Homestead mailing list

[rayzentz AT aim.com]

I'm sorry, Lynda, but conquered is conquered.   Whether you saw the 
writing on the wall, as you put it, and surrendered, or got the 
daylights beat out of you, or got rounded up and put in cattle pens, 
the indigenous peoples were ALL conquered.   And sovereign means 
exactly what the government says it means, which you correctly stated, 
is whatever the government wants it to mean.

I said this earlier, I think.   Sometimes life is hard.

Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda <lurine AT softcom.net>
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:18 am
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Problem uncovered by foreign leader



Yupe, Wiyot.  And the treaties state "sovereign."  Which actually means
"unless we change our mind and discover oil or minerals or ???? on your
land, EVEN if you bought it with your own money!

The Osage were not conquered.  They saw the writing on the wall, sold 
their
land on the East Coast and BOUGHT land in Oklahoma.  Let me repeat, 
BOUGHT
with their own money, NOT government money, their own land in Oklahoma. 
The
Osage were the richest folks in the U.S. in the early 1900s.  RICHEST.  
Not
the Rockefellers, not Getty, not Ford, not Vanderbilts, not the 
Morgans.
Nope, per capita, the Osage were the richest folks in the country.  The 
NY
Times even wrote an article on them at the time.

This "sovereign" nation that was NOT conquered had the feds go in and
appoint "legal guardians" for these folks because, after all, this 
ignorant
heathens couldn't possible control their own wealth.  I mean, somehow 
these
"ignorant heathens" had managed to become the richest folks around.  
Folks
who had several cars and where each family had at least one limo.  
Folks who
ALL lived in mansions.  All without any "help" from the feds.

So, the legal guardians had themselves made heirs to the folks they 
were
guardians of.  These 100% white bread folks had themselves made members 
of
the tribe.  These lawyers and other political appointees then 
determined
that the Osage shouldn't have all that land they bought because they 
were
"ignorant" and "drunken Indians" and couldn't manage it and it should 
be
sold off.  So the land was chopped up and the richest oil land was sold 
off.
The folks who had guardians appointed for them started dying off.  
About 27
died before there was a big enough stink for it all to stop.  Well, 
sort of.
Even with petitions to the government, the FBI refused to come in and
investigate UNLESS the Osage PAID them to do so.  The ONLY time in the
history of this nation that the FBI has demanded to be paid before they
would investigate.  AND, the U.S. government has refused to remove 
anyone
from the tribal roll that is proven to not be of Osage descent!  After 
all,
ya don't want to have the government define some white guy of Indian 
money!

So, no, sovereign nations within the boundaries of the U.S. are not
sovereign unless it is convenient for the government.  And, no, it has
nothing to do with being conquered or not conquered.  My tribe was 
never
"conquered," we were rounded up and kept in cattle pens "for our own 
good"
so that no more white men would creep in at night and massacre anymore
women, children and the elderly.

There are over 500 distinct nations within the U.S. boundaries.  The 
U.S.
didn't conquer all those nations.  In fact, they "conquered" very few!

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <rayzentz AT aim.com>


> Lynda, are you amerind?   If so, with what tribe are you affiliated?
> Just curiosity on my part.   I have spent several years of my teaching
> career on various reservations in the north central continental US.
>
> Also, while this is not politically correct, there is a difference
> between "sovereign", and "conquered".   If a conquered nation is
> allowed by it's conquerer to have some sovereignty, well, that's all
> good.   That "sovereignty" does have limits, however, otherwise there
> would be no need for the adjective "conquered".
>
> Now, you can argue the right or wrongness of that original "conquering
> process" all you want, but it doesn't change the basis of "what is".
>
> Incidentally, I don't use the term "native american" to describe
> descendants of indigenous peoples, because I am a native american.   I
> was born here, as were a lot of my ancestors going back many. many
> generations.
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynda <lurine AT softcom.net>
>
>
> Used to be?  Ah, ask any Indian Nation if the U.S. has a clue what
> sovereign
> means!  Maybe folks are going to start feeling like some of the rest 
of
> us
> have felt about the whole sovereign thing.
>
> Lynda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/rayzentz%40aim.com
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead

_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/rayzentz%40aim.com
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead