not making a judgment call about Esteban Santiago's crime, but as I get more information about his background and this case, I'm going to ask more questions and pose new theories. This isn't an attempt to try him in the court of public opinion, but to get people talking, asking questions and get people out of whatever echo chamber they might be stuck in. I want answers and if people have them, give them to me. I will not bite off, hook, line, and sinker, on the media narrative from the far left, left, right, far right, alt-right, or whatever.

One of the first things released about Esteban Santiago is that he had been directed to get psychological treatment because he told the FBI that he was "hearing voices" that were forcing him to watch ISIS recruitment videos and fight for ISIS. His family also said he was under treatment for mental health disorders. My hypothesis, based on the psychological history revealed is that he may have suffered from some kind of mental or brain trauma. He could be suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, though it’s pretty late for him to be developing symptoms. He could be suffering from PTSD from his time in Iraq. Because there are indications he is experiencing hallucinations along with PTSD-like symptoms, I suspect that one of possibility is brain damage from mefloquine poisoning which is used to inoculate many deploying service personnel from malaria. These are things that should be looked at and from all indications, it will be.

Law enforcement has also not ruled out terrorism. The main reason why terrorism has not been ruled out is because in situations like this, it never is. There is also his contact with the FBI last year. Some media outlets have provided some evidence that he may have expressed interest in Islam up to a decade ago and may even have converted, going by the name Aashiq Hammad. The problem with the evidence is that it is based on some easily manipulated circumstantial evidence from MySpace and hotmail from ten years ago. Is the information interesting? Yes. Does it prove him guilty of Islamic fundamental extremism or self-radicalization? Not hardly. Even though Esteban Santiago's brother is one of his contacts on MySpace, both Esteban and Santiago are fairly common names in the Spanish speaking world, so it could be a case of mistaken identity. On the other hand, one of the many reasons why MySpace lost out to Facebook is because it was too easy to hack and still is, so it could be trolls manipulating the public.

I'm not discounting the MySpace/hotmail evidence, I'm simply saying that there are problems with it that will take computer experts to solve and determine if it is good evidence or not.

I said before, that if Esteban Santiago is found psychologically unfit to stand trial and his actions can be traced to his mental health problems, then I want him to be hospitalized and to get the treatment he needs. It could be that he has been faking his psychological symptoms as part of his planning for this attack, so if he is found to be psychologically fit and had complete understanding of his actions, then I hope he gets the death penalty.

All this still leaves some questions.

There was a domestic violence case pending against Esteban Santiago along with a restraining order. The restraining order alone is enough to prevent him from legally having access to firearms. It is clear, however, that at some point he legally purchased a firearm. I am opposed to firearm databases, so I don’t expect anybody to know that he had a pistol in his possession. The problem is that the FBI took his pistol away when he came to them with his story about hearing voices. When he went to get treatment, the FBI returned the pistol to him. WHAT?!

This also undoes my theory that the firearm was a straw purchase… maybe.

It should also be pointed out that Santiago was already under investigation for domestic violence and had an active restraining order at the time he went to the FBI. If the FBI had done a simple court records check, they would have seen that and hopefully would have known that Esteban Santiago could not legally be in possession of a firearm. So the first question is how and why did the FBI drop the ball so badly?

On the day of Esteban Santiago’s flight from Alaska to Florida, he not only still had the pending domestic violence case pending, but he had also violated the restraining order against him. When he went to the airport, he checked a bag with his properly stored pistol in it. I haven’t flown since 2010, but my wife and my kids all have and every time we go, all checked bags are screened by the TSA. Is there no database of people who are under investigation or have cases pending that prohibit them from having possession of firearms? I mean, even if the firearm is legally owned, I would think the TSA would run a final check before letting a person check a weapon. The Department of Homeland Security officially sucks at the very thing it is supposed to be doing and the Transportation Security Administration has now officially not prevented a single act of terror.

Along with the failure of the FBI, the TSA, and the local law enforcement agencies in Alaska, if it is determined that Esteban Santiago was suffering from some kind of service connected psychological/brain trauma or began to manifest a psychological disorder while he was on active duty, then the Alaska National Guard as will the DoD because the various ANG components are joint activities with the DoD. That’s a pretty big ball to drop.

All of this goes to show that the government cannot protect you. There are laws on the books at the Federal and Alaska local level that prohibit Esteban Santiago from having a firearm and he slipped through the cracks. Because it is legal to transport firearms by checking them when you travel within the United States, many states allow some form of legal carry in airports prior to going through security check-points. That means that in some states, such as my home state of Arizona, that a person can legally go to the airport while carrying a firearm as long as they aren’t traveling. In Florida and in my current state of residence, Virginia, it is illegal to carry a firearm into an airport unless you’re a law enforcement officer, special conservator of the peace on contract site, or licensed armed security on contract site. What that ultimately means is that Esteban Santiago was a wolf let loose in a sheep pen.

I’m not an advocate of people who have never shot a firearm responding to such a situation because the death toll would likely have been higher. However, as a second amendment advocate, I do believe people should arm themselves and train themselves so that they can confidently and ably respond to situations like this. I can point to case after case of a bad guy pulling a gun and getting a couple shots off then a good guy pulls a gun and neutralizes the threat by either disabling or killing the subject, or by distracting the subject so others can retreat to safety.

