Why do the Oklahoma Creeks continue to judge the Poarch Creeks? Yet the same Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma with other Indian Nations, together are documented in the newspapers as disturbing and digging up the bones of the Ancestors at Fort Benning, disturbing their resting places, with their bones and reburying those same Ancestors in a different location than their original resting places. The original resting places of the Ancestors were not required to go back to nature either in those specific cases? The Muscogee Nation of Oklahoma approved a highway running over those original sacred resting locations of the Ancestors. at Fort Benning. Why did the Muscogee Nation of Oklahoma participate with the city of Oxford, Alabama and approve destruction of that "sacred mounds" by allowing a "money making" multi-million dollar Sam's Club to be built over the original location of the mounds, without the original sacred mounds place being required to go back to nature? After that settlement the Oklahoma Creek "money deal" was struck with the city of Oxford to look the other way and let the desecration happen. Why were there no Oklahoma Creek protesters on that site at Oxford and at Fort Benning? Was the Oxford deal an Oklahoma Creek "money making" venture? Yet in the Poarch Hickory Ground case only, does the Oklahoma Creeks demand a totally different criteria for reburial than the past reburials mentioned above? The Oklahoma Creeks, should not play the role of Poarch Creek judge and expect to be respected by the Poarch Creek Indians, when their reburial demands to Poarch are different than past NAGPRA surveys and reburials that were accepted by the Oklahoma Creeks, which has been documented in newspapers around the country like at Fort Benning and at Oxford, Alabama. Oklahoma Creeks should not judge the Poarch Creek since they are documented as dictating their own double standard actions with other Ancestral reburials. If the Oklahoma Creeks would have not scoffed at Poarch in 2006 and agreed to reburial of the ancestors in the nearby Hickory Ground site location just like their tribal constitution and tribal code dictates, this issue would have been settled a long time ago. Yet, with the Poarch Creek Hickory Ground only, the Oklahoma Creeks demand a different reburial criteria for the Ancestors? Not like the tribal reburial requiremnent dictated in their code below. Where is the 36 acre" back to nature" clause in the Oklahoma Creek Tribal Code? Yet with other entities the Muscogee Creek Nation in Oklahoma agreed to rebury the Ancestors in a different location without the back to nature clause, yet when Poarch reinterred the Ancestors as nearby as possible, as the Muscogee Code mandates, the Oklahoma Creeks refused to accept that reburial, but demanded of the Poarch Creeks a totally different criteria which demands a back to nature of the whole 36 acre site reburial criteria which is not mandated in the Muscogee Creek Nation reburial code listed below. Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Creeks approved the multi-million dollar Sam's Club Mounds desecration? Here is the MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION CODE ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION OF THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION [ANNOTATED] ARTICLE XI [BURIALS AND CEMETERIES] Section1. Protection of individual burials and cemeteries.§ 1. [Protection of individual burials and cemeteries] Burials shall be reinterred at or in close proximity to the place from which they were disinterred, and in a place protected by a Conservation Easement in the name of the Muscogee Nation in perpetuity.
Friday, March 29, 2013 - 17:05