Stan,

You are an enlightened and thoughtful man. I am somewhat "testy" about unqualified remarks made about Native-American history. I am sure you did not mean to imply that Native-Americans were evil or "filthy", but, there is a group of simplistic, uninformed and racist people, who would not read your posting with insight and understanding.

I'm 1/8th Cherokee, with a little bit of Delaware, provided by one of my most illustrious ancestors, Nancy Ward, the "Ghigau" or "Beloved Woman of the Cherokee". I grew up in a military family, originally from Eastern Oklahoma (Muskogee). We "knew" there was Indian ancestry, but no one took an active interest in our Cherokee heritage. At age four, my family moved to West Point, Mississippi. My childhood memories of Mississippi are my fondest. Unfortunately, I did hear as I was growing up, many harsh remarks made about Indians. Also unfortunately, these remarks usually compared Indians and African-Americans, using the "N" word and stated that Indians were no better or the same as them. Except among family members, we generally didn't talk about our Indian ancestry, especially in the Deep South.

Today, people and society have a more informed and balanced understanding of the complicated relationship between those of European ancestry and the aboriginal Americans. But, I must say, there are still uninformed or "broad brush" views of Native-Americans that perpetuate myths and misconceptions. Have you noticed that any discussion of the Aztecs and Mayans is dominated by the topic of "Human Sacrifice" and gory rituals depicted in stone or frescoes in their architecture? I recently watched or tried to watch a program on Discovery or PBS that was supposed to tell me all about Mayan religion, architecture and culture. At least, forty of the sixty minutes, was devoted to the practice of human sacrifice. Do we judge Roman culture strictly by the horrors of the Coliseum or their treatment of the Christians? Do we dominate the discussion of Sparta and Spartans, by just talking about their ritual of infanticide with inspection for flaws or weakness of EVERY Spartan child or the physical and sexual abuse of male children as a part of their military training? Do we remember Carthage and the Phoenicians because they offered up their children for sacrifice to their Gods in the most horrible of ways, literally "frying" them to death?

See for hundreds of years, due to exploration, conquest and settlement, certain European-Americans have attempted to justify the taking of North and South America by diminishing the aboriginal peoples. For years, archaeologists and others attempted to find other people and cultures who built the great stone structures of Mexico, Central and South America. They simply couldn't believe the "shufflin' Indians" built these monuments. In addition, the numbers of Native-Americans, now appears to have been vastly underestimated. The old numbers of perhaps three million North American Indians has been revised upward to fifteen million. The use of the smaller number, was apparently meant to minimize the number of deaths as a percentage and the sparsity of the North American population. If you don't have many people, then large areas are unoccupied and free for the taking. Finally, by painting Indians with horrible rituals like "Human Sacrifice", making them the carriers of disease, accusing them of horrible and savage acts against civilians and soldiers, it makes it easier to justify or come to grips with the FACT that only about 500,000 Native-Americans remain from a population over five hundred years ago of 15 million.

I am 1/8th Cherokee. That means I'm 7/8th's European American. I am a direct descendant of Captain George Tucker of Jamestown, Virginia, who is attributed with the first Indian atrocity in North America. He poisoned or had beaten to death, approximately 200 Indian leaders he had invited to a meet and discuss peace. His act was in retaliation for an Indian uprising that killed/massacred approximately one-third of the Jamestown and surrounding settlements population. I'm also descended from Native-Americans who fought alongside whites, sometimes British, sometimes French, sometimes Americans and who may have been involved in massacres against whites.

My 1/8th Cherokee blood may not seem like much, until you consider it would have gotten me removed from North Georgia, during the Indian Removals or Trail of Tears. I would not have been able to vote or own property. One of my ancestors was refused enrollment in the Georgia Land Lotteries with the notation "is not white". This same man was a pensioned American Revolutionary war soldier from Virginia. More than one Cherokee chief, including John Ross and Richard Fields (my uncle), was 1/8th Cherokee.

Stan, I guess I'm telling you and others on the board all of this information to let you know why I'm a little touchy about Native-American postings that are "incomplete". It's not you I'm worried about. It's that person who already has preconceived notions about minorities, doesn't read or wants to find something, even taken out of context, to justify their positions. I can hear people in a bar, around a campfire or in their den, discussing the fact that "all them Indians had VD" No wonder they killed 'em all off. They will not know "the rest of the story" unless you or I include it.

I'll finish this by asking members of our little group, how you feel, when someone makes a partially truthful or limited statement about a Union or Confederate atrocity. Go visit the Missouri message board and start talking about Bill Anderson or James Lane. Anybody want to start a thread about Fort Pillow or the First Battle of Saltville, VA, or Poison Springs or Jenkins' Ferry, Arkansas? These issues are not simple, unfortunately, our educational system and TV want to make history into sound bites or distilled.

Stan, pardon the long posting. Maybe some of this is just cathartic for me. Let me apologize, if my posting was overly aggressive or disrespectful. I recently took issue to, what I considered, was an "incomplete" posting regarding claims of Indian atrocities on another message board, so maybe I was primed for your posting. I guess as an analogy, imagine a posting that stated "the British soldiers had to be very careful because all of the Scottish young women were infected with Syphilis"? I am sure those who are proud of their Celtic heritage would take issue with you. Undoubtedly; however, from military defeat Scottish women had been used and mistreated by conquering British soldiers. If later soldiers came and found the women infected, was it the Scottish women who were the source of disease or the earlier British soldiers due to sexual violence or trading sexual favors for food or protection?

Well, I've said enough. Stan I appreciate you and your contributions to these message boards.

Jim