I can also point to studies done by criminologists who have shown that just the idea that a firearm may be present is a deterrent to crime. If the guy is a mentally disturbed, mentally disabled or a radical, it wouldn’t have made a difference, but if he was lucid during the events that led up to the attack, he could very well have thought twice about the attack if he knew firearms were possibly present. More security or law enforcement presence is the immediate but expensive fix to the problem, but Florida needs to take a closer look at their firearms restrictions for airports. The current laws did not prevent a crime from being committed, it only prevented law abiding citizens from having the right to defend themselves with an equal level of force.

Finally, I will not participate in the racist, Islamophobic narrative that lumps all Muslims and too often, Arabs of all religious affiliations into a single group of people out to destroy the West. I spent too much time in the Middle East and know too many Muslims that I know better. I disagree with Islam from a theological and historical perspective and if someone wants to have that debate I am more than ready and willing, but I will not vilify a whole group of people based on the actions of a minority. In America, radical fundamentalism truly does represent a minority of Islam—a fringe minority.

I am well aware of the statistics regarding the average Muslim beliefs in foreign countries where the enforcement of Sharia are concerned and those things need to be addressed in the countries where it is a problem. Where foreign governments aren’t willing to deal with extremism or are extremists themselves, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. then the international community should encourage the rest of the Muslim world to take the lead in fixing those problems and leading the coalitions against terror groups. If we had taken that approach with Iraq or even Iran back in the 50s, we probably wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Frankly, America needs to promote energy independence in any way it can so we can cut ties with the Middle East altogether, especially Saudi Arabia.

Race Relations and Reconciliation in America

I couldn't come up with a catchy headline for this post, so I had my daughter read it and she couldn't come up with one either. She did say that I'll probably be called names and be subject to some harsh criticism from both sides of this subject. That's probably true, but I don't care. I try to be objective in my criticism, but no matter how I try, I can't make everyone happy. Case in point, I have heavily criticized Donald Trump since way before he announced his candidacy and continue to criticize him to this day. In spite of that, a Hillary Clinton supporting friend of mine unfriended me recently because my continued criticism of Clinton proved that I was just too pro-Trump for her to be friends with me. I literally laughed out loud.

So, beware. I'm going to offend somebody. I'm not trying to, but it can't be helped.

Here goes.

In case you have been living under a rock the past couple of days, an outrageous, despicable, evil, racist, hate crime was committed earlier this week. While the media has been portraying the perpetrators of this crime as just teenagers, they were all adults. Three of them are 18 and the fourth is 24. Adults. The man they victimized was also an adult teenager, 18 years of age, but he is also mentally disabled which, in my mind, magnifies the evil of the act committed.

Thankfully, all of the people involved with the attack have been arrested and hopefully will be brought to justice.

While the story is a couple of days old, the reaction to the video and the news is what I find bothersome. Don Lemon of CNN claimed that this was not an evil act, but rather, the people who perpetrated this act were not raised properly at home. It may be that they didn’t receive a proper upbringing, but that doesn’t relieve them of their conscience which is why the United States justice system will try them for their crimes, not their parents and how they were raised.

Chicago Police Department Commander, Kevin Duffin said that “Kids make stupid decisions,” when asked if the behavior of the perpetrators would be a hate crime. I agree kids do make stupid decisions, but most teenage stupid decisions don’t result in crimes being committed. Even in the stupidest teenager, conscience takes over before a crime is committed. Remember Brock Turner? Did he make a stupid decision? No he committed a crime and was found guilty, but the judge made a stupid decision and let him walk with 12 weeks’ time served and probation when 14 years was recommended.

Let’s review: Brock Turner is a criminal and his judge was stupid. These four adults committed a criminal act and I just hope they don’t get a stupid judge or jury.

I am bothered by many on the right who say that there is no outcry about this event. There are no hashtags, there isn’t wall-to-wall media coverage, and where is the outcry from the black community calling for justice? The same people who are saying there are no hashtags also haven’t created and promoted any. The media may not be covering this wall-to-wall, but if you Google “Chicago hate crime,” you will find page after page of media coverage, news, videos, images, and on and on. I can’t speak for the black community, but the person who made me aware of this crime was a black friend of mine on Facebook. President Obama spoke out about this crime calling the act “despicable” and a “hate crime.” His words, not mine. I don’t need Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to say anything when the most prominent figure in black America calls this crime despicable and a hate crime. So, why manufacture more anger?

Another reaction to this event and the reason I chose to write on this subject is an article from an alt-right source which referred to this attack as being perpetrated by “#BlackLivesMatter Supporters.” Calling these people Black Lives Matter supporters bothers me. This is nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize some very real concerns that black people have in modern America. This is the very same thing that the leftist (and unfortunately much of it mainstream) media does when they point out that most white supremacists supported Trump for president. To defend Trump against these claims by accurately portraying Trump supporters as a diverse group of people and then to lump all black people together based on the actions of a fringe minority is, at best, hypocrisy, but more than likely, it is just racism raising its ugly head.

I will admit openly to being wary of the leadership of the Black Lives Matter organization. They are openly Marxist, have called for violent revolution, and have made absolutely ridiculous demands on the country. I will also say that the media, both left and right have sensationalized the so-called Black Lives Matter protests, which may have started out as protests, but a small group of ignoramuses and anarchists turn these peaceful protests into riots where private property is looted and burned. Let me emphasize that they are a small group—a fringe minority at best.

I have many black friends. Like the average black demographic, the majority of my black friends are Democrats, but because of the circles in which I travel, I’m pretty sure that there are quite a few more conservatives in my circle of friends than the average five percent across the black demographic. Most of my black friends, including some of the conservatives, are also supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. None of them has promoted violence against whites, a violent overthrow of the United States, nor have they been involved in burning and looting private property.

It may be that my black friends are the exception to the rule, but I don’t think so. The majority of black Americans who support Black Lives Matter do not support the wanton destruction of property inflicted by a few idiots. Black people in the United States have some real grievances and some of that is due to white people in the United States glossing over our own history, not just white history, but American history.

I’m not saying that white people should go around apologizing to black people for slavery nor should the government do so. Bernie Sanders said that America never apologized for slavery, but I hope he was just trying to win some political points because otherwise, he displays a very dangerous ignorance of history. American politicians, including some who were slave owners have been apologizing for slavery since before the founding of the country and continued to do so long after slavery had ended.

I’m not saying that white people should go around apologizing to black people for segregation and Jim Crow, nor should the government do so. The apology for these horrible crimes against black America was made by voting for politicians who passed the various Civil Rights Acts which are still encoded in federal law and remain as a stark reminder that there was a time in America when one group of humans degraded and enslaved another group because of the color of their skin and what we know now to be a genetic difference so small that a black man and a white man have more in common genetically than they do with their own female relatives.

I’m not saying that there ought to be reparations for America’s past because many citizens of the United States, including most white people do not even have slave owning ancestors. The majority of white people living today were not even conceived when segregation and Jim Crow were a reality in America. So, I’m certainly not telling white people to be guilty for something the majority of us had no part in, but I am saying we need to be honest about the history of this country including slavery and the Southern Confederacy.

I hope it was clear from my first paragraph that I am also not saying that black people can’t be racist. They can be and that was evident earlier this week. However, for most black Americans, racism is a reality they deal with on nearly a daily basis if not every day. While slavery is only history and segregation is a distant memory for the older generation of black Americans, racism and racial stereotypes about black Americans still persist in America and the headline I referenced above perpetuates the stereotypes as well as racism.

If we are going to have real racial reconciliation, it is important for people to end the stereotypes. End the stereotypes of police who are all a bunch of racist white guys out hunting for black kids to shoot. End the stereotypes of Black Lives Matter supporters as nothing more than a bunch of whiny thugs who want to steal anything they can get their hands on and destroy everything else. End the stereotypes of all white people being racists. End the stereotype of all black people being lazy and entitled, just wanting free stuff.

The list could go on.

The way reconciliation happens is we step out of our comfort zone and out of our echo chamber and into acquaintanceships, friendships, and eventually relationships with people who look different and think differently than we do. There is a documentary that came out just last month called Accidental Courtesy: Daryl Davis about a black man who makes it a point to befriend members of the Ku Klux Klan. His belief is that many racists are the way they are because they have never personally met black people and gotten to know them. This is often true wherever you find any kind of animosity and was true in this case. Daryl Davis has converted, if you will, hundreds of former Klan members from racism to tolerance.

Every problem won’t be solved over night, but they won’t be solved at all if we can’t reach across the aisle and get to know people different from us. What we usually find when we open the doors of communication with people who think differently from us is that “those people,” whether they are black, Asian, Muslim, Christian, atheist, Democrats or Republicans, aren’t our opposition or even our opposites. They want the same things we do. They want to live their lives in peace, to raise their children in safe neighborhoods, to have a chance at prosperity, and enjoy life. They may disagree with us as to the means, but there will never be compromise as long as we look at people who are different from us as the opposition. There will never be reconciliation as long as we allow anyone to perpetuate stereotypes.

I’m an advocate of free speech, even speech that offends me. I am an advocate for people of all philosophies to have the freedom to spout their ideas in any forum they would like to. However, my free speech advocacy also comes with the caveat that others will have the freedom to rebut, critique, and debunk those ideas they find offensive. I will try to be constructive in my criticism, but sometimes, stupid is just stupid and there’s no other way to say it.

By the way, I figured out a title. Maybe not catchy, but at least I have a title now.

Water Consumption, Conservation, and Sustainability

“The world is changed. I feel it in the water.”

Galadriel from the film adaptation of Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

In 1492 when Christopher Columbus made his historic voyage across the Atlantic in search of a western route to Asia, the world’s population was approximately 425 million people (Ortiz-Espina). That’s just slightly less than the current combined population of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Over the past 500 years, the world’s population has increased by 1,550%! The spread of humanity has left a huge environmental footprint on the face of the Earth, but only recently has the human race begun to consider the environmental impact of mankind’s ever increasing population. While the growth rate of the population peaked in about 1962, the spread of humanity continues apace and humans continue to utilize Earth’s resources (Ortiz-Espina). Because of ethical issues associated with population control, the societies of Earth are, largely, not yet ready to address ways in which the growth of the human race can be slowed or reversed to preserve our planet for future generations. If we aren’t going to seriously address the continued growth of the human population, we must take seriously the fact that the resources to support such growth are limited. One particularly limited resource is water.

While a little more than two thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by water, more than 97% of Earth’s water supply is undrinkable salt water. Only 2.56% of Earth’s water is freshwater and most of that, 69%, is stored in glaciers. 30% of Earth’s freshwater is groundwater and this is where humans currently get most of their water for drinking and irrigation (Tarbuck 16). As the human population grows, more water is being pumped from the ground than is being put back in by natural and manmade processes. The effects of the overuse of ground water can be most strikingly observed in places like California’s San Joaquin Valley where ground water pumping has caused the ground to subside by up to 28 feet in some areas. The compaction of the ground caused by over-pumping and subsidence has resulted in an interruption in the groundwater flow in many areas and the resulting agricultural drought combined with meteorological drought can be both economically and environmentally disastrous. In coastal areas where ground water is pumped out, there is a constant danger of salt water intrusion poisoning the ground water supply which also has a detrimental agricultural, economic, and environmental impact (“Land Subsidence”).

Beyond agricultural and environmental issues associated with water, there is the day-to-day use by humans in our homes, work, and schools. We pump in water for drinking, hygiene, and sanitation. We continue to use and use without much concern for the fact that we are running out of water. Already, 1.2 Billion people live without a reliable source of clean drinking water. Another 1.6 Billion face economic water shortage. By 2025, these numbers are expected to increase by 1.8 Billion and 3.96 Billion respectively. With the world population projected to be around 9.6 Billion by 2025, that means that 60% of the world’s population will be facing a water crisis if action isn’t taken right now and there are actions that can be taken (“Water Scarcity”). To see what changes can be made to stave off future water shortages, we must look at countries that are already successfully taking steps to conserve, recycle, and even produce freshwater, countries like Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

The nation of Israel has set the standard for progress in many areas of technological achievement, including in the areas of environmentalism and sustainability. Where water conservation and sustainability is concerned, this small desert nation has set the bar high. Israel has a population of 8 million people, but only has one freshwater lake and one consistent freshwater river, receives less than 2 inch of rain a year, and several thousand people immigrate to Israel each year. In spite of this, Israel has a surplus of water. Israel supplies its residents with plenty of water and the country is a net agricultural exporter (“Can a Desert”). How do they do it?

First, Israel forces the population to be water conscious by offering water as a utility at its real price (“Let There Be” 238). There are no subsidies and as Seth Siegel points out, “when you pay for something, you tend to be more careful with how you use it” (“Can a Desert”). Many homeowners know that leaky pipes can cost dozens to hundreds of dollars a year. Many cities are losing enormous amounts of water in leaks with some countries losing up to 60% of their water (“Let There Be” 6). The drawbacks of leaky pipes are magnified in countries where water is scarce. Israel mitigated the issue of leaky pipes by installing monitoring systems in all public utilities. If a leak occurs, utility technicians are notified immediately and repair crews are sent out to repair the leak the very same day. This not only saves water, but it also has the economic benefit of saving both homeowners and businesses on utility bills (“Let There Be” 49).

With this “nothing wasted” mentality, even waste water is utilized as a water resource. Sewage is processed, treated to an ultra-pure level, and then utilized in agriculture. Israeli farms use drip irrigation instead of flood irrigation, which has the benefit of adding to the groundwater, decreasing water loss through evaporation, and uses less energy than many other irrigation methods. While other countries use wastewater for commercial and decorative purposes like golf courses and water features, no other country utilizes wastewater as widely as Israel (“Can a Desert”). If people can get past their psychological reservations about drinking purified wastewater, purified sewage could be used to stem fresh drinking water shortages (“Reclaimed Water”). Astronauts on the International Space Station have been drinking water recycled from a variety of sources for years, including urine, sweat, and moisture released into the air from breathing (“Water on the Space Station”).

Israel also provides more than 80% of their country’s drinking water with desalinated water taken from the Mediterranean Sea (“Can a Desert”). The problem with desalination is that it tends to be an expensive process that uses a lot of electricity and has several harmful by-products such as brine. Brine has twice the salinity of normal sea water and is completely deoxygenated. Brine is normally disposed of by dumping it back in the ocean. If brine is disposed of improperly, it can kill sea life in the disposal area. Israel mitigates this by disposing brine in heavy seas where the normal mixing action of the ocean will mix brine, reducing the salinity, and naturally oxygenating the water (“Desalination”).

Saudi Arabia mitigates the by-product issue by pulling out every economically usable substance out of the brine, such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, chlorine, bromine, and salt (Al-Mutaz). Egyptian scientists recently developed technology that desalinates seawater with almost no electricity and fewer by-products (Delacey). In these desert countries, necessity is driving technological advances in water conservation and sustainability. As the old saying goes, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

While these are all great technologies, some are a long way off in the United States. Some technologies, like purified wastewater, will require the public to be convinced of its safety before it can be implemented. Concerned individuals need to preach the gospel of environmentalism and help everyone realize that making these changes are in everyone’s best interest. We need to be active in civic life, writing our elected representatives to push for the changes that are needed. We also need to do our best to support businesses that make environmentally conscious decisions. In the meantime, there things that individuals can do to reduce their ecological footprint on the Earth’s hydrosphere. Instead of planting grass, which not only uses much more water than any native plants in water starved areas, plant ground covers or install a rock garden. Install rain barrels under gutters and use rainwater for home gardening, car washing, and other outdoor uses. Install drip irrigation systems or use soaker hoses to minimize water lost through evaporation.

If changes are not made soon, one only needs to look at countries and regions struggling with water shortages to see the results of ignoring this problem. US Intelligence Analysts have suggested that one of the major factors in the Syrian Civil War is drought (General Jones). Drought and water shortages lead to agricultural and economic crises that lead to famine and food shortages. Water shortages lead to desperation, sickness, and, not to sound melodramatic, death. The world will force humanity into a very painful equilibrium if the proper changes aren’t made. Louis Pasteur once said, “Fortune favors the prepared mind.” If we prepare ourselves now by making the necessary individual changes, when the changes are mandated, the pain will be reduced or completely mitigated.

