Agent showing house finds pile of bones

By | November 24, 2009 real estate agent showing a house got to the basement and found about 100 human bones in a corner.

James Kenny, a forensic investigator with the Terrebonne Parish Coroner’s Office, says the bones found Saturday were so old that dirt had saturated the marrow inside them.

He says they probably are remains of Native Americans buried long before the house was built.

Kenny says he learned that the previous residents would often find bones while mowing the lawn or doing yard work, and would put them in the basement.

Half of the split-level house is on top of a circular mound, which parish officials suggest may be an Indian burial mound.

Neither the agent nor the home’s owner would talk to The Courier of Houma.

via Agent showing house finds pile of bones – Yahoo! News.

5 thoughts on “Agent showing house finds pile of bones

  1. Ann

    So, Xeno!!!

    What does Tatanka Iyotaka have to do with this article? He is too well-respected by too many people.

    The implication is that it was his bones in the house? A bit insulting for such a well-respected person, don’t you think? (I think you can find a photo on the internet of T. Roosevelt sporting a headdress.)

    1. Xeno Post author

      Hi Ann,
      We are only agents, each acting our parts. Your part is to tell me you are insulted. My part, like “Jumping Badger”, later “Sitting Bull”, is to follow my own visions. Not for you, not for me, but for someone, his words are now needed, and will now be found: The world is more beautiful than you know. That is not an insult, it is an encouragement.

  2. Ann

    “I was very sorry when I found out that your intentions were good and not what I supposed they were,” Tatanka Iyotaka.

    I know you’re not much interested in history, but still consider a little of it, if you will?

    But, first understand a “treaty” is a mutual agreement between two nations (which is synonymous here with “people,” as in, approximately, an ethnic group distinguished predominately by language). A nation, in this case, has it own political organization, world view and their understanding what is correct and just.

    The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was meant to define the boarders of colonial America.

    When the English colonies declared independence, Americans set up their own affairs with the indigenous people of America.

    United States formed and assumed the role of empire over a protectorate. From 1778, with the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware Indians, through the Treaty of Echota of 1835, with the Cherokee in Georgia, the only policy has been removal, although with compensation, however much the Indians thought their land was worth.

    From 1784 to 1894, all treaties were forced on Native American nations.

    Most were negotiated after wars (as the Treaty of Greenville, 1795, the Treaty of Fort Jackson, 1814, and the Treaty of Fort Armstrong, 1832). The wars were started by white settlers who illegally, or took it upon themselves, to settle on Indian lands with the US military following close behind.

    Other treaties were made by individual states, such as the Treaty of Echota, of 1835. This treaty removed the Cherokee from their territory (although the Cherokees built villages much as their white neighbors, farmed, developed their own written language, published newspapers in that language and traded with their Anglo-American neighbors peacefully). The treaty resettled the Cherokees in the Indian Territory of Oklahoma. Only following the guidelines of this treaty, no war, only traveling to Oklahoma, killed over 4000 Cherokees in the “trail of tears.”

    Following the Civil War, those nations that had allied with the Confederacy (such as the Cherokee and Creek) were forced to give up more territory.

    By 1890, nearly every Native American nation was in a reservation, however self-sustaining or valuable the land in that reservation actually was.

    The Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887 proposed to break up reservations into 160 acre plots. The purpose of the Dawes Act was to break-up the unity of the American Indian tribes by making their members work on individual plots of ground. Those tribes that accepted, or were forced to accept, the provisions of this act then faced the Curtis Act of 1898, which attempted to dissolve the Indian local governments.

    These Dawes and Curtis acts were a case of, not divide and conquer, but of conquer, then divide and, thus, eliminate. It was so bad that even the US government reversed its own acts.

    About this time a certain romanticism among the Anglo-American population about the American Indian started. This is about the time “Sitting Bull” entertained 1000s in the “cowboy shows” in cities on the East Coast. The American Indian was seen as the “noble the Red Man” and an “endangered species.”

    But it had to wait for what some conservatives thought a “radical” US government with FDR for Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to form. The provisions of this act restored some natives to their lands, provided better medical services to reservations, and encouraged the development of business opportunities.

    But, still today the act is being challenged in the courts. Still today you’d be hard-pressed to find another people in the US or in any other “civilized” industrial country suffering the degree of poverty, deprivation and illness that the American Indians do.

    “Sitting Bull” would not pleased.

    1. Xeno Post author

      The Native Americans are not alone in being pretty much obliterated by greedy murderous foreigners with better weapons. This is a long time human problem, not an evil specific to American White Men. As Sting, (ironically) said, “History will teach us nothing.”

  3. Ann

    Wow Xeno!

    Come on, Xeno, you can do better than that jumbling things together and saying American Indians “not alone.” Of course, it’s true, but differences make a difference, because solutions are seldom generalities … unless a real revolution occurs. But, would we be so lucky?

    Don’t you think you’re taking Sting out of context? He wrote and sang “They Dance Alone” about women who dance the “Cueca sola” in Chile. If he didn’t know anything about the history of Chile and only looked at the women who danced alone, do you think he would write, sing and produce a song about women who just dance alone? On contrary, he knew how Augusto Pinochet (pronounced Pinoshit) got into power in Chile (i.e. he knew history) and he knew why the women were dancing alone (current history). In that song, he sang, “Hey Mr. Pinochet … It’s foreign money that supports you,” which means what, to someone who doesn’t know history? Very little.

    In “History Will Teach Us Nothing,” yes, he sings: “Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away.” But, Xeno, how can someone “throw the past away,” when they don’t know what it is? In that song he sings:

    “Our written history is a catalog of crime / The sordid and the powerful, the architects of time / The mother of invention, the oppression of the mild /
    The constant fear of scarcity, aggression as its child …”

    Obviously, he is referring to what history tells us. In these lyrics, Sting is portraying himself artistically as a historian summarizing history.

    As an example of artistic false presentation of history, have you ever seen “Amistad” by Steven Spielberg? Wikipedia starts off like this: “…film based on the true story of a slave mutiny that took place aboard a ship of the same name in 1839 …” But, the story of Amistad is far broader than the movie depicted. The event occurred during the abolitionist movement in the US. There weren’t heroes, per se, but a very large segment of the country was involved, directly and indirectly. But, if all you know about the event is the movie, you’re stuck with a fiction. And, what you gain from that fiction is the false impression about heroic individualism, a great theme in Hollywood movies.

    Why do you think the state of Florida recently passed a law saying that the history taught in its schools will be the “facts”? Why do you suppose there was uproar from history teachers about that law? Why do you suppose the US changed its history after the Civil War? Why do you suppose you or most other Americans know nearly nothing about the history of the development of corporations in the US, or of advertising in the US?

    Do you know there’s a guy (a prof somewhere, no time to look him up) who has spent over 16 years studying only General Motors! Do you know why? He said, “because no one else has done it.” Why does he obviously think it is so important to study that history?

    Why do you suppose the Russian government wants to revise its history? Why do you suppose the former historians of Apartheid South Africa hardly mentioned Black Africans in its history?

    If you think American Indians are beating a dead horse, when they talk about history get this: The people of Latvia, a small country on the east coast of the Baltic Sea, had its history suppressed for almost 700 years! Yet, after all that time, there was a history of the Latvian people.

    We are really silly to think we know anything (!) about present without know how the present came to be.

Leave a Reply