There is a black page in the history of America. What happened to the Native Americans at the beginning of this great nation is a tragedy and a shame. But it is not my fault!

Currently, in Arizona, there is a controversy about a telescope the Roman Catholic Church is building in conjunction with the University of Arizona. It seems the telescope is being built on a mountain the San Carlos Apaches consider holy ground.

This incident brings with it another onslaught of criticism for white men. After all, they are the ones who have been trampling all over Native Americans rights for centuries now.

I would like to be the one to advance the radical theory that it was not white men who trampled Indians rights, but rather a group of people who happened to have skin that was -- God forbid -- white. Not all white men committed these acts, so simply saying "white men destroyed the Native American culture" is not right. I have not killed one Native American, I swear, and Columbus is nowhere to be found on my family tree, not even by marriage.

Saying that white men are evil because of something that happened hundreds of years ago is ridiculous. Not only are white men being grouped together based on the actions of a few, they are grouped together based on actions perpetrated by men who ceased to breathe quite some time ago.

Lumping all white male Americans into one group when dealing with a matter such as this is wrong. It has become an unfortunate societal trend to characterize every member of a group based on the actions of one wacko (or on the actions of their ancestors). Just look at how the media accused the whole pro-life movement for the death of Dr. David Gunn, who was shot outside a Florida abortion clinic in March.

The media have a tendency to only report on the radical 5 percent to the either side of an issue. The trouble with the "5 percent syndrome," as I like to call it, is the public forms opinions about entire groups based on the small portion of the group that gets news coverage. Not all pro-life advocates believe in sit-ins to shut down clinics, and murder is probably not high on the agenda of 99.9 percent of the pro-life movement.

After Gunn was shot, portions of the pro-choice movement (please note -- I didn't say the whole movement) made it seem as if the incident was an attack planned and orchestrated by the pro-life movement.

Among the examples were: Dennis Miller telling us (I happen to be pro-life, for the record) we aborted a child in the 200th trimester; Planned Parenthood running full-page newspaper ads telling us what butchers we were; and countless editorials about our savagery.

Why does our society form views based on the extremes? I can't say for sure. However, it seems if something isn't extreme, the media don't feel it is worth covering. Operation Rescue is the most prominent pro-life group, yet I don't feel it reflects my views (or the views many pro-life advocates I know) about the abortion issue.

Unfortunately, this 5 percent syndrome is not going to go away. It is a problem that is prevalent in today's society. The categorizing of white men and pro-life advocates are not the only examples. Not all lawyers are ambulance-chasing, money-hungry low-lifes, and I'm pretty sure not all animal rights activists believe in blowing up buildings and spitting on people.

The syndrome is a lot like stereotyping. Some Asians are bad drivers, but that doesn't mean the entire race lacks coordination behind the wheel. There is no logic in basing an opinion about Asian motor skills on the ability of just a few.

A big problem is that it is so easy to fall into the 5 percent trap. I try not to make sweeping generalizations based on the news only a few generate. In my columns, I am very careful to use words such as "some" and "few" to narrow group denotation. Falling victim to the syndrome is not the fault of the public; it is only natural to form views based on what people take in from the media.

The media, unfortunately, are not going to change their ways (at least not in this lifetime). The best defense against this is to try to get as much information and as many viewpoints on an issue or event as possible.

People are entitled to their own opinions, and no two people have the same views. Because of that, it is impossible to sum up the opinions of an entire group based on the members who make the headlines and the film at 11.