Works Cited

Al-Mutaz, Ibrahim S. By-product recovery from Saudi desalination plants. Elsevier B.V. 1987, https://www.academia.edu/6527211/By-product_recovery_from_Saudi_desalination_plants. Accessed 14 Oct. 2016.

“Current Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley.” United States Geological Survey. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/land-subsidence-san-joaquin-valley.html. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016

Delacey, Linda. “Cheap, simple technique turns seawater into drinking water.” New Atlas. 20 Oct. 2015, Gizmag Pty, Ltd. 2016. http://newatlas.com/new-desalination-method-egypt/39941/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2016

“Desalination.” Ask an Expert. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/desalination/01.htm. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016.

General Jones, James L. “Importance of Elevating Water as a National Security Priority.” U.S. Water Partnership, 22 Mar. 2016.

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Directed by Peter Jackson, performances by Cate Blanchett, New Line Cinema, 2001.

Ortiz-Espina, Esteban and Max Roser. “World Population Growth.” Our World in Data. University of Oxford 2016, https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/. Accessed 17 Oct 2016

“Reclaimed wastewater: Using treated wastewater for other purposes.” United States Geological Survey, 2 May 2016, http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wwreclaimed.html. Accessed 11 Oct. 2016.

Siegel, Seth M. “Can a Desert Nation Solve the World’s Water Shortage?” PragerU. Prager University, 2016. https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/can-desert-nation-solve-worlds-water-shortage. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016

Siegel, Seth M. Let There Be Water: Israel’s Solution for a Water-Starved World. St. Martin’s Press, 2015

Tarbuck, Edward J. et al. Earth Science. 14th ed., Pearson, 2015

“Water on the Space Station.” NASA Science Beta. 1 Nov. 2000, https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast02nov_1. Accessed 13 Oct. 2016.

“Water Scarcity.” Water for Life Decade. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014, http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml. Accessed 17 Oct. 2016.

Sioux Rescue of Gareth MacNair

Worthington Whittredge, "Encampment on the Platte River," c. 1866

It was October in the Nebraska Territory and there was a chill in the air. The trees had long since started to change color. Gareth MacNair was already three months behind schedule. He was going to have to head south for the Butterfield Stage Trail to avoid getting caught on the Bozeman Trail during the winter.

Appomattox Courthouse was six months ago and Gareth was glad the war was over. When he received word of General Lee’s surrender, he stripped off his grey lieutenant’s jacket, saddled his paint and headed west in search of a little peace and quiet.

While he had fought for the Confederacy, Gareth really didn’t care about either side. Jefferson Davis was fighting to maintain slavery under the guise of “state’s rights” and Abraham Lincoln was fighting for tyranny under the guise of “preserving the union.” All Gareth wanted was to be left alone, but the Union drew him into the war. They ensured that Gareth would not only fight for the Confederacy, but hate the damn Yanks for the rest of his life.

In 1861 when the War Between the States began, Gareth MacNair was living happily and mostly peacefully on his small farm in Tennessee with his wife, Maria and two sons, Jim and John.

While many families had sent their sons off to war with foolhardy assurances that the war would be over in a matter of weeks, Gareth had forbidden his boys from enlisting. He could see right through the lies of the Secessionists and he would have no part in maintaining slavery or defending it and neither would he abide his sons being associated with that human degradation.

“What you want us to do, Pa?” Jim had asked incredulously, “You want us to fight with Lincoln’s boys?”

“I don’t want you to fight at all,” Gareth had stated flatly. “You’re gonna stay home and stay out of this. You hear?”

His boys didn’t talk to him for a month, but they obeyed him.

One day in April of 1862, his boys had gone out hunting. When they didn’t come home by sunset, Gareth and Maria began to worry. In the dying blood red light of dusk, Gareth grabbed his Kentucky long rifle, the same kind that made Jack Hinson famous during the War, and walked out the front door with every intention to search for his missing boys. As Gareth stepped through the door, he looked across the potato field and saw uniformed horsemen emerging from the trees on the other side. It was a small company of Union cavalry.

As the cavalry cleared the tree line, Gareth saw two scared and tired looking men; hands tied together and tethered to the last two horses, jogging to keep from falling. They were his sons!

Gareth set his rifle against the door and waited anxiously as the cavalry rode down the path to the front of his house. A tall, haughty officer with captain’s bars on the shoulders of his blue uniform raised his hand and signaled the company to stop. As the company came to a halt, the captain continued forward on horseback.

The captain’s voice was oily smooth, but all business with tinge of Virginia drawl. “These bushwhackers claim that this is the home of Secesh sympathizers.”

Gareth could feel a combination of fear and anger as the realization that his boys were being accused of a crime against the Union that carried the death penalty. Even worse, Gareth himself was being accused of being a Confederate sympathizer. As the blood filled his face, he did everything he could to stay calm.

“No, sir,” Gareth replied deliberately. “You are mistaken. My boys ain’t bushwhackers and we ain’t on any side here.”

“These are your sons?” the captain noted with surprise. There was a condescending air to every word the captain spoke. “If they are not bushwhackers, then perhaps you can explain why they were firing on Union troops.”

