The tribal leader implies that the burial ground was disturbed because the
"white men" didn't care about it. I don't think a
thousand-year-old "white" burial ground would be treated any
differently. Prejudice and racial incidents certainly still exist. Making issues
up reduces the response to actual problems.
I dont know why any burial grounds are disturbed, no matter the cultural
identity. Fortunately there have been steps taken to show more respect than in
the past. Why were the bones even removed to start with? The relatives should
have been involved in deciding from the very beginning. They might have
preferred the remains be left as they were, even if the ground was going to be
covered with water. Did anyone ask? Still its good that they werent just
dug up and sent to the Smithsonian. :)
SME:The tribal leader implies that the burial ground was disturbed because
the "white men" didn't care about it. I would agree
with who know a 1,000 years from now.But the white men in Southern Utah
have a reputation for "Caring about native burials."
Re: annewandering 12:58 p.m. March 20, 2012"The relatives should have
been involved in deciding from the very beginning."According to
the story "Archaeologists say the people were originally buried about 1,000
years ago." I'm going to guess that the relatives have long since died
and no one knows the identities of the deceased. Its not like they were just
buried last week.