In a message dated 4/25/2005 7:08:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmfree@juno.com writes: What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political correctness I'm not trying to romp on anyone here but I do have a very firm opinion on this issue. My mother's family are in part Lakota Sioux. I have yet to prove it but I believe my father's people had some Cherokee and possibly some Delaware. Dad's people arrived in 1738 and my mother's about 100 years earlier so from just a circumstantial point there is almost certainly native bloodlines on both sides. That said I have a very dim view of AIM (American Indian Movement). I see these people as purely political opportunists. Kenniwick Man here in Washington State is a perfect example. The 10,000 plus year old bones were proven not to be related to any tribe, and the last I read had NO American Indian characteristics. Of course that didn't for a moment prevent AIM along with lawyers from demanding the bones be "returned" to a tribe - again, never mind it was the WRONG tribe, as the bones were Caucasian in morphology. This think hung up in the courts for years! The AIM people, and those of that political persuasion, never tire of claiming "victim status" for the purpose of political gain. As part Indian I'm ashamed of them. The "White Man Stole Our Land" nonsense is at it's heart dishonest as all the tribes competed for hunting grounds and living space. Whichever tribe was the stronger took what they could and held it for as long as they could. There really shouldn't be any surprise that the heart of the matter was a culture class between an industrial society and a stone age culture. The absolutely practicable outcome to that clash shouldn't be a surprise to anyone either. They love to tout the "Nobel Savage" ideal when it suites them. But many of us who study history know full well that there was never any such thing. Different tribes conducted their affairs in different ways. More then a few kept slaves. Some, such as the coast tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, kept slaves and practiced human sacrifice. As for 'returning artifacts' to anyone? Forget about it. Such would in my opinion do nothing as the artifact would most likely end up in someone's collection or sold to the highest bidder and you would be left with squat. You could donate to a museum but the ones I have been in have hundreds of times more items then they could ever display. Most people simply have no idea what their storage rooms - warehouses really - look like. Now it's fine with me that they have inventories of this size but the point is they don't need more stuff as it's a virtual certainty they already have 50 examples of everything you have - and their's is of a much finer quality. Yes, you could seek the advice of an academic. Nothing wrong with that in so far as you look for the identity of the items but don't bother looking for a political answer from most of them. You can figure out that for yourself. Over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda. That such is their personal belief is fine with me, that they teach it to the exclusion of all else is not acceptable to me. These are your family artifacts. Do what you will. If they were mine, I'd seek to identify and possibly research their value. But I while I may sell them I would not turn them over to a third party who would sell them for their benefit.

This discussion should end as it is getting into a personal, religious and political discussion. Unless you belong to a tribe and know the thoughts, ideals and religions of said tribe it is best not to discuss it at all. It is not proper to have "in my opinion" discussions about topics such as this. Thank you. Elaine, member Wiquapaug Eastern Pequot Tribe ----- Original Message ----- From: <Breakness@aol.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > In a message dated 4/25/2005 7:08:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > gmfree@juno.com writes: > > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political > correctness > > > I'm not trying to romp on anyone here but I do have a very firm opinion on > this issue. My mother's family are in part Lakota Sioux. I have yet to prove it > but I believe my father's people had some Cherokee and possibly some > Delaware. Dad's people arrived in 1738 and my mother's about 100 years earlier so > from just a circumstantial point there is almost certainly native bloodlines > on both sides. > > That said I have a very dim view of AIM (American Indian Movement). I see > these people as purely political opportunists. Kenniwick Man here in Washington > State is a perfect example. The 10,000 plus year old bones were proven not to > be related to any tribe, and the last I read had NO American Indian > characteristics. Of course that didn't for a moment prevent AIM along with lawyers > from demanding the bones be "returned" to a tribe - again, never mind it was > the WRONG tribe, as the bones were Caucasian in morphology. This think hung > up in the courts for years! > > The AIM people, and those of that political persuasion, never tire of > claiming "victim status" for the purpose of political gain. As part Indian I'm > ashamed of them. The "White Man Stole Our Land" nonsense is at it's heart > dishonest as all the tribes competed for hunting grounds and living space. Whichever > tribe was the stronger took what they could and held it for as long as they > could. > > There really shouldn't be any surprise that the heart of the matter was a > culture class between an industrial society and a stone age culture. The > absolutely practicable outcome to that clash shouldn't be a surprise to anyone > either. > > They love to tout the "Nobel Savage" ideal when it suites them. But many of > us who study history know full well that there was never any such thing. > Different tribes conducted their affairs in different ways. More then a few kept > slaves. Some, such as the coast tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, kept > slaves and practiced human sacrifice. > > As for 'returning artifacts' to anyone? Forget about it. Such would in my > opinion do nothing as the artifact would most likely end up in someone's > collection or sold to the highest bidder and you would be left with squat.