Sneak Peak~ Preface; The Creation of California Statehood in 1850 by Genocide of Brown Skins


Q:  We do we have white man assigned names for African-Americans, Mexican- Americans, Spanish-Americans and Asian-Americans yet no name for Euro-Americans?

A: To hide the true identities of the Original Ancient Ones who populated much of the world as well as those who were the original brown skins of ONE America.

Q: Why are they called “Blacks” when their skin colors are different shades of brown?

A: To mask and hide the true origins of the native Copperheads.

Q: Why did they cut off the noses and lips of Egyptian Statues?

A: To hide the true origins of the Egyptian people, the native brown skins.

Q: Why do they say Africa is the cradle of all civilization?

A: To hide the fact the native brown skins were the original natives of One America before it was divided up by Euro White Conquerors into North, South and Central America. Remember, the victors write the his-story.

  How the West Was “Won”

With the advent of TV in the 1950’s it became quite easy to erase the true Native herstory and replace it with his-story of the plight of the cowboys and ‘indians’ with mass “spaghetti westerns” as they were called. The white mans struggles to ‘settle’ the West was played out over hundreds of movies and TV shows over the next decades.

   Employed to sell the Great Lie were freemasons like John “Duke” Wayne. The majority of the films in the Spaghetti Western genre were actually international co-productions between Italy and Spain, and sometimes France, West Germany, Britain, Portugal, Greece, Israel, Yugoslavia, or the United States. Over six hundred European Westerns were made between 1960 and 1978.

    Since the Rockefeller take over of the USA school textbook companies as well as creating Western Medicine and starting colleges like Columbia University and the University of Chicago by creating hundreds of non profit organizations to shield their immense wealth and influence the minds of the next generations to come. In 1900, there were 21 corporate NGO’s and by 1990, some 50,000 had spawned. Through the creation of the NGO’s not only could they shelter wealth but were also able develop a new science called “Scientific-Social Engineering” to influence federal, state and local politicians and the public at large for their own wishes,desires and needs.Through newly created social propaganda campaigns, created by the likes of Walter Lipmann and Edward Bernays, the Fathers of Marketing and Propaganda respectively, they were able to regularly sell the public at will on the idea that their NGO’s were solely philanthropic and for the good of all.

    “The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun”.  John D. Rockefeller

In 1905 J.D. Rockefeller kick-started the creation of the General Education Board (GEB). Rockefeller alone, with 1905 dollars, initially gifted $1 million dollars, then increased it to $10 million in 1907, later a further sum of $32 million and through subsequent decades granted some $7.5 billion. With significant money buys significant influence and loyalty. By 1950 the Rockefeller Foundation endowed Columbia Teachers College in New York City, formerly named the Russell’s Teacher College, produced one-third of all presidents of teacher-training institutions, one-fifth of all American public school teachers, and one-quarter of all superintendents.

    Propagandists know all to well that once one generation beLIEve’s something to be true the next generation ‘assumes’ it to be true without question or research.

By using terms like “black”, “colored”, “negro”, “Latino’s”, illegal immigrants, the Euro White Americano’s could hide the true herstory of the original native people of One America. Even to this day, the brown skins of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea are being hunted down and eliminated by the white man and his mass killing machines.

    As the Euro-White Americano’s came across the Atlantic to pillage and take the lands of the native brown skins, the renamed them “Latino’s” and eliminated their many native tongues under the one language of “Spanish” when the natives had no relationship with Spain, or Rome, whatsoever. Interchangeably can be used the terms, “Moors”, “Muurs”, “Copperheads”, “Indians”, “Indingenous Americans”, “Mexicans”,  “Washitaws”, “Uaxashaktun de Dugdahmoundyah’s” (the mound people) and Tartarians.

   Additionally, the mass cultural genocide of the Ancient Ones was disguised under terms referring to the Euro-White mans pillage as the “New Settlers” and referred only to the lands of the natives as “territories”, yet more like “Terror-stories” regarding the mass genocide, as I chronicle here in this book.



   From early 15 century. as “born in a particular place, of indigenous origin or growth, not exotic or foreign,” also “of or pertaining to one by birth” (as in native land).

   Mid-15century., “person born in bondage, one born a serf or villein,” Compare Old French naif, which also meant “woman born in slavery.” From 1530s as “one born in a certain place or country.” Applied from c. 1600 to original inhabitants of non-European nations where Europeans hold political power, for example American “Indians”. Also used from early 15c. in a now-obsolete sense of “bound; born in servitude or serfdom.” In reference to the aboriginal peoples of the Americas is attested by c. 1900 as the name of a journal “devoted to Indian education.”


