Podcasts about osages

durée : 00:03:18 - Décryptage des grosses boules vertes du bords de nos routes : les osages - par : Nathalie Mazet - Originaire d'Amérique, l'oranger des Osages intrigue par son fruit vert et boursouflé. Bien que non comestible, il est idéal pour parfumer naturellement les intérieurs grâce à son parfum frais et agréable.

durée : 00:02:04 - Quel est cet arbre étonnant qui produit des gros fruits lourds et similaires à des oranges ? - Le Maclura orantiaca, appelé aussi "oranger des Osages", est un arbre rare et imposant. Ses fruits, qui ressemblent à des oranges vertes, sont non comestibles mais parfaits pour décorer vos compositions florales. Nous pouvons découvrir cet arbre unique dans le parc de Châteauneuf-sur-Loire !

Listen in this week when Cody and Jimbo sit down with Talee Redcorn, one of the local Osages who had a significant part int he movie, "Killers of the Flower Moon". Talee tells some great stories about making the movie and what it was like to attend all the biggest award shows, including the Cannes Film Festival in France, and the Academy Awards! If you're a KOTFM fan, you won't want to miss this one!

Beh...finalmente, grazie a Prime Video, anche il sottoscritto ha potuto recuperare l'opera ultima di Martin Scorsese, del quale si è detto praticamente di tutto. Capolavoro assoluto, un'altra pietra miliare della storia del cinema, un film di merda, noioso, pesante, raccontato male e recitato peggio. Beh, la storia del massacro dei pellerossa Osages da parte dell'avidità dei bianchi è sicuramente un argomento interessante che, se raccontato bene, avrebbe sicuramente creato una pellicola degna di nota. Peccato che Scorsese, nella messa in scena fin troppo autocelebrativa, non riesca nell'intento principale di tenere incollato lo spettatore allo schermo per le quasi estenuanti tre ore e mezza di durata. Non reputo questo film uno schifo, per carità. A tratti, la mano del regista appare evidente e la prima ora di narrazione è la più interessante, secondo me. Poi, tutto si perde facilmente e si appiattisce, complice anche le non valide recitazioni di Di Caprio e della Gladstone, che non sono assolutamente all'altezza dei ruoli che rivestono. Più che un brutto film, un film mediocre e facilmente dimenticabile, che forse è anche peggio. Lontano anni luce da quel capolavoro che è I segreti di Wind River, al quale quest'opera è stata erroneamente accostata. Mia personale opinione, come sempre naturalmente e quindi evitate inutili attacchi, che possono portarvi solamente il mio più puro disprezzo.

Au sommaire de cette spéciale Amérindiens au cinéma : Retour sur l'histoire des Indiens Osages en compagnie Marie-Claude Feltes-Strigler, Maître de conférences à l'Université de Paris 3-Sorbonne nouvelle et Docteur en civilisation américaine, spécialiste de l'histoire des Indiens des Etats-Unis et auteure, entre autres, de Les Indiens Osages : Enfants-des-Eaux-Du-milieu paru dans la collection Nuage rouge aux Editions du Rocher ; Débat sur la représentation des Amérindiens au cinéma via l'évocation de nombreux films dont Killers of the Flower Moon (Apple TV) de Martin Scorsese ; Chronique du livre Le sang noir de la terre écrit par Linda Hogan, véritable Indienne chickasaw (tribu voisine des Osages), paru aux éditions du Rocher dans la collection Nuage rouge. Bonne écoute à toutes et tous !

Marvin Gaye. Jimi Hendrix. The Beatles. John Denver. The Monkees. All successful musical acts… with FBI files. In this week's episode of Late Edition: Crime Beat Chronicles, the Tulsa World's Randy Krehbil joins show producer/editor Ambre Moton to take a look at how the city of Tulsa was central to The Monkees hitting the FBI's radar as persons of interest. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Adobe Premiere and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Boy bands are pretty popular nowadays, and most people probably credit the Beatles for the creation of the phenomenon. But some people remember the Monkees, a group often referred to as the Pre-Fab Four, a U.S. pop band that was created in 1968 for a television show of the same name that originally aired for two seasons and then went on to become a legitimate pop band in its own right. Welcome to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles, a Lee Enterprises Podcast. I'm Ambre Moton, the show's producer and editor. Back with another story that you may not think of as a traditional true crime case. Okay. The band, it consisted of Micky Dolanz, Davy Jones, Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork. The show played well to both fans and critics and performed well in its original run and through syndication and Saturday morning repeats. The show is a scripted comedy, all about the four bandmates struggling to make it in the music business. And of course, the hijinks that ensued while a manufactured band. The music really did catch on, and they eventually toured to sold out crowds on a cool OC. But how did the creators of Daydream Believer and I'm a Believer, a song brought back into the lexicon by the band Smash Mouth for the Shrek soundtrack, Lend themselves the subject of a true crime podcast? Well, would you be surprised to learn that the Monkees were the subject of an FBI investigation? The group's final surviving member, Micky Dolenz, sued the FBI in 2022 to obtain any files on him. The band and his bandmates, after submitting a Freedom of Information Act request in June of that year and failing to receive anything more than an automated response within the 20 days that federal agencies are obligated to respond. Randy Krehbiel, you may remember from the series of episodes we did with the Tulsa World about the Osages during the Reign of Terror, joins me in this episode to explain how the pop band came to the attention of the FBI. And of course, the