November 29, 2014
Story reported by John Stiller
The United Nations has just passed a resolution ordering all residents of Manhattan who are not related to the original inhabitants of the island to leave. Ownership of the island will be turned over to the descendants of the Native Americans (the Lenape people) that lived there before 1626.
“It is completely unacceptable what the Dutch did to the original inhabitants of Manhattan,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “They paid the Lenape 60 gilders worth of goods for the entire island, which is around a $1,000 in today’s currency. It’s downright theft, and we must correct this injustice.”
The nearly 1,500,000 people who live in Manhattan have three days to pack their belongings in preparation for relocation. Evacuee camps along the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island will provide living arrangements in the short-term. Eventually, these residents will be relocated to new arrangements in Staten Island, with the hope that someday they will have their own state within the US.
The .01% of Native descendants who live in Manhattan are overjoyed that the island is being returned to them. Descendants of Native Americans from across the country are already considering moving to their new homeland, but there is already controversy about whether Manhattan should belong exclusively to the descendants of the Lenape people, or to all Native Americans. The UN resolution is vague on this subject.
But the bigger controversy is the reactions of average New Yorkers. They are not happy with the decision.
“My family’s lived in Manhattan for years, I mean going way back. Why do I have to leave because the Dutch screwed over the Indians?” said long-time Harlem resident Tyrone Arenas.
Mr. Arenas said this at a rally in front of the UN to protest to the decision.
“We’ve been here for decades. This isn’t right,” said Lower East Side resident Irving Roth.
The rally turned into a large “rap” session were people spoke of their frustrations with the decision by the United Nations.
“Jesus, do they know who I am? They can’t do this to my people. We won’t put up with it,” said Upper West Side resident, Donald Smith.
A counter-protest of Native activists later showed up and heated words were exchanged.
“I own half of this [expletive] island!” Mr. Smith shouted at the counter-protestors.
The main spokesman for the counter rally, a man named Tamanend Smith, shouted back that the concept of “ownership” of land as Mr. Smith (Donald) understood it was very different than the Lenape people.
“Go back to China, you [expletive] little commie-pinko [racial slur]. This my land now, [expletive]!” was (Donald) Smith’s response.
Tamanend then declared that Kishelemukong was the Great Creator, and his vision of the world would be the one that the Lenape would follow
“So I have to leave the place I’ve lived in for decades because ‘Kushaliguck’ or whatever says so?” Mr. Roth said. “Well, my god tells your god to go [expletive] himself.”
Police were on the scene and were able to keep the explosive situation peaceful, firing tear gas and employing night sticks against anyone being a public nuisance.
Because of today’s decision by the United Nations, a movement has started to take this principle one step further. A loose collection of groups is building support for a campaign to relocate anyone born in the Western Hemisphere after 1492 who is not related to its original Native people back to wherever their ancestors came from. This would return North, Central, and South America back to its original inhabitants, though they are only about 3% to 5% of their original population (pre-1492).
“This is genocide, pure and simple,” radio host Spur Metoskie stated this morning on his show, concerning the UN resolution and the new movement, going by the name GABRA, standing for ‘Give the Americas Back to the Real Americans.’
A caller later made the point that in Spur’s book Lies Liberals Tell About America, Spur stated that what the United States did to the Native Americans was not genocide. The caller was curious what he meant by that, since Spur had used the word “genocide” in this instance.
“You mean you actually read one of my bo . . .” Spur said, before pausing to catch his breath. He then continued, “That’s totally different. What we did to the Native Americans was not genocide. I guess it was ethnic cleaning . . . er . . . cleansing.”
Silence followed this remark. Finally Spur continued:
“Look, ethnic cleansing is not that bad. Yeah, it’s unpleasant but . . . I mean . . . It’s not genocide. That happened to my family during WWII. They would have loved to be “ethnically cleansed” rather than “genocided.”
The caller asked him if he thought “ethnic cleansing” was moral.
Spur said, “No, but sometimes you have to . . . uh . . . I mean in Iraq . . . wait . . . let me rephrase that . . . uh . . .”
When the caller asked Spur to clarify his remarks, Spur then responded: “Will you stop bringing up gray areas? I want facts, not ambiguity.”
Calls were made to ambiguity’s main office to learn more about its relationship to Spur Metoskie and what its views were on the recent decision by the UN. Did it possibly suspect a conspiracy? So far, the calls have not been answered.