The term Hispanic (Spanish: hispano) refers to people, cultures, or countries related to Spain, the Hispanidad, the Spanish language, culture, people. The term commonly applies to countries with a cultural and historical link to Euro White Conquistadors of Spain and to colonies formerly part of the Spanish Empire following the Spanish colonization of the Americas, parts of the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. The term Hispanic was first introduced by the US Census Bureau in 1970, after groups such as the National Council of La Raza advocated for the category as an alternative to classifying Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican immigrants as “white.”

   These are mainly countries of Hispanic America, Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara. In these countries Spanish may or may not be the predominant or official language and the cultures are derived from Spain to different degrees, combined with the local pre-Hispanic culture or other foreign influences. Hispanic culture is a set of customs, traditions, beliefs, and art forms (music, literature, dress, architecture, cuisine, or others) that are generally shared by peoples in Hispanic regions, but which can vary considerably from one country or territory to another. The Spanish language is the main cultural element shared by Hispanic peoples.

Chicano or Chicana is a original native identity for many Mexican Americans in the United States. The label Chicano is sometimes used interchangeably with Mexican American, although the terms have different meanings. While Mexican-American identity emerged to differentiate the forced assimilation into Euro White Americano’s society and separate the community from African-American political struggle, the town of Chicana was shown on the Gutiérrez 1562 New World map near the mouth of the Colorado River, and is probably pre-Columbian in origin. An 18th century map of the Nayarit Missions used the name Xicana for a town near the same location of Chicana, which is considered to be the oldest recorded usage of the term.

Latin America , [laˈt̪iːnʊ̃] or lingua latīna, [ˈlɪŋɡʷa laˈt̪iːna]) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. Latin was originally spoken in the area around Rome, known as Latium.[2] Through the power of the Roman Republic, it became the dominant language in Italy, and subsequently throughout the western Roman Empire, before eventually becoming a dead language. Latin has contributed many words to the English language. In particular, Latin (and Ancient Greek) roots are used in English descriptions of theology, the sciences, medicine, and law.

   Geographically, the term refers to a set of nations belonging to the regions of North America, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Culturally and linguistically, Latin America is defined as nations in the Americas and the Caribbean whose residents predominantly speak Spanish or Portuguese—two of the many languages descended from Latin. The first use of the term “Latin America” can be traced back to the 1850s in the writings of Michel Chevalier (1806–1879), who employed the term as a way to differentiate the “Latin” peoples from the “Anglo-Saxon” peoples of the Americas, using language to create a geographic distinction. This definition has proven to be difficult, as there are many nations that are not considered part of Latin America despite their geographic locales. The Guianas, for example, are geographically part of Latin America yet were never occupied by Portugal or Spain, but rather France (French Guiana), the Dutch Empire (Suriname), or the United Kingdom (Guyana).

    Likewise, many of these nations do not predominantly speak Spanish or Portuguese. There are also other nations that are geographically and culturally related to Latin America, but that are political territories of other nations—such as Puerto Rico, which remains a territory of the United States. By Chevalier’s definition, all American nations that speak a language of “Latin” origin should be defined as “Latin American.” However, the United States, where Spanish is and was one of the dominant languages, is not technically considered part of Latin America, even though in 1847, Mexico encompassed territories as far north as Oregon and as far east as Utah.

    “Latin America” came into wide use only in the middle of the twentieth century. Indigenous peoples inhabited the Americas for thousands of years before the European conquest, and likely did not think of themselves as part of a single geographic entity.

Latin America is home to hundreds of indigenous languages; before the European conquests, it is estimated that there were as many as 1,750 of them. As with geography and culture, language in Latin America is remarkably varied. To add nuance, the terms Latino and Latina are gender-identified. A male-identifying individual with direct or ancestral origins from Latin America may identify as Latino, while a female-identifying individual would be Latina. However, for individuals who fall outside the gender binary of male/female, Latino/Latina, the term Latinx is an additional option to express gender identity that exist outside the constraints of the binary.