tie to Tulsa. Randy, it is great to have you back on the podcast, so thank you so much for doing this. It's with you! You wrote an article about The Monkees, the band, and a tie to the FBI. But let's kind of start a little bit with who the Monkees were. I remember them... when I was little, I think around when I was four, MTV was airing reruns of their TV show, which was a sitcom, if I remember correctly, and I absolutely adored it. Can you just kind of talk about the history of The Monkees? Sure. So I was kind of the Monkees target audience when they came out. But in the 1960s, when they you know, we had the British invasion then and sort of pop music and rock music was really exploding onto the scene. Some TV producers got the idea of creating a band and making a television series about the band. And initially the band was not going to be performing their own music. I think the idea was they actually would do the singing but not play the instruments. And the show turned out to be like a lot of music in that era that the band became rapidly popular and almost as rapidly faded from the scene. But at any rate, they they became proficient enough, I guess you would say. Basically, they just insisted that they were going to be the band, that they didn't need all these other people. So they went out on tour. They had at least a couple of them and well, actually they had more than that, I think. But they went out on tour and they were quite successful. Like I found that they they sold something like 75 million records in about a two or three year span. So like they were pretty much a big deal. They because it was put together by these TV producers, they hired some some of the big, big name songwriters in the Brill Building in New York, which was, you know, the place where a lot of the fifties and sixties and on into the seventies. Big hits were written in the Brill Building in New York. And so so they had and they had some very big hits. And so they and they and then you mentioned MTV. They had kind of a second life when MTV came out because they started playing those shows in reruns and they became popular again. And at least some of them started touring again. And then I guess it was in the eighties and even there's one of them still alive, Micky Dolenz And he still does some shows at 78. Where didn't the show actually win an Emmy, I think. Yeah, I think one year the show won an Emmy for best comedy series. It beat out like Andy Griffith and some shows like that. So, I mean, it was legitimately entertaining, it sounds like, and critically acclaimed. So it was different because they as I recall, they they would come out and there were sort of plots, but it was almost kind of an absurdist comedy in that they were kind of goofy and they were just a lot of little series of scenes. And some people have drawn a line from that show to music videos in the you know, in the MTV area, because the you know, it was set up to kind of sell this and sell the music. And and it all revolved around the music. I mean, the the plot such as they were were pretty simple and silly and really silly, I should say. Right, Right. Okay. So let's set up the crime in air quotes here. So the Monkees were in Tulsa. You said they were touring. They were in Tulsa in 1967 to play a concert. Can you kind of set the scene with that? Yeah, they came. It was actually on January the second, 1967. They played at what was then called the Convention Center Arena. It was a downtown venue that had not been open very long at that time. It would hold about 8500 people for a concert like this, and they sold out. It was mainly like young teens. I think you know, probably 11 or 12 to 16, 17, something like that. And their parents said mom would get roped into, bring in, you know, five or six kids from the neighborhood or whatever. And, you know, we know there was no big controversy, I don't think, at the time, except this entertainment writer editor from the Tulsa Tribune, which was an afternoon paper here at the time. And he just he didn't like it. And and one of the criticisms in general of the Monkees was that it was a it was a back then. Some people call them the pre-fab four because they they you know, they were created specifically for television. It wasn't a group of guys who just kind of came together and started making music together. They were they were created and some people didn't like that. And and and their music was not intended to be, for the most part, real, you know, deep and social meaning or anything like that. And so anyway, he didn't like it. He and he wrote a letter to the FBI. Well, it's not clear to me in the in the report is not clear whether he wrote directly to the FBI. You know, apparently he maybe sent this to the television production or the television studio complaining that they were projecting subliminal messages onto a screen behind them during one of the songs, which is one of the things if you weren't around in the sixties, there was all kinds of stuff like that in the sixties and early seventies. You know, if you play Beatles records backwards, they had some kind of acid or, you know, there was that big set, a lot of a lot of radio stations and so forth would be played. Louie, Louie by the Kingsmen, because no one could understand the lyrics, but they were pretty sure they were bad, so they didn't understand. It was just a very poor recording. But so he anyway, he complained to the FBI. I don't know that the FBI really took it that seriously because as I wrote in the story, they had the guy, the guy who complained his name was Bill Donaldson. So they had his name wrong in their report. They had his newspaper wrong and their report and they had the date of the concert wrong and their report. But what happened was they said someone. A few months later, I compiled all of that