The Indians were not subdued, and it is (unintentionally, I'm sure) offensive to refer to us as if we were wild creatures that needed to be tamed. We were moved off our own lands, one way or another, so that Europeans could live there. Or we went into hiding, which is why it's so hard for non-Indians to trace their Indian ancestry these days. This is not meant to be criticism, just a gentle correction to help avoid inadvertent stereotyping. Thanks. In a message dated 3/4/2004 4:15:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, genielists@yahoo.com writes: > Lots of people moved from the north, especially > from PA, down the Great Valley Road into > southwestern VA and the Carolinas in the mid- and > late-1700s, especially as the Indians were > subdued, lands surveyed and families grew, > running out of good land in the north.

Sorry if you took offense where certainly none was intended, but I'm part Native American myself and proud of it. (So is my husband.) I think you read too much (or too little) into my use of the word "subdued". There are many subtleties of meaning in the word. For one, it's more or less synonymous with "suppressed", "conquered" or "overcame". My use here certainly did not imply anything like wild creatures. Whether our ancestors were defeated by numbers and weaponry or driven off their lands and into hiding, I think the word applies, just as it has to most conflicts. Peace. --- Deannamail@aol.com wrote: > The Indians were not subdued, and it is > (unintentionally, I'm sure) offensive > to refer to us as if we were wild creatures > that needed to be tamed. We were > moved off our own lands, one way or another, so > that Europeans could live > there. Or we went into hiding, which is why > it's so hard for non-Indians to > trace their Indian ancestry these days. This > is not meant to be criticism, just a > gentle correction to help avoid inadvertent > stereotyping. Thanks. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com