“Pa,” John cried out, fear and desperation in his voice. “We didn’t. I swear.”

“My boys went out hunting this morning,” Gareth explained calmly. “They were probably shooting at game.”

The captain smiled pure evil.

“Just the sort of explanation I would expect from Secesh.” He turned to his men and stated simply, “Kill the boys, hang their heads on the gate posts. Burn the buildings and fields.”

“NO!” Maria cried out from inside and ran through the door, down the steps and sprinted toward Jim and John.

Time slowed down. Gareth remembered every sensation. He felt the tingle of every hair on his body and every bead of sweat beginning to secrete from his upper lip and forehead. For the rest of his life, he could recall in detail every moment and motion of the next few seconds.

Four soldiers in the rear dismounted their horses. Two of them, lieutenants, drew their sabers with a ring of cold steel. The other two grabbed Jim and John and forced them to the ground.

Gareth stood frozen with mouth agape – unbelieving.

As Maria crossed the clearing between the house and the potato field, the captain pulled his Colt Dragoon revolver and fired a single shot.

Gareth flinched back to reality and watched in horror as his wife fell motionless to the ground. His eyes widened. He knew in his heart of heart, there was nothing he could do, but he was going to kill that Captain. He turned to grab his Kentucky long rifle, but it was too late. The captain had already leveled his revolver and fired again.

Gareth felt fire in his back and the wind was knocked out of him. The shot spun him around and he stumbled off the porch and fell to the ground. As the darkness closed in, his last sights were his dead wife in a pool of blood and the Union lieutenants bringing their swords down on the necks of his struggling sons.

He had been found by Confederate scouts and hospitalized for over a month in bed. He spent another two months in recovery. After his recovery and because of his combat experience in the Mexican war, he was offered a commission as a lieutenant. He gladly put on Confederate gray and took up arms in order to kill as many murderous Yanks as he could.

With the war over, his wife and sons dead, his home burned and his burned land untenable, Gareth MacNair had no home to go to.

He was in the southwest region of the Nebraska Territory. Even though he was behind schedule, it was actually a better time to be in the region. If he had made the time he hoped and arrived in the area three months earlier, he would have walked right into a war between Union Army and several local Indian tribes. The Union, with superior firepower had won and the region was at peace for now. Of course the war was a problem that the Union Army created in the first place with typical government tyranny. At any rate, the travel was safe for now while the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho licked their wounds and plotted in their camps.

Gareth was riding cross country, due south, cutting his own trail. His only possessions besides the clothes on his body and the wide brimmed felt hat on his head were his Army pack, his old trusty Kentucky long rifle, a Henry repeating rifle he took from a dead Yankee during the War, two 1851 Colt Navy revolvers he’d had since the Mexican War, a Bowie knife on his belt, and his sturdy paint horse.

His travels took him through some beautiful hill country. It was an easy ride and very peaceful. It was just the thing that Gareth needed. Gareth could easily see why people wanted to settle in these parts. He was tempted to stop and stake a claim himself.

The peace of the day was cut by gunshots. Gareth’s head snapped to the front and the paint flinched, startled. It sounded like only one or two guns firing, but they were firing repeatedly. There was definitely something bad going down and Gareth wanted no part of it.

Over the sounds of gunshots, Gareth could also hear screaming—lots of it. That was enough to pique his curiosity. It sounded like a slaughter.

The gunshots seemed to come from the south, just ahead of him. In the hills, it was sometimes hard to tell.

As Gareth spurred his paint up the hill, the gunshots ceased, but there was still the sound of screaming. There was only one scream. The rest had fallen silent, but that one scream was filled with the utmost terror.

Just before he crested the hill, Gareth reigned in his horse and jumped off. He quickly tied his horse to a tree just below the crest of the hill and pulled down both of his rifles. His Henry rifle was good at close range and had saved his bacon on several occasions. He figured he would need his long rifle, though. He could shoot a squirrel out of a tree from two hundred yards with a good shooting support and he had used it to send many Yankees to meet the devil.

His Henry stayed loaded, but he had to load his long rifle and did so as he climbed the hill. At the top of the hill were a cluster of boulders. He walked behind them, set his Henry rifle against the rocks and brought his long rifle to the ready. He slowly peered around the west side of the rocks looking down the hill. Immediately, his blood began to boil.

The view from the top of the hill revealed a river running west to east. This was the South Platte River and Gareth had expected to cross it today. The river was lined with beautiful fall colored cottonwood trees. The leaves blazed fiery red, orange, and yellow, and smoldering browns.

The beauty ended there. Along the bank, there were at least a dozen lifeless Indian bodies – men, women, and children dead from gunshot wounds. To the east of the bodies, there were two horses tied to trees.

And two U.S. Army soldiers in those goddamn Yankee blue jackets. One wore sergeant stripes and the other was a private. They were wrestling with a struggling Indian girl.

Gareth’s mind was thrust back in time three and half years. Maria running, falling dead, the burning pain in his back, his sons dying at the hands of Union soldiers. The evil glare of the Union captain.

“Git ‘er hands,” the sergeant directed.

The private grabbed her left, but with her free hand, she delivered a solid right hook that sent the private reeling forcing him to let her go. She was strong.

She tried to make a run for it, but the sergeant was faster. In three steps he grabbed her leather tunic and backhanded her, knocking her to the ground. She was dazed, but still conscious. She tried to get up, but her head was spinning and could only crawl.

“Damn it!” the sergeant exclaimed with a sneer, “She won’t be as much fun like this.” He turned to the private, “Go on boy fetch some rope.”

“Alright!”

As the private ran back to the horses to retrieve the rope, the sergeant walked slowly to the Indian girl. This was Gareth’s chance. If he was going to rescue this girl, from these vile monsters he was going to have to take advantage of the lull. Gareth leaned against the rock for support.

The sergeant bent down and grabbed the Indian girl by her hair and spun her over. He straddled her, sitting on her pelvis. She tried to resist, but the sergeant was easily able to grab her hands and hold them over her head.

Gareth lined up the sergeant’s head in his sights. It was a long shot, but Gareth had more than two decades of experience and elevation on his side.

The private was already at the sergeant’s side with the rope and he began quickly tying the Indian girl’s hands.

“Whoo hoo!” the private yelled excitedly, “I ain’t had me none in months.”

“Just git ‘er tied,” the sergeant instructed, “We got plenty of time.”

Gareth placed the pad of his index finger on the trigger and took a deep breath. He could feel his heart beat slowing. Calm. Halfway through his exhale, he squeezed.

Just as the private finished tying the girl’s hands, they were both sprayed by something wet. He looked down to see the girl’s tunic and face spattered with blood.

Before he could react, he was startled by the report of rifle fire. At the same time, the sergeant’s lifeless and nearly decapitated body slumped to the ground.

The private forgot about the Indian girl, sprang to his feet, pulled his Colt Army revolver, and sprinted for the nearest tree.

From the top of the hill, Gareth was almost done reloading by the time the private got to the tree. The private would have good cover behind the tree, but he wouldn’t be able to stay there forever and Gareth was patient.

The private didn’t know where the shooter was, but he knew the report had come from the north. He assumed the shooter was in the cluster of rocks at the top of the hill. Probably a damned Sioux brave he and the sergeant had missed while following this group. He had good cover, but if the shooter came down the hill, he would be vulnerable. He and the sergeant had gone AWOL from Fort Laramie two weeks prior, so there was no help coming for them. If he could make it to his horse, he might have a shot at making it out alive.

Gareth watched the tree intently. The muscles in his arms were on fire, holding the rifle steady. The Kentucky long rifle was only ten pounds and the support of the rock helped ease some of the weight. Nevertheless, holding that position was starting to take its toll.

Suddenly, the private dashed for his horse. He fired to the north indiscriminately, hoping to cover his run, but Gareth was way out of the revolver’s range.

He followed the soldier’s run, leading him by a few yards trying to take the soldier’s speed into account. He squeezed the trigger once more and the trusty old rifle roared in response.

Gareth wasn’t sure he hit the soldier at first. He was still running. After a few steps, the soldier stumbled and fell lifeless in a pool of his own blood.

Gareth slung his long rifle, grabbed his Henry rifle and started quickly down the hill. The girl was still tied and was trying to crawl away from the gore.

At a brisk jog, Gareth made it to the bottom of the hill in just under two minutes. The girl had crawled slowly about twenty yards. She was still dazed from being hit by the sergeant and sobbing uncontrollably.

Gareth rushed to the girl’s side. He put his hand on her shoulder and she spun on her back wide eyed.

“Omakiya ye!” She screamed, shrilly, “Ayustan ye!”

“Sh, sh,” he tried to console her, “It’s ok.”

She continued struggling. She didn’t understand that Gareth was trying to help. This was Sioux territory which meant she was probably speaking Lakota. Gareth had a lot of experience with Indians and their languages. Growing up in the east he had learned some Cherokee and during the Mexican war he learned a lot of Apache, but in Lakota, he could only remember one word and he hoped it was the right one.

“Okopesnian,” Gareth said calmly, “Safe. You understand?”

The girl collapsed on her back, weeping, but relaxed. She understood him. Gareth meant her no harm.

He set his rifles down. The girl was still upset and anything could be seen as a threat and he didn’t want to startle her into a fit again. He pointed to his Bowie knife and then to her hands which were still tied together. He then made a sawing motion with his hand against the rope. She nodded in understanding.

Gareth pulled the knife from its sheath and cut her bonds. He fully expected her to make a run for it. He wouldn’t have blamed her and he would have let her go. Instead, she flung herself into his arms and held him in a tight, fearful, sobbing embrace.

“Pilamayaye,” she sobbed quietly. Gareth assumed that was some sort of expression of gratitude.

He held her for a moment longer, stroking the back of her head. He was aware of her softness pressing against him. He hadn’t held a woman close for three and a half years. This girl was young – younger than him anyway. In spite of the austere life of the Sioux, the luster of youth had not yet left her. In spite of her comparative youth, she was certainly more woman than girl. He felt the pangs of desire that had become almost unfamiliar to him.

Gareth put those thoughts aside and pulled the girl away from him by the shoulders. He looked into her eyes. They were deep brown, almost black, almond shaped, and tender. Again, the pang of desire coursed through him.

“Come on,” he said, looking away uncomfortably, “Let’s get you cleaned up.”

Standing, Gareth helped the Indian girl to her feet. He took her hand gently and motioned toward the river.

“Clean,” Gareth said.

The girl nodded, but stood still. She raised her hand and pointed to herself.

“Mapiya.”

“Mapeeya,” Gareth repeated, “That’s your name? Mapeeya?”

The girl nodded and said, “Huh. Mapiya emaciyapi.” She pointed at Gareth inquiringly.

He nodded, pointed at her and repeated again, “Mapiya” he caught the pronunciation better this time, then he pointed to himself and said, “Gareth.”

“Gahr-eeth,” she tried. Mapiya’s mouth was still quivering from crying, but she forced a smile and walked to the river’s edge.

Gareth walked behind Mapiya and she began to lift her tunic over her head. He stopped short looking at the bare tawny skin of her back. She was undressing and with no shame. As much as the man in Gareth wanted to keep watching, the gentleman in him turned around.

He didn’t think she would understand, but with is back to her, Gareth pointed up the hill and said, “I have to go get my horse.”

“Huh,” he heard her reply. It wasn’t a question and Gareth had heard Mapiya say it before. He hoped that meant “yes” and that she understood. He went to the horses, untied one, mounted and rode to fetch his paint.

Gareth took inventory of the soldiers’ gear. They had a Springfield 1863 rifle and a Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle. He had no use for either of those weapons. Each of the soldiers had a Colt Army revolver. Since Gareth already had his own revolvers, he thought about giving them to Mapiya – maybe one of the rifles too. She would probably leave. Even though she was in Sioux country, she was alone and she would need protection.

Besides weapons and ammunition, they had simple packs and rations, and the inventory went quickly. He turned to look at the dead Indians scattered about. He wanted to honor the dead, but he wasn’t sure of Sioux traditions. Some Indians practiced sky burial and some burned their dead. He didn’t have time for either and besides, both of those practices would probably create more problems than they would solve.

One of the dead soldiers had a spade. Gareth decided to risk offending Mapiya and began digging graves in some brush away from the river. He hoped the plants would hide the graves.

Hours passed. Gareth was aware that Mapiya was taking inventory of her own people’s possessions. She found clean clothes and tied drag sleds to one of the Army horses and also to Gareth’s paint on which she began stacking various items she found: furs, packs, food, and other items. Evidently she planned on staying with him for a while. They both did their work quietly.

When the graves were finished, Gareth began to drag the body of one of the Sioux – an old man – toward the first grave. Mapiya appeared and grabbed the old man’s feet. She wasn’t crying anymore, but she was very serious and they both gently lowered the body into the first grave.

Within minutes all the Sioux bodies had been laid to rest. Gareth picked up the shovel. Mapiya grabbed his hand and shook her head. Gareth had the feeling she was going to say some kind of words over the graves, so he removed his sweat soaked, wide brimmed, felt hat and placed it over his heart.

Mapiya began singing and dancing haltingly around the graves. The tune was hauntingly beautiful and filled the air with a kind of magic that touched Gareth’s soul. Gareth couldn’t understand the words, but he could understand the emotion. By the looks of the people now lying in graves, Mapiya had lost her family today.

They made camp on a higher plateau above the river. After bathing himself, Gareth shot two rabbits and Mapiya was cooking them over a fire on an improvised spit. As Mapiya cooked, Gareth made a makeshift tent for Mapiya by tying a rope between two trees, throwing some Army blankets over the top and staking down the corners. He planned on sleeping in the open air, but figured a lady might like some privacy.

As they worked, Gareth couldn’t help but steal glances at Mapiya.

She had let her raven black hair down to dry and it made her look less girlish. Her hair was combed back, but still fell in luxurious, silky streams over her shoulders as she worked. Her face was soft and angled with high cheekbones, and a slight blush of youth. She had found a clean, simple deerskin dress that fell gracefully over her athletic yet feminine body.

Mapiya caught Gareth’s eye as he tried to steal another glance. He quickly looked away, embarrassed. He pretended to be absorbed with the tent. When he looked back, he could see that she was smiling.

With dinner finished, Gareth laid out his own bedroll next to a tree and sat down leaning against the tree with his Henry rifle next to him.

Mapiya cleared her throat and Gareth looked up. She was standing next to the tent holding some kind of rolled up fur.

She pointed to the tent and said, “Heyuway.”

Gareth had no idea what she said, but responded anyway. “Yeah. That’s for you.”

Mapiya pointed to Gareth, beckoned with her hand and then pointed to the tent. “Heyuway.”

Gareth understood. Mapiya wanted him to go in the tent.

“No ma’am,” Gareth replied, smiling. Patting the ground he said, “I’ll be fine out here.”

There was a look on Mapiya’s face. Was that disappointment? She disappeared into the tent.

Gareth was tempted to go into the tent, but he knew what would happen in there. Mapiya was beautiful and although he called her a girl because she was younger than him by probably fifteen to twenty years, she was all woman. Gareth had never dishonored a lady. He hadn’t even lain with his own wife until they were married.

As he began to drift off into a light sleep Gareth listened to Mapiya moving around inside the tent. He wondered how the Sioux were married. He wondered what that would be like. He wondered what marriage to Mapiya would be like.

She had awakened in him something that he hadn’t felt in three and a half years. Since the death of Maria and his sons, Gareth had only felt anger and had been consumed with hate and the desire to exact retribution on the Union. He had no room for love. He didn’t even care for his own men—they were simply tools to help him carry out his revenge.

Mapiya had put dent in his hate. For the first time since the death of his family, Gareth felt the need to protect something instead of destroy it. He felt that he could love Mapiya. He felt that he did love Mapiya. In a sense, she had rescued him just as much as he had rescued her.