into a bigger report is like 80 pages long on the influence of communism and subversive groups on Hollywood. And so that that was included in there. And, you know, I don't think anything came out of it. But if I could, I mean, I this is all kind of fun. But on the other hand, it does make people kind of stop and think it should make people kind of stop and think about, well, what does it take to get, you know, to have an FBI file? Apparently not very much writing. What was the political climate like back then? Yeah, it was it was very it was very is a lot of turmoil. And so what? And in this particular case, what they had done, they had a song that did try and it was called I Want to Be Free. We did try and have a little bit of a social message and they were showing that there is nothing subliminal about this. They were showing images of riots and the war in Vietnam and peace marches. And I think they had something on the maybe Well, I think there were scenes from the Selma, Alabama, march which would have actually taken place, you know, several years earlier. But at any rate, was still very much in the news. And so so it was it really subliminal? It was stuff they'd see on on the news every day. But but the bigger picture was that, yes, there was a lot of turmoil. There's a lot of opposition to the war in Vietnam. There was you know, it was the sixties. It was approaching a protest era. There were quite a few violent demonstrations and there was a lot of concern about the communists taking over. So a lot of a lot of this file was there was a radio station in Los Angeles that would from time to time have members of the American Communist Party on the job and they would mention that so-and-so so-and-so, who is now a very well known personality or producer at dinner with so-and-so, and back in 1938, they attended a dinner and known communists, you know, things like that. And for some reason that this it mentioned Robert Vaughn quite a bit. And people may not remember Robert Vaughn, but he was a popular actor in the sixties. He was in he was one of the Magnificent Seven in the movie The Magnificent Seven. And then later he starred in a TV show called The Man from Uncle, which kind of had a cold following. And, you know, he was always popping up at some kind of demonstration or something like that. So it was a very tumultuous time. Also, the FBI was run by J. Edgar Hoover, who liked to get as much dirt as he could on as many people as he could. So that may have had something to do with it. I don't know. And we have to take a quick break, so don't go too far. You said that Donaldson had accused the band of a deliberate manipulation or a preconditioned, immature audience for propaganda dissemination. And you mentioned that it wasn't in any way subliminal like the message they were getting across in their one potentially political song was was pretty obvious. But do you think he was just reading into things because he didn't like the music or… Well, so Bill Donaldson and I didn't know him. He well, he was still at that. So the Tribune closed in 1992 and I started a year before that. And I, I was at the World when he was at the Tribune, but I don't think our paths ever crossed. He was an older he was part of that older generation. He was a World War Two veteran. You know, patriotism was very big. He also he had an English literature degree from Swarthmore. He just you know, he yeah, I think I think first of all, I don't think he cared that he didn't like the music that much. But second of all, he didn't like the idea of this sort of manufactured he called it manufactured hysteria or manufactured emotion. He didn't like that. So I felt I think he he felt like, you know, these young people were being manipulated and, you know, probably to a certain extent they were. I'm not. But nobody after the concert was over, went out and started trying to burn the city down or anything like that. It was it was mostly just fun. And so I think to a large extent it was I can remember my own dad when I was a kid and that show was on. We we were not supposed to watch it. It just because it didn't it wasn't that he was it made him mad or anything. He just it's a stupid show within the category of television program. It's just a stupid show. And so we were we didn't watch it. And I think, you know, so there's that there's that category category. I wonder what Donaldson would think about, you know, like the Swifties and, you know, of course, the boy band fans, you know, like in I think maybe he'd be appalled. He had a background in the theater. He had performed in the theater here in Run a theater in Tulsa for a while. And, you know, I mean, I just think there would be something, although, you know, I mean, he would have gone through the period when he would have gone through the Elvis Presley period, he would have gone through the Frank Sinatra period when, you know, for even someone my age, Frank Sinatra was always kind of the older guy. But there was a period in the fifties and sixties when, you know, girls would swoon over Frank Sinatra. So anyway, you know, he he knew a little bit about that, and that got it. But he just thought this was too too fake, too phony, that these guys had. No they had done nothing to deserve the adoration and attention they were getting and that whoever had, you know, whoever had created this group was using this group to to warp the minds of Americans. You bear enough may not be entirely wrong, but I think it was probably more to sell albums and TV shows and tickets as a party. It was. It was to make money. That's all I care about, you know. And and I have to say that, you know, there maybe was a little bit of anti anti-Semitism involved. The Monkees weren't the Jewish, but the producer. So the one of the producers was the son of the head of one of the