   What we consider today as Latin America has been shaped by hundreds of years of European imperialist rule, battles for independence from colonial powers, civil and world wars, and both voluntary and involuntary migration. (The effects of urbanization under colonial rule and after independence are explored in detail in the exhibition The Metropolis in Latin America, 1830–1930, which focuses on the rise and development of six capital cities in Latin America.) ‘Latinos’ form a pan-ethnicity incorporating a diversity of inter-related cultural and linguistic heritages. Most Latino Americans are of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Guatemalan or Colombian origin. The predominant origin of regional Latino populations varies widely in different locations across the country.

Native Original Californio’s

   Californios are NOT Hispanic people native to the U.S. state of California. This is a term given to them, again, by Euro White man. Mexicans lost their original languages were destroyed along with the people, yet we say Mexican speak “Spanish” referring to their Conquistadors from across the Atlantic.  California’s “Spanish-speaking” community has resided there since 1683 and is made up of varying Spanish, Mestizo, and Indigenous Californian origins. Alongside the Tejanos of Texas and Neomexicanos of New Mexico and Colorado, Californios are part of the larger Chicano/Mexican-American/Hispanic community of the United States, which has inhabited the American Southwest and the West Coast since the 16th century.

   The term Californio (historical, regional Spanish for ‘Californian’) was originally applied to the Spanish-speaking residents of Las Californias during the periods of Spanish California and Mexican California, between 1683 and 1848. The first Californios were the children of the early Spanish military expeditions into northern reaches of the Californias which established the presidios of California and subsequently allowed for the foundation of the California mission system. Later, the primary cultural focus of the Californio population became the Vaquero tradition practiced by the landed gentry which received land grants creating the Rancho system. In the 1820s-40s, American and European settlers increasingly came to Mexican California, married Californio women, and became Mexican citizens, learning Spanish and often converting to Catholicism, and are often also considered Californios, for their adherence to Californio language and culture.

   Mission Indians are the indigenous peoples of California who lived in Southern California and were forcibly relocated from their traditional dwellings, villages, and homelands to live and work at 15 Franciscan missions in Southern California and the Asistencias and Estancias established between 1796 and 1823 in the Las Californias Province of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. Around 1906 Alfred L. Kroeber and Constance G. Du Bois of the University of California, Berkeley first applied the term “Mission Indians” to Southern California Native Americans as an ethnographic and anthropological label to include those at Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and south.

IN’DIAN, noun A general name of any native of the Indies; as an East indian or West indian it is particularly applied to any native of the American continent.

How did the name Indian become the catchall for all Native Americans? The Native American Political Party was created as the original 3rd party on the USA political system against the Federalist and Republican/Democratic Parties. Their name grew into the “No Nothing Party” given to them by founder of the New York Tribune newspaper, Horace Greely. The goal, as always, was to give hope to the brown people, just like the “Green Party” today gives hopium to those who wish to protect Mother Gaia and an option versus the two party system we have today. (Sidebar:  Red + Blue combined = Purple, the color of royalty).

Black or Blac? “Glittering Pale”

      Look at someone we call a “black person” their skin, no matter how “dark” is a shade of brown NOT black! Again, to obfuscate and hide the true origins fo the native brown skins. The word ‘Black’ can be traced back to its proto Indo-European origins through the word ‘blac’ which meant pale, wan, colourless, or albino. ‘Blac’ was incorporated into Old French as Blanc, Italian and Spanish as Blanco, Bianca, Bianco, Bianchi. In Old English “blac” person meant fair; someone devoid of colour, similar to the word “blanc” which still means white or fair person.

   In Middle English the word was spelt as “blaec” same thing as the modern word “black”, only at that time, around 1051 AD, it still meant a fair skin, or so-called white person. The words “blacca” an Old/Middle English word still resonates with “blanke” the Dutch-Germanic term for white people of today.

Black in Old and Middle English

    Old English ‘blæc’ was relative to its ‘blac’ origin as it was predominantly used as an adjective to describe ‘colour pertaining to matter that was colourless’. Other cognates of ‘blac’ include examples like: Bleak, Blake, Bleach, Blanch. Good examples of the use of “blac” as something that meant blond or fair can be seen in Old English literature such as K. Ælfred’s ‘Bæda’ from c.890 where the following phrase can be found: “hæfde blæc feax” meaning “have blond hair”. It was not till the sixteenth century that the semantic broadening of black occured- both figurative connotations as well as literal.

