Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I enjoyed Matthew Fritz's history lesson on Nov. 12 ("A grandfather's books — and other gifts from the past," Opinion Exchange). He makes a convincing argument that we would all benefit from gazing in the proverbial rearview mirror more often to understand the historical origins of our present circumstances. To further illustrate his thesis, I would simply add that Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same point in 1858 with the help of far fewer words: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it."

Steve Werle, Minneapolis

China was once a poor country with hundreds of millions living in poverty there. There are those who believed, for our own national security, that we should have never started trading with it. Keeping China poor would have kept us secure. The counter to that argument is the Chinese would have just found someone else to trade with, if not other developing countries, then almost certainly Europe. And since they would have found a trading partner anyhow, it made sense to trade with them and accrue some of that benefit for us as well. That's the route we went with, or were essentially forced down, and we are now richer and less secure for it.

Now the balance is swinging toward national security. If that's the trade-off our leaders think needs to be made based on the facts they have available to them, so be it. But we are going to be poorer for it.

China is also fighting a war of ideas. It believes that having pulled so many out of poverty is proof its political and economic system is superior to the West's. And it wants everyone in the world to understand that. So we ban the sale of microchips to slow down the advancement of Chinese society and military yet give it access to our social platforms through which it can share its views and censor those it doesn't agree with. A tweet a few years ago by an NBA executive supporting Hong Kongese in their fight for freedom resulted in self-censorship by the NBA to protect their business interests in China. Importantly, no one in China even saw the tweet because Twitter is banned there. They export censorship as well.

Spencer J. Kubo, Minneapolis

•••

I just saw the Associated Press story "4 takeaways from President Biden's 'very blunt' meeting with China's Xi Jinping." For those who continue to believe that Joe Biden isn't a good or capable president, I would like to draw a contrast. Think back to former President Donald Trump's meetings with foreign leaders. He mostly refused to listen to or take advice from the intelligence briefings and State Department information that his staff tried to give him before these kinds of meetings. He went into these meetings unprepared, with the egotistical idea that he could just use his great deal-making skills and everything would come out in great fashion. The results which his meetings usually produced were virtually nothing — or embarrassment for the United States.

Contrast this with President Joe Biden. He has decades of foreign policy and national defense experience from his time in Congress and the White House as vice president. He listens to and uses the best advice our government agencies offer him before going into these meetings. He is well prepared, as I'm sure his foreign counterparts are. He also understands the vital roles our diplomatic and military organizations can play.

With the stakes so high on the world stage these days, which approach would you prefer?

So, the real conclusion of the election on Nov. 8 is simple: We want to be able to kill babies. We are ready to sacrifice safety on our streets because we want to be able to kill babies. We are willing to sacrifice higher costs of everything from food to gas because we want to be able to kill babies. We are willing to sacrifice jobs because companies are not able to retain employees with the rising taxes (by the way, go research how many jobs those awful wealthy company owners have provided for people) because we want to be able to kill babies. We are willing to sacrifice quality education in our public schools, which are advocating so much of what many of us disagree with, and the right of choice for parents to choose how and where they want their children educated because we want to be able to kill babies. We are willing to lie and call abortion health care (so what kind of health care is this for that baby, yes, "baby," in the womb?) because we want to be able to kill babies.

We are willing to sacrifice just about anything because we want to be able to kill babies. May God (yes, God) have mercy on us all.

Anita Whims, Minnetonka

The Supreme Court is currently considering nullifying the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a law that provides basic requirements to protect Native children from forced separation from their families or tribe in state child custody cases. This law is critical in order to keep tribal families together and support the lives and culture of Native people.

The United States has a brutal history of cultural genocide toward Native Americans. Children were ripped from their families and sent to English boarding schools, where they were often abused and tormented into assimilating to white culture. In efforts to address the violence and harm committed by the federal and state government, Congress enacted the ICWA. Along with protecting Native children from being separated from their families, the law also ensures that, when possible, child welfare cases be heard in tribal courts, that tribes are aware of the proceeding and that children are placed with family members or tribal members before non-Native people if removal is necessary.

To continue to support and protect Native children, families and tribes, we must advocate to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act. We cannot go backward. We cannot return to a time of cultural genocide. We need to move forward.

Tessa Schmitz, Hopkins

Dennis Anderson nailed it with his article ("A young Bud Grant, a deadly storm, a fight to live," Nov. 11) regarding Bud Grant surviving the 1940 Armistice Day Blizzard. I am not an avid outdoorsman, but I read Anderson's articles because of the depth and interesting stories shared. There were so many interesting twists and turns in Grant's story, which made this yet another chapter in one of Minnesota's favorite sons' lives (if we can claim him because of Grant's work with Minnesota teams and claim Superior, Wis., as a suburb of Duluth). Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for providing a tremendous tale of one of my heroes, and describing attributes sometimes lost but not forgotten: tenacity, courage, strength and perseverance.