Another Dead Indian opinion
I have a problem with the name "Dead Indian Memorial Road." From what I've read, there were two dead Indians found up there, so it should be "Dead Indians Memorial Road." One of the deceased is not being honored.
The name was modified once already when "Memorial" was added. This time around I suggest that we just drop "Dead." Having both "Dead" and "Memorial" in the name is overkill (ie: it's not the "Dead Lincoln Memorial" in D.C.). Shortening it to "Indian Memorial Road" is a relatively minor change that retains the historical aspect and should be less offensive to the currently offended.
I don't understand this pushback on the use of Native American names. Especially when it comes to sporting teams. When the school chose to name their competitive teams after Native Americans they were honoring their fighting spirit. If we stop using these names the First Peoples will be less visible. The only names that need changing are the disrespectful or racist ones, like "The Redskins".
Will the U.S. military be addressing this issue? They have Tomahawk missiles and Black Hawk, Apache, and Iroquois helicopters.
Will Indianapolis and Indiana have to go as well?
Ambrose and the Supreme Court
Jay Ambrose writes "The (Supreme) Court long ago began discovering rights where there were none ..." I wonder what "rights" Ambrose is referring to? Possibly the right of money to equal free speech and for corporations to have a limitless amount of it? Strangely, I've read the Constitution from end to end and can find no mention of either of these "rights."
What other "rights" might have the court have "discovered"? Perhaps the right for the criminally accused not to be beaten and coerced into a confession? The right of black Americans not to be segregated? The right of a loving gay couple to have the same legal protections of civil marriage as hetero couples do, without in any way diminishing the rights of heteros? The insistence that the police must get a court order to place a tracking device on your car?
I'm very suspicious that the "rights" Ambrose wants to undiscover will not in any way diminish his status as a rich white hetero person with access to excellent legal representation. He should be more explicit on exactly whose rights he wants to diminish and why.