From ‘blac, blake, bleaken, blaccen’ and their literal meaning ‘to bleach out or make white, blond or pale’ came the figurative meaning ‘to stain someones reputation or defame’ or darken. Literally “blac” by that time came to mean night-like color, dark. One can say a very dramatic shift indeed. It was also the era, when the Vandals and the Goths were busy writing themselves into history and writing out the European Mauros (melan-chros or melanin people) out of history. These additional meanings however was purely negative and as their influence broadened, the semantic shift of black began to mean having malignant or deadly purposes and even pertaining to or involving death- ‘black curse’(1583), and from previous centuries ‘The Black Death’.

   Blac underwent a final shift as a K was added to the end of the word and it became a new insulting manner to address the Moors (today’s so-called Blacks) a people that had lived for thousands of years in Europe and around, but were now hated and hounded. They were called the Queen’s Black enemies, the blacca moors and finally just the adjective used as a noun, blacks. It should be noted for the records that word used to describe the color black in historical and classical Europe was the word Moor (also Melas). First used in Europe by the Greeks, as Mauros. Its cognates are found in every European language even if variant spellings are used. Thus you have Mohr (German), Maure, Mire, (French), Moor (English), Moros (Italian/Spanish), Mor (Old and Middle English). All those variants meant the same thing, the color today known as black.

   The Europeans took away the brown skinned natives names, calling them niggers, coloreds, blacks, negros, Africans, subsaharans, etc. All those are names given by the White Euro American conquerors and are insulting names. Native brown skins are none of those! Not Jamaicans, not Nigerians, nor Americans. The brown skins aka the Moors or Tartarians are from the most ancient time. Umoros, Umorus, Muurs, Mawus, the children of light, the bearers of civilization and compassion, the golden ones, the first people, Ethiopians, Mauritanians and Mauritians.  Check ancient history, you will hear of the Moors, but you will not hear about negros. The pale ones (the blanks) stole our names, and pretended it referenced only some Arab Muslim conquest of Spain. The Greeks knew the Muurs, the Romans knew the Muuros, the ancient Indians and the Chinese too. Because ancient Egyptians called their land Ta-Meri, or Ta-Muri, the land of the Muurs. They were the sea-men who navigated the flat earth and brought the light to all. Now you know!


AMER’ICAN, noun A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.

Colored or Coloured, is an ethnic descriptor historically used in the United States (predominantly during the Jim Crow era) and countries. In many of these places, it may now be considered an ethnic slur. Coloureds (Afrikaans: Kleurlinge or Bruinmense, lit. “Brown people”) are a multiracial ethnic group native to Southern Africa who have ancestry from more than one of the various populations inhabiting the region, including Khoisan, Bantu, European, Austronesian, South Asian or East Asian. Because of the combination of ethnicities, different families and individuals within a family may have a variety of different physical features. Coloured was a legally defined racial classification during apartheid.

African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

MullatoThe English term and spelling mulatto is derived from the Spanish and Portuguese mulato. The common understanding is a child born from ‘black and white’ parents. It was a common term in the Southeastern United States during the era of slavery. Some sources suggest that it may derive from the Portuguese word mula (from the Latin mūlus), meaning mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey.

To bury the native brown copperheads name and legend, the political parties took over the name as being ‘anti-slavery’.

So his-story goes…

  In the 1860s, the Copperheads, also known as Peace Democrats, were a faction of Democrats in the Union who opposed the American Civil War and wanted an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. Republicans started calling anti-war Democrats “Copperheads” framing them as a venomous snake of the species Agkistrodon contortrix, whose common name is copperhead. Those Democrats accepted the label, reinterpreting the copper “head” as the likeness of Liberty, which they cut from Liberty Head large cent coins and proudly wore as badges. The Copperheads became a major target of the National Union Party in the 1864 presidential election, where they were used to discredit the main Democratic candidates. Copperhead support increased when Union armies did poorly and decreased when they won great victories. After the fall of Atlanta in September 1864, Union military success seemed assured and “Copperheadism” collapsed.

   Secret Societies formed the Copperhead Party. The largest Copperhead group was the Knights of the Golden Circle. Formed in Ohio in the 1850s, it became politicized in 1861. It reorganized as the Order of American Knights in 1863 and again in early 1864 as the Order of the Sons of Liberty, with Vallandigham as its commander.

   In addition to control both sides of the debate, as done still to this day, the “No Nothing Party” was created in the 1850’s by secret societies as well. The Know Nothings grew out of a number of anti-immigration groups, such as the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner and the Order of United Americans. These were secret societies, replete with passwords and secret handshakes. When asked about their organizations, members were supposed to reply, “I know nothing.” Thus, when they developed their own political group — officially known as the American Party — it was nicknamed the Know Nothing Party. The party was organized in secret. This resulted in, as historian Michael B. Dougan has written, “rumor and innuendo [taking] the place of debate until the Party decided to come out into the open.” The new party came out in 1856 with the nomination of James Yell of Pine Bluff for governor, candidates in both congressional districts and numerous Know Nothing contenders for the state legislature.

According to research by several US historians and a Jamaican scholar, Barrack Obama was actually the seventh ‘black’ person to become president of the US. US presidents Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower all had black ancestry. These reports, which are based on books by late Jamaican historian J A Rogers, by African-American Leroy Vaughn and others.

 Thomas Jefferson’s mother was part black as was his father. Mr Jefferson was described once by a political rival as the “son of a half breed ‘Indian’ squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” To hide his ‘black’ past, the third president had all portraits of his mother, Jane, destroyed after her death, according to author Samuel Sloan. Under US racial classifications, anyone who has even one drop of ‘black’ blood or has any ‘black’ ancestors, no matter how far in the past, is considered to be ‘black.’

   Abraham Lincoln, America’s 16th president, was nicknamed ‘Abraham Africanus’ and described as having dark skin and coarse hair by his political enemies.After Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863, a political rival, Chauncey Burr, said, sarcastically, that Lincoln should be forgiven for showing “natural sympathy with his own race.”

   Andrew Jackson, America’s 7th president, was, according to a 1921 article in the Virginia Magazine of History, the son of an Irish woman who married a light-skinned ‘black’ man. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president, is the only one of the presidents said to have ‘black’ ancestry to express pride in his non-white ancestry. Mr Coolidge didn’t admit to having African blood, though. He said, according to reports, that his mother had curly, dark hair and dark skin because she was part ‘Indian’.

America’s 34th president, Dwight Eisenhower was the son of light-skinned black people ‘passing’ for white, , according to a book by Auset Bhakufu. It has said that people who knew Eisenhower’s mother described her as “that black Links gal.”

  Of all the presidents said to be ‘black’, Warren G. Harding, the 29th president, is the most intriguing. It’s claimed he was the son of a part black man and the great-grandson of a ‘black’ woman who came to America from the West Indies.And interestingly, Mr Harding, who attended a college founded to educate blacks, never denied he was black.

From Wikipedia ~ In the English language, negro is a term historically used to denote persons considered to be of Black African heritage. The term can be construed as offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral, largely depending on the region or country where it is used. It has various equivalents in other languages of Europe. The more offensive and related term nigger came from the Portuguese and Spanish: negro meaning ‘black’ before the term became directly used in the English language as a respectful alternative. The term negro, literally meaning “black”, was used by the Spanish and Portuguese as a simple description to refer to the Bantu peoples that they encountered. Negro denotes “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the Latin word niger, meaning black, which itself is probably from a Proto-Indo-European root *nekw-, “to be dark”, akin to *nokw-, “night”. “Negro” was also used of the peoples of West Africa in old maps labelled Negroland, an area stretching along the Niger River. From the 18th century to the late 1960s, negro (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for people of black African origin.


  The Mayas were the Nagas/niggas that took the Serpent wisdom from the Americas and into India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. Evidence to support this fact can be found in Queen Mu and the Egyptian Sphinx, by Augustus L. E Plogeon:

 “In the appendix are presented, for the first time in modern ages, the cosmogonic notions of the Mayas, re-discovered by me. They will be found identical with those of other civilized nations of antiquity. In them are embodied of the secret doctrines communicated, in their initiations, to the adepts in India, Chaldea, Egypt, and Samothracia- the origin of the worship of the cross, of that of the tree and of the serpent, introduced in India by the Nagas, who raised such a magnificent temple in Cambodia, in the city of Angor-Thom, to their god, the seven-headed serpent, the Ah-ae-chapat of the Mayas, and afterward carried its worship to Akkad and to Babylon.”

    Prince Maya took the Serpent wisdom into India over 20,000 years ago, according to the Ramayana and the book, The Lost Continent of Mu, by James Churchward, “one prominent figure in the Naga or Maya Empire in India was Prince Maya. The time of Prince Maya is doubtful. Although I have come across many records about him, not a single one even estimates the date when he lived; but according to traditions, and those traditions are as plentiful as leaves on the Tree, Prince Maya lived 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. In Ramayana, we find this reference to him: “In olden times there was a Prince of the Nagas whose name was Maya.” Prince Maya was the author of the Sourya Siddhanta, the hoariest treatise on astronomy in India. Its age has been variously estimated at from 10,000 to 22,000 years. At the time of Prince Maya, the Nagas were an Empire.”

   The Maya-Naga took the Serpent Wisdom into Burma, India over 30,000 years ago, according to the book, “The Garden of the Elder Gods,” by M. Don Schorn, “An overview of such regional centers will commence within Asia, where one of the Early academics was evidently located in ancient Burma (modern day Myanmar). According to the Indian Historian, Valmiki, Burma was the first settlement in Asia, with some records supposedly dating its Cultural starting around 33,000 B.C. Records from other diverse cultures state that extensive instruction was dispensed throughout Burma, Prior to its dispersal into other lands.

Cultural assimilation of Native Americans

    The cultural assimilation was a series of efforts by the United States to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream European–American culture between the years of 1790 and 1920. George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose, in an American context, the cultural assimilation of Native Americans. They formulated a policy to encourage the so-called “civilizing process”. With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities. Americanization policies were based on the idea that when indigenous peoples learned customs and values of the United States, they would be able to merge tribal traditions with American culture and peacefully join the majority of the society.

    After the end of the Indian Wars, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the federal government outlawed the practice of traditional religious ceremonies. It established Native American boarding schools which children were required to attend. In these schools they were forced to speak English, study standard subjects, attend church, and leave tribal traditions behind. The Dawes Act of 1887, which allotted tribal lands in severalty to individuals, was seen as a way to create individual homesteads for Native Americans. Land allotments were made in exchange for Native Americans becoming US citizens and giving up some forms of tribal self-government and institutions. It resulted in the transfer of an estimated total of 93 million acres (380,000 km2) from Native American control.

   Most was sold to individuals or given out free through the Homestead law or given directly to Indians as individuals. In 1882, Interior Secretary Henry M. Teller called attention to the “great hindrance” of ‘Indian’ customs to the progress of assimilation. The resultant “Code of Indian Offenses” in 1883 outlined the procedure for suppressing “evil practice.” A Court of Indian Offenses, consisting of three ‘Indians’ appointed by the Euro White man’s ‘Indian Agent’, was to be established at each Indian agency. The Court would serve as judges to punish offenders. Outlawed behavior included participation in traditional dances and feasts, polygamy, reciprocal gift giving and funeral practices, and intoxication or sale of liquor.

   Also prohibited were “medicine men” who “use any of the arts of the conjurer to prevent the Indians from abandoning their heathenish rites and customs.” The penalties prescribed for violations ranged from 10 to 90 days imprisonment and loss of government-provided rations for up to 30 days. In other words, you starved if you did not concede. The United States Supreme Court case of Talton v. Mayes was a decision respecting the authority of tribal governments. This case decided that the individual rights protections, specifically the Fifth Amendment, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of “domestic dependent nations”, the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government. Talton v. Mayes is also a case dealing with Native American dependence, as it deliberated over and upheld the concept of congressional plenary authority aka what we say goes. Natives had no voice and no representation. They were at the total whim of the Euro White Americano invaders and occupiers we now call ‘New Settlers’.

3 thoughts on “Sneak Peak~ Preface; The Creation of California Statehood in 1850 by Genocide of Brown Skins

  1. verendun November 8, 2021 at 11:07 pm Reply

    “Why do they say Africa is the cradle of all civilization?” I see you love the undefined “they”. Exactly who are you referring to?
    I don’t know anyone who refers to “Africa is the cradle of all civilization” but I do know homo sapiens evolved in Africa which is an entirely different subject. That you do not know the difference basically means your entire thesis is based on untruths,
    Thousands of independent civilisations developed around the world, many of which have died out, many still exist.
    Genetics prove we evolved in Africa. Different cultures proved civilisations developed independently elsewhere.
    Yes, indigenous peoples were and still are treated terribly so why not stick to facts rather than resort to counterproductive hissy fits?


  2. Nacho Libre November 8, 2021 at 11:15 pm Reply

    Noses (and genitals) on “white” “Roman” statues also hammered out. So what was that all about then?


  3. jwlpeace November 8, 2021 at 11:41 pm Reply

    “I do know..” oh really, and how is that? hen you read the rest of my book you’ll understand more


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: