The Indian Chief Who Killed a U.S. General

This is a dead horse, but can there be any doubt that Fox News is driven by a bias against President Obama? Many companies have mission statements tacked to their walls--surely Fox News includes one that states "Obama Can Do No Right." How else can we think after their Website took a story from U.S.A. Today and gave it the headline: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed a U.S. General."

The story was about a children's book, penned by Obama, that praises thirteen Americans from history. It's a diverse group, from the usual suspects like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to Helen Keller and Cesar Chavez. All nationalities are represented, so it's not a shock that an American Indian was chosen, and Obama tabbed Sitting Bull, chief of the Lakota Sioux. He was certainly one of the great chiefs of North America, and took part in a war against the U.S. military, which had its best day at the Little Bighorn, when Custer's Seventh Cavalry was wiped out.

I can only imagine that some low-level editor at Fox Nation had this item come across their desk and, noting the company manifesto, had to somehow turn it into an Obama negative. It was a tough job--the book seems innocuous. One of the choices was Billie Holliday, who led a dissolute life of drug abuse, but she was passed over for Sitting Bull, whose life was summed up as the "Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General."

The headline attracted a lot of attention. It generated buzz from the lunatic right, who cite it as another example of Obama's anti-Americanism. Mostly it engendered mockery by the rest of us, who see it for what it is--a naked cheap shot. It's interesting to note that Custer was not identified by name in the headline--I don't think anyone thinks Custer deserves much reverence these days. It was also interesting, and hilarious, that the headline was later changed to "Indian Chief Who Defeated U.S. General," as there is no evidence that Sitting Bull himself delivered the coup de grace. Fox' statement was that the headline was changed for "historical accuracy." That's very funny.

I'm also guessing that many who have taken the opportunity to pile on Obama for this are the apologists for the Confederacy, who have Stars and Bars bumper stickers and would throw a hissy fit if someone wanted to tear down the statues of Confederate leaders in their town squares. But, after all, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were also men who "defeated U.S. generals." Worse, they were traitors, which can't be said of Sitting Bull, who was just trying to avoid genocide.

I've enjoyed reading the comments by historians who actually know what they are talking about. One noted that at that point in his life, Sitting Bull was not leading his men, he was back with the women and children (Crazy Horse was the man). Another is skeptical of Obama's praise, saying that Sitting Bull's legacy is not exactly a pleasant one, as his actions led to the defeat of his people, and that he ended up a sideshow in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Perhaps Obama could have chosen a different Indian, who would be tough to find controversy with, like Squanto or Sequoia. But I'm sure the headline would then have been, "Obama Praises Drug-Addicted Jazz Singer."