studios in in Los Angeles. And they and they seem to have been Jewish. And so, you know, I don't know. But there could have been some anti-Semitism involved in that, too. I mean, you saw that these guys were all all white, but, you know, with some of the black performers of the time, it was it was really evident, you know, and so, yeah, I mean, this is getting a little far afield, but some people think that President Nixon pushed for the criminalization of marijuana because he believed he associated it with black performers and music genres that he didn't understand or didn't approve of. And so he you know, he he wanted to put those guys in jail. Okay. So you said you didn't think that the FBI really gave it much attention. You mentioned like the misspellings and inaccuracies in the report. Did it give you any indication that they actually followed up and looked into it? Well, so I didn't see this report. But the lawyer, Mr. Zaid, is a lawyer for Mickey Bones, said that there was another report where an FBI agent went to one of the concerts, and it's not clear whether he went because of this report or he went because he had a 12 year old daughter. But anyway, she he went in and said more or less the same thing that Bill Donaldson and I fully admit I really wanted to do this because any time I can talk about Daydream Believer, it makes me happy. My mom said I would run around screaming the lyrics to that song when I was little. So that was always fun. But I mean, is the general consensus does not seem to be that the Monkees were some sort of big, subversive group, is that right? Correct. But but I will say and I, you know, I that again, it shows you how, you know, it's easy to get on some on someone's not on the FBI or whoever's list you know you think about we have these terrorism watch lists now where if your name is close enough to somebody else, you can be in trouble. I mean, so the attorney is also representing the actor from Two and a Half Men, John McCain, I think compared with John. Yeah. Yeah. So he he man him and John Pryor and and Jon Cryer said, well, I don't think I've got anything. But my uncle was an anti-war activist and we kind of like to know if he has anything. So the lawyer put in a request for, you know, this man's file. Well, it turned out it was like 3000 pages long. Holy cow. And I don't know that he was a particularly prominent. I mean, it's not like he was Abbie Hoffman or something, but. Right. Yeah. They've got 3000 pages on it. So and it can be kind of a long, protracted thing to get these because according to the lawyer, they will only process 500 pages a month on any one request. Yeah, right. And so and then and then when you get it, it may be all redacted and you've got to go to court to have the redactions removed. So, I mean, I don't want people in a panic or anything like that, but I think they ought to be aware that, you know, there there is a lot of information out there. And, you know, some people don't like that. Yeah, I don't have good answers. But obviously in this you know, in this case, it's it's difficult. It really is. And, you know, this didn't help the average person, but if they are interested in some of these, better known FBI files, they are they are available online. You can go look up. I mentioned Abbie Hoffman. You can go read every file online if you want. That's pretty much everything I had. Is there anything I didn't ask you about that you really want to make sure we get in there? You know, this is kind of one of those deals where we got the email from the lawyer and when we first looked at it was, you know, what the heck is this? And then the more we thought about it and the more we got into it, it was, you know, it's one of those things it's that's fun and people seem to be interested in it. But at the same time, it does sort of illustrate a bigger issue. Mm hmm. You could be on a list and you don't know it's or, you know, like, how easy is it to just suggest something and have it make it on to some FBI agents desk and then and now, with the digitization of everything, once you're in there, there's no telling where it's over. Maybe it's it's not quite as bad as Twitter, but yeah, you know, I completely agree. Well, thank you. That's. That's all I've got. I was just talking to you. It should be noted that there were multiple musical artists in that era who were known to be tracked by the FBI artists that the group interacted with, including the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. So the Monkees are far from the only musical act to catch the attention of the federal government. But this was still a pretty interesting story. That'll do it for this week's episode of Crime Beat Chronicles. Make sure you hit that subscribe button so you don't miss what we have coming up next. Thanks for listening.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Le dernier film de Martin Scorcese, "Killers of the flower moon", met en scène des personnages et des péripéties qui semblent tirés du cerveau fertile de ses scénaristes.Or, ils correspondent, pour l'essentiel, à la vérité. Les malheureux héros de cette histoire sont les indiens Osages. Installés, à l'origine, dans le Mississipi et la vallée de l'Ohio, ils ont été déplacés, à la fin du XIXe siècle, vers une réserve de l'Oklahoma, au centre du pays.Les terres y étaient inhospitalières, du moins à première vue. Aussi, en 1906, le gouvernement fédéral pense-t-il se montrer généreux à peu de frais en accordant à la communauté Osage la propriété des ressources minérales présentes dans le sol.Une série de meurtresOr on s'aperçoit, dans les années 1920, que cette réserve recèle des richesses inattendues. En effet, le sous-sol regorge de pétrole. En principe, les Osages en sont les seuls propriétaires. Et l'accord de 1906 leur interdit même de céder leurs terrains.Mais les pionniers blancs n'entendent pas laisser passer cette occasion de faire fortune. Nombre d'entre eux épousent alors des indiennes et entrent ainsi dans des familles enrichies.Et ils gèrent même leur fortune, profitant d'une décision des autorités fédérales, qui juge les Osages "incompétents", donc incapables de s'occuper de leurs affaires.Mais il y a pire. Pour s'emparer de leur fortune, des colons blancs décident de supprimer des membres de la communauté osage. Durant le "règne de la terreur", entre 1921 et 1925, on estime ainsi que 60 Indiens ont été assassinés, le nombre de victimes étant peut-être encore plus élevé.Le FBI, auquel l'enquête a été confiée, met notamment au jour la machination ourdie par un éleveur blanc, William Hale, qui, avec l'aide de son neveu, planifie les meurtres de toute une famille. Seule une des sœurs échappe de peu à une tentative d'empoisonnement.Les deux assassins sont condamnés à la détention à perpétuité. Mais les autres meurtres demeurent impunis. Aujourd'hui encore, les Osages essaient de récupérer des concessions pétrolières acquises, selon eux, par des moyens frauduleux. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le dernier film de Martin Scorcese, "Killers of the flower moon", met en scène des personnages et des péripéties qui semblent tirés du cerveau fertile de ses scénaristes. Or, ils correspondent, pour l'essentiel, à la vérité. Les malheureux héros de cette histoire sont les indiens Osages. Installés, à l'origine, dans le Mississipi et la vallée de l'Ohio, ils ont été déplacés, à la fin du XIXe siècle, vers une réserve de l'Oklahoma, au centre du pays. Les terres y étaient inhospitalières, du moins à première vue. Aussi, en 1906, le gouvernement fédéral pense-t-il se montrer généreux à peu de frais en accordant à la communauté Osage la propriété des ressources minérales présentes dans le sol. Une série de meurtres Or on s'aperçoit, dans les années 1920, que cette réserve recèle des richesses inattendues. En effet, le sous-sol regorge de pétrole. En principe, les Osages en sont les seuls propriétaires. Et l'accord de 1906 leur interdit même de céder leurs terrains. Mais les pionniers blancs n'entendent pas laisser passer cette occasion de faire fortune. Nombre d'entre eux épousent alors des indiennes et entrent ainsi dans des familles enrichies. Et ils gèrent même leur fortune, profitant d'une décision des autorités fédérales, qui juge les Osages "incompétents", donc incapables de s'occuper de leurs affaires. Mais il y a pire. Pour s'emparer de leur fortune, des colons blancs décident de supprimer des membres de la communauté osage. Durant le "règne de la terreur", entre 1921 et 1925, on estime ainsi que 60 Indiens ont été assassinés, le nombre de victimes étant peut-être encore plus élevé. Le FBI, auquel l'enquête a été confiée, met notamment au jour la machination ourdie par un éleveur blanc, William Hale, qui, avec l'aide de son neveu, planifie les meurtres de toute une famille. Seule une des sœurs échappe de peu à une tentative d'empoisonnement. Les deux assassins sont condamnés à la détention à perpétuité. Mais les autres meurtres demeurent impunis. Aujourd'hui encore, les Osages essaient de récupérer des concessions pétrolières acquises, selon eux, par des moyens frauduleux. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

7 ans ! C'est le laps de temps qu'il a fallu au maître Martin Scorsese pour retrouver le chemin des salles obscures après Silence, son dernier ouvrage exploité au cinéma (The Irishman ayant été produit et diffusé directement sur Netflix). Killers of the Flower Moon est donc un petit évènement dans la sphère cinéphilique auquel Fin de séance n'avait pas le droit de passer à côté. Surtout que cette production (très) onéreuse, financée par Apple, après avoir été refusée par le tout Hollywood, se destinait au départ à être diffusé exclusivement sur la plateforme de streaming. Mais miracle c'est bien sur grand écran que le monde peut découvrir cette grande fresque criminelle mettant en lumière une sombre et oubliée tranche d'histoire américaine consacrée au peuple amérindien des Osages : propriétaire d'une terre riche en pétrole au début du siècle dernier, cette communauté va être la cible d'une machination raciste et cupide visant à liquider méthodiquement ces membres et à s'octroyer leurs précieuses dividendes dans une indifférence générale.  Entre western et film noir, drame historique et devoir de mémoire, les (presque) trois heures et demie de Killers of the Flower Moon sont une vraie proposition de cinéma exigeante qui peuvent aller à rebrousse-poil de certaines attentes mais n'en reste pas moins un gros morceau propice à un débat (de) passionné(s). Crédits : "Fin de Séance" est un podcast animé par Thomas Camacho, Pierre Delort et Julien Munoz. Enregistré le 22 novembre 2023. Générique, montage et mixage : Pierre et Frédéric Delort (@fr-d-ric-delort) 

Bienvenue dans La Séance, le podcast qui aime autant les fauteuils rouges capitonnés du cinéma que les canapés confort de nos salons et qui revient, tous les 15 jours, vous parler d'un film ou d'une série. Et aujourd'hui, derrière le rideau de la Séance, encore un double programme avec des indiens, un DiCaprio prognathe, un héron cendré et des perruches géantes. A ma gauche, Killers of the Flower Moon, le nouveau Martin Scorsese, bientôt 81 ans, qui revient avec un film fleuve de 3h26 sur les indiens oubliés par la postérité, les Osages. Et à ma droite, Le garçon et le héron, de Hayao Miyazaki, 82 ans, qui lui n'en finit plus de revenir, avec, comme souvent chez Ghibli, un récit fantastique, initiatique et animalier. Alors est-ce dans les vieux pots qu'on fait les meilleures soupes ? Ou bien les portes du cinéma auraient-elles dû rester fermées quand celles de l'hospice sont grandes ouvertes ? Bonne écoute !

Critique cinéma par François Bégaudeau du film "Killers of the Flower Moon" de Martin Scorsese. A la fin de la première guerre mondiale, Ernest part en quête de travail en Oklahoma. C'est sur les terres pétrolifères d'Amérindiens, les Osages, qu'il rejoint son oncle William Hale. Ce riche fermier blanc prend son neveu sous sa tutelle et l'incite à épouser, pour des raisons lucratives, Molly, une rentière Osage ; rentière grâce à l'argent du pétrole. Date de sortie : 18 octobre 2023 © 2023 – Paramount Pictures Musique : © Metropolis(A Blue Fantasie) – Vince Giordano & The Nighthawks

The latest episode of Late Edition: Crime Beat Chronicles is in partnership with the Tulsa World to introduce the story of the Osage Reign of Terror and the feature film Killers of the Flower Moon. In this episode, show producer Ambre Moton is joined by two writers from the Tulsa World, Randy Krehbiel and Jimmie Tramel to discuss the film Killers of the Flower Moon as well as the film and the Reign of Terror's places in pop culture. More coverage Read all of the coverage of the film Killers of the Flower Moon and related stories here. All episodes from this series can be found here. Also, for more on the movie, listen to the latest episode of Streamed & Screened: Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' might be the best film you see this year. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Slack and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Welcome to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles, a Lee Enterprises Podcast. I'm Ambre Moton, the producer and editor of the show, filling in for Nat Cardona who's taking some well-deserved time off.  If you haven't listened to the first three episodes and our latest series about the Osage reign of terror, please go back and listen to those before starting this one. So far, we've talked about the history of the Osage tribe and how they ended up in what became the state of Oklahoma, their oil rich land, and how those rights to that land led to the horrible series of suspicious deaths. Kidnapings and the general environment of fear that made up the reign of terror. We've talked about the blue eyes, investigation and eventual conviction of those who are found guilty of the crimes. In this episode, we talk about the place in history and in pop culture that the reign of terror holds. This episode was recorded prior to the release of the film The Killers of the Flower Moon. Those age reign of terror may not have a prominent spot in the United States history curriculum, but it has established its place in popular culture with multiple books, plays, radio shows, films and more created about the events that went on during the 1920s. Most recently, the film Killers of the Flower Moon, based on a book by David Grann, was released on October 20th, 2023. Martin Scorsese directed and Leonardo DiCaprio and Lily Gladstone star in the film. The Tulsa World's pop culture reporter Jimmy Trammell and I talked about the place the reign of terror holds in pop culture, and a little more about the film. Why should people go see the movie, especially our true crime fans? I can't think of a reason that they should not go to see the movie. It's one of the. From a true crime standpoint, it's one of the biggest crimes in our nation's history that really has not been expounded on. It's crazy. This happened 100 years ago. And as far as us knowing about it, as far as the story being fleshed out, that it never really came to light nationally at all until David Grann's fantastic book became a bestseller. And then and then Scorsese's movie is going to take it to the next level. And I should tell you that initially the movie was going to be, here comes the FBI to solve these murders. And then Scorsese. DiCaprio I think that huddled and decided to pivot. And now this movie is not going to be strictly about FBI coming in. It's going to be. It's going to be wrapped around the marriage of DiCaprio's character and Lily Gladstone's character. It's going to focus on this very personal story. And by the way, we're going to wrap it in to the Osage reign of terror, which I think is a fantastic way of going about it in a personal story is always going to resonate more than a story of another kind. Completely agree that everyone is giving Martin Scorsese, the director, props 100% because he didn't just come in and say, I have adopted this book. We're going to make a movie at every step along the way. He has incorporated and involved and consulted the Osage people were I mean, it's their story. They were impacted. They should have a say in this. And so their language, their costumes, everything about their way of life is portrayed authentically in this film. It's not an outsider coming in and saying, to heck with that. We'll do it my way. You're going to see it portrayed legitimately. You did profile Julie O'Keefe, who was a wardrobe consultant on the film. Can you tell us a little bit about her, her background and why she was important to the portrayal of the Osage as in the movie? Julie O'Keefe, who has had some costume shops, but her resumé is far more extensive than having a costume shop. She was enlisted to be a costume designer, an Osage costume consultant on the film. And so they used pictures from back in the day. Other reference to really make sure the people you see in the film dressed in the way they were, you know, in the 1920s, 100 years ago. And that's another example of Martin Scorsese and his team just taking every measure possible to make sure the Osage, what you see on the screen, is authentic. I mean, he Martin Scorsese, he even said, well, I'm sorry. I was standing there with the Osage who said at the premiere in France that some of the actors on the screen are speaking Osage as well as some of the Osage Nation members. I love that we've come so far from having Italian actors playing natives to respecting the history, the people and the living history that's going on. And yeah, Chief Strongbow, the Native American wrestler, was an Italian word. So what you're talking about. Exactly. I mean, I can turn on any Western on TV in the next room and see Mr. Spock playing a Native American. I love Leonard Nimoy, but he's not a Native American. So we we love. Yes. That people of a certain ethnicity are playing those people in pop culture. No better example of this than Reservation Dogs, the television series that wrapped up a three year run and was shot in Oklahoma as well. I grew up in small town Oklahoma and primarily a Cherokee community, and the people I see, the people I saw in reservation dogs. I look at them and think, I grew up exactly with these people. Especially with everything else going on in the world. It's just great to see the respect to culture being given. Well, typically, how the Native Americans have been portrayed and in movie and TV is John Wayne is shooting at them and that's it. I mean, I I've had I have many native friends, but I had one native friend tell me like, hey, when I was young, I would watch Cowboy and Indian movies and root for the Cowboys. How crazy is that? And he's native because, you know, that's the story being told and and you buy in. But I mean, it's so important now that we can see the Native American not as a stereotype, but just as as a human being, as someone who you don't