Petr/Peter/Pete--

I'm sorry to learn that our northern neighbor experiences what to me is a very wrong-headed approach to the past. I am knee deep in this argument down here. (I do traditional music in a "living history" role re. American Civil War, & I'm tired of being told that that war was not about slavery. If I hear the line, "My ancestors never owned slaves, of course," one more time, I'm going to do something rude. I guess according to the revisionist version of the ante-bellum South, nobody owned slaves but two good old boys in Birmingham, who had two million apiece. They loaned them out come cotton-chopping time.)

All that by way of saying, all I like about the situation you describe is the 'First People' handle. I like that better than "Native American." What's moving the mural supposed to accomplish?? If it were offensive, would it be any LESS offensive somewhere else? If some people are capable of seeing it and not misunderstanding it, are they not also capable of explaining it to their kids? Sounds like the mural shows a part of reality, and I think it's healthier to face reality, pleasant or not, and to say, "That's how it was, so we have to be careful now," rather than to be a blindfold pollyanna and pretend that the world is, was, and ever shall be perfect, Amen.

I predict a long thread coming; I need another cup of coffee.

Chicken Charlie