by Megan Nichols
Staff Writer
Jul 17, 2009 | 4614 views | 21

|
82 
|
|
Sam's Club investigated Oxford's American Indian mound controversy and concluded that historical artifacts aren't located on its site, a letter from a company spokeswoman says. [
read letter]
That information comes as no surprise, as the historical site in question isn't on the proposed Sam's Club location — it's on a hill behind it.
Company spokeswoman Susan Koehler wrote the letter in response to an e-mail from Charlotte, N.C., resident Beth Walters.
Koehler sent the letter to Walters, along with several news outlets and other people.
Attempts to reach Sam's for comment were unsuccessful.
Walters said Thursday she doesn't remember how she found out about the Oxford debate, but that it concerned her.
"I was flabbergasted that anybody would just be going in and taking down a mound of historical value," she said.
Oxford, through its Commercial Development Authority, hired a company to take down the hill behind the proposed Sam's Club location and use it for fill dirt.
But experts say American Indians built a mound on top of the hill at least 1,000 years ago.
Harry Holstein, Jacksonville State University professor of anthropology and archaeology, says it could contain human remains.
A University of Alabama report on the site found no evidence of burials. It found pottery shards and chert, a hard rock used to make tools.
Local American Indians have protested destroying the site. City officials say the site is being left alone, for now.
While Oxford officials have said the Sam's Club is a done deal, the letter from Koehler says the company is "currently reviewing the site to determine whether it is feasible for proposed development of a new location."
Throughout the letter, Koehler refers to the "proposed Sam's Club site."
She writes that Sam's Club hired a geotechnical engineer to test the materials on the site and adjacent to it. The engineer found no materials from the archaeological site on the property.
Koehler also points out that Sam's Club does not own any of the property in question.
She writes that the company has the "highest degree of respect for all cultural and historical monuments."
Walters, who is a former journalist and has worked in public relations, said Sam's Club's response disappointed her.
"It's self-protective, boilerplate," she said. "It does express concern, but makes sure to say they aren't the owner."
Efforts to reach Oxford officials Thursday failed.
Going to go check out your link. :)
Someone mentioned to me last week that there was "a very nice letter" from Sam's in the paper. It's a letter full of double speak and twisted truths.
Here is the link she posted in case anyone missed it..
http://walmartwatch.com/img/documents/native_americans_fact_sheet.pdf
So, none of the property owned by Sam's involves the disputed hill. Great! Debate over! Now Sam's can go forward with their store and the Indians can have their hill. Wish everything was that simple!
What the heck are you spouting? I suppose you also think that humans have only been on the earth for 6000 years and the dinosaurs lived alongside them? Science does not prove anything, rather it disproves.
And another thing... I am very proud of my Cherokee heritage. If being a "heathen" is honoring my heritage and ancestors and culture, then I will be a proud card carrying heathen.
Big Jim, your wagon has lost its load.
What in the world are you talking about? From an Indian mound to talking about diabetics???? Where do you get off telling anyone that they are not a Christian if they have a disease? Who do you think you are?
I'm sure that God doesn't need your help in choosing who are the better Christians, that is for him to decide and him alone.
You worry about your own soul and let God handle everyone else.
No indian witch doctor can cure you of your sins no mounds of bones should be kept nearby...All we need is Jesus and His healing power...but I heard that Obama will soon be baning insulin due to some satanic plan:
"Republicans vote to ban insulin! Take that Diabetics!
A group of Republican Senators have introduced the Brownback-Landrieu hybrid cloning ban. Proud sponsors and cosigners include Senators Jim Bunning (R-KY), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Ensign (R-NV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), James Inhofe (R-OK), John McCain (R-AZ), and David Vitter (R-LA) among others."
Among the many benefits of this bill is that it would ban artificial insulin:
Wikipedia: Humulin is the brand name for a group of human insulin products, originally developed by Genentech in 1978 (Generic name insulin isophane)...Humulin is synthesized in a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli bacteria which has been genetically altered to produce human insulin.
Some say this is actually an unintended consequence, but consider that Sonia Sotomayer is a diabetic.
I say it's about time to have the diabetics pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Just because they're cripples they expect society to sacrifice babies and give scientists the right to create freakish frankenstien man-bear-pigs on their behalf!
Let's take a look at what the Bible says about cripples:
"Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" -- Exodus 4:11
Got that, diabetics? You're diabetic because GOD chose to make you diabetic. Why? As a punishment for failing to obey the Old Testement's laws: "The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart." -- Deuteronomy 28:28
So quit trying to cure yourself by injecting murdered children into your veins!
King David, a good Christian role model from the Bible, hated cripples so much he wanted them killed:
"And David said on that day, Whosoever ... smiteth ... the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house." -- 2 Samuel 5:8
Well, why not? An eye for an eye, and a life for a life, and diabetics have murdered a lot of babies over the years.
"Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." -- Leviticus 21:17-23
God says cripples "profane" our "sanctuaries". Letting a cripple like Sonia Sotomayor into the Supreme Court will profane the Supreme Court!
No True Christians have diabetes because True Christians know that the only way to cast out the demons of diabetes is prayer.
__________________
My first thought was, this is just some local who is having fun. Sort of like you were just trying to provoke the people who think the Mound was sacred. But then, I thought again and decided that you feel as most of us do.
You are just pointing out the ludicracy (hope that is a word) of the mindset of this community.
I have to say, I agree.
Regards,
You are one goofy individual. I think you just write to antagonize people because you sure could not be a Christian.
Jesus weeps indeed... for you!