have to tell a native story per se. You can tell a human being story. And by the way, they happen to be native. I know you talked about it a little bit, but what kind of reactions have you heard or seen from Julie and the other Osages. They had an Osage Nation premiere in Tulsa for only the Osage and people who took part in the film And kind of a takeaway was very powerful, very emotional. Glad to see this story being brought to light. But also it's a lot to wrap your head around because if you were in the movie and that premiere in Tulsa, you're probably sitting with people whose grandmother grandfather died as a result of these murders. So it's a lot to process, a lot to wrap your head around. Did anybody express any discomfort about participating in the movie? I mean, you mentioned that some of the people who were there, they might have had grandparents who were, you know, their lives were taken because of all of this. Were there people who might have been reticent at first to participate? Well, because of history, you couldn't blame anyone for being a little tread cautiously. But I think Martin Scorsese, he got rid of all that wariness early on because he met with the Osage. Is right away before they started filming and made it clear that the Osage people would be treated respectfully. I think this movie is going to create a lot of opportunity for the Osage, and as other films go out forward, we've seen, you know, Native Representation and the Great Prey Predator movie last year. Many of the people who were extras or worked on Killers of the Flower Moon now have an opportunity to go on and work on some other things. Oklahoma has a pretty rich film history, you know, you wouldn't think. But they do. Like The Outsiders was filmed here in 82 that launched the careers of Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze and Rob Lowe. Tom Cruise, he told me, Tell Ralph, Marty, Mojo, all those guys. And in fact, the exact county where killers of the Flower Moon was filmed was where August Osage County was filmed ten years ago. But by far, this figures to be the biggest blockbuster film ever shot on Oklahoma soil. And I think everyone is just happy that instead of going to California and on some down soundstage, Martin Scorsese brought those actors to where everything occurred. So it could be as true to life as possible. We have to take a quick break, so don't go too far. And of course, I caught up with Randy Krehbiel about the film, why people should see it, and how the reign of terror had something in common with another major criminal event that took place in the same area and at the same time period, as I understand it, Martin Scorsese, he shot the film in Osage County. I think the majority of it was shot there. A little bit of it was shot here in Tulsa. In fact, catty corner from our office at the federal courthouse. And I think they shot some in Guthrie, which is a town over north of Oklahoma City and maybe a few other places. But most of it was shot there. And from everything we've heard from the Osage, is he really made an effort? Leonardo DiCaprio made an effort to be very authentic with it in terms of the the people, the language. My understanding is, is that the actors, the main actors all learned some Osage so they could deliver lines in Osage. So my understanding is, is that, you know, it's about betrayal. The movie the movie is about betrayal. And I think betrayal is asked is almost always support a crime. You're betraying someone in some way. And and it's about how, you know, it focuses I think a lot on this one couple and and in in the birchard he's played by Leonardo DiCaprio his struggle with you know apparently he really did care for his wife but he was also he also was kind of under the influence of this uncle who only cared about money and had been taught, you know, to think only about money. And also that, you know, Indian people were not really they didn't really count. Right. Right. And that and I think, you know, and that also often plays into crime. But I think there's a lot psychologically that people who are interested in crime would would find insightful. I think it's a good way for us to start exploring the history that we aren't all taught. Sure, it might be Leo's face up there, but I know there are tons of times where I've gone to see movies that are based on true stories. And then I start Googling and I start reading. And, you know, you kind of fall down that rabbit hole. Well, you hope so. And, you know, it's. I mean, history is almost always more complicated than you can sit. And this is is a very long movie. Apparently, it's I'm told it's three and a half hours long that. Scorsese. But even in with that, you know, yeah, there are things that are left out but but hope that hopefully it takes people's attention interest and as you mentioned there is just an awful lot of history that gets. Swept under the rug neglected over. Yeah well, you know, I've told this a lot. I've said this a lot of times, but I think it's true is that you know, history, the teaching of history serves to almost oppositional purposes. One is one is to try and create this sort of legend about the place we live and who we are. And it's all, you know, we're all the good guys and they're all the bad guys. And that sort of thing. And it's all positive. It's more about image and building community and and patriotism and all that stuff. And then there's sort of and then there's the grittier history that requires some critical thinking and and shows you that, you know, what the the rules tend to favor the people who make the rules. And you mentioned that you had done a lot of writing about the Tulsa race massacre, which was, what, 1921, I believe? Yep. Yep. Was there overlap? I mean, obviously timing. Yes. But I a little bit. And one of the stories that talks about that a little bit so and Brian was found about I think it was ten days before the Tulsa race massacre. so so, you know, so that was very close in time. And there are some people who show up in both stories. One of them is a guy named John Gustafson, who was the police chief of Tulsa and was removed from office. He was basically impeached and removed from office after the massacre for dereliction of duty. Well, he was also a private detective. And so at the same time, he was the chief of police and being removed from office in Tulsa. He'd been hired by Inner Brown's family to find out who killed her. And so he spent a lot of time traipsing around Osage County and according to the FBI and that what they concluded was that he was trying to play both sides. He'd come up with information and then he'd try and chop it and see who he could get the most money for. So from. And so there is that. And then there's another guy that is semi important, a a couple more. One is a guy named John Goldsberry who at the time of the race massacre was the assistant county attorney in Tulsa. And he was the guy who was in who was part of the prosecution of John Gustafson and was also kind of involved in telling the people who I don't know how much of the Tulsa story, you know, but there was this group of people that were trying to take over the Greenwood area and they and they failed. And he was kind of in the group that was telling them, you can't do that. That's a bad idea. So then eight years later, in 1929, he was the U.S. attorney in Tulsa and he was involved in the final prosecution. Bill Hale and in John Ramsey. And then finally, I'd mentioned, well, I guess there's a team or so also there is an attorney again named Prince Freeling. And Prince Freeling was the attorney general at the time of the Tulsa race massacre. And he came in and blow in and go in and he ran the grand jury and all that stuff. By the time that the Ramsey and Hale were on trial, he was out of office and he was part of their defense team. And then and so then I know these guys are all lawyers. It's amazing how many lawyers there are involved in this. But anyway, there's a lawyer named TJ Leahy who is from Pawhuska, and he was guest Gaston's attorney in the in his impeachment trial. But then he was hired by the Osage people to look out for their interests in these prosecutions. And he was involved in the prosecution of every one of these people who went to trial, whether it was in state trial or state court or federal court. He was there as part of the prosecution and and was the guy that Burkhart went to during a state trial in Pawhuska and said, I'm tired of lying. I just want to tell the truth. And he turned on his turned on his uncle. So there are people that I've never seen like a direct, you know, like the people who burned down and were stealing money from people. And I haven't seen that. But there are there are some familiar names. Gotcha. I would say there is this connection, which is that in both cases you see where the lives of, you know, minorities, of people of color and especially women just didn't matter very much. You know, in Tulsa when they decided they were going to do something different with, with the Greenwood area, They didn't ask the black people who lived there. They just tried to do it. Yeah. All right. Well, if you owned the property. By the way, for the most. Part, so they formed this community. Well, so in, you know, in in the Osage, it was like, in fact, there's a quote in one of the FBI reports from there was a notorious outlaw, who was approached about killing a bill and ready to smear who's there, the folks who were blown up in the movie. And he said he wouldn't do it, that he had never he had never stoop so low that he would kill a woman even if she was an Indian. That's something that, you know, that that says it right. These these folks, they just you know, it it wasn't so much in my observation, it wasn't so much that they hated them. It was that they just didn't care anyway. Yeah. They were. They weren't worth anything. Yeah, that's exactly right. And so that is the connection. Very. I hate to say it's interesting because it's such a horrific things happened, but it's impossible to teach comprehensive history, you know, especially at junior high, high school, you know, elementary level. I just wish that it was a little more comprehensive, I guess I should say. Yeah. I mean, I think one of the hard things about teaching school, whatever it is, is deciding what's important in what you know, what's what are the priorities as far as teach. Well, So you do have to learn the fundamentals of history. But somewhere in there, you know, I think there's also room to learn about, you know, not everything was done, you know, virtuously. And it and you do have to question, motivations and things like why do people do the things they do? I think that's just a useful life. You know, I think one of the things that's really hard when you're writing about things like this, whether it's Tulsa or or we're talking about it or the Osage deal is how you talk about a singular event that's particularly horrific and then put it in a larger context without appearing to or actually diminishing that one event. And so, you know, the only thing I'd say is that what happened in Osage County was a singular, ah, event and particularly distressing. But things like that happened all over the and Oklahoma had some of the during the during the oil booms of the early 20th century, some pretty, pretty bad places. And they say something about, you know, human greed and and just sort of the human condition that we should be aware of and like what we were talking about earlier, where we had a I hope we've passed it. But, you know, I'm not always convinced we are that, you know, people who are different than us just don't matter. Are people who are in the in our way don't matter. You know, as a reporter, always trying to look at what is singular about this event, but also how does it fit into sort of the universe of things and how do you tell that story without how do you balance it, you know, and how do how do you not diminish, you know, this one group or one individual's story and yet presented in the full context. And that's where we're wrapping things up with the reign of terror. For more details about the crimes life in the area in the 1920s, the film Killers of the Flower Moon and the Hostages, please visit the Tulsa World's website. There are links in the show notes to all of the content. The reporters and editors at the paper created. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button so you don't miss what's coming up next. And you can go back in and check out any of our past episodes that you may have missed.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The latest episode of Late Edition: Crime Beat Chronicles is in partnership with the Tulsa World to introduce the story of the Osage Reign of Terror and the feature film Killers of the Flower Moon. In this episode, show producer Ambre Moton is joined by three writers from the Tulsa World, Randy Krehbiel, Jimmie Tramel and Tim Stanley, to discuss how the Bureau of Investigation came to investigate the killings, the handling of the case, the people held responsible for the killings and why the federal government had jurisdiction.  More coverage Read all of the coverage of the film Killers of the Flower Moon and related stories here. All episodes from this series can be found here. Also, for more on the movie, listen to the latest episode of Streamed & Screened: Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon' might be the best film you see this year. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Slack and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Welcome to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles, a Lee Enterprises Podcast. I'm Ambre Moton, the producer and editor of the show, filling in for Nat Cardona who's taking some well-deserved time off.  If you haven't listened to the first two episodes of our series about the Osage reign of terror, please go back and listen to those before starting this one. So far, we've talked about the history of the Osage tribe and how they ended up in what became the state of Oklahoma. Their oil rich land. And how those rights were divided. And the horrible series of murders or suspicious deaths. Kidnappings and the environment of fear that made up what historians and journalists call the reign of terror. This week we're talking about the investigations into the crimes, what they found and more. Randy Krehbiel of The Tulsa World reminds us about how difficult it was to get proper investigations into the deaths of the Osage community. Who hired a private detectives to find the cause for the suspicious deaths? The Osage Tribal Council