Reply #107: On the art thing

[confludemocrat]

These are both prominent people in the Native community--Mails and Churchill. Where is proof that the artist Mails ever complained to anyone that he was plagiarized? He certainly had the soapbox and standing to do it. Some checking around by a reporter who had any contacts among Indians should bring forth something. (Does the artists family have any recollections that this was an issue with Mails?). But of course none of these great reporters have any contacts, cause they don't give a shit about knowing any Indians or their concerns or communities. Where is Ben Campbell on this, an artist himself, I believe? So far silent it seems.

And from an MSNBC story:

""Intellectual property attorney James Hubbell compared the two works side by side, concluding the likeness was likely no accident.

'It's very obvious that the Churchill piece was taken directly from the Mails' piece - there's just too many similarities between the two for it to have been coincidence,' Hubbell said."

Couldn't they get the lawyer they interviewed to offer an opinion that this might be a copyright violation in this thinly-veiled hit-piece?

Like I said, most people in the MSM don't give a goddamn what Native American concerns are, but love the "uppity" implications and play it up to fuel those (like some of the troll-tools who are so vociferous here) who want to take down or silence or delegitimize voices that are out of the mainstream. Diversity? Bullshit. You are nonwhite and want a place at the table to add your viewpoint. No way, you do and say what we tell you you can say or this institution which was so "liberal" as to let you in will smoke your ass.

This is really about the larger truth telling he has done, Maybe not for those here who are searching for some way to take him down (they are using a low caliber weapon that makes alot of noise , but for those bigger name politicians who have fueled the vendetta.

Go ahead like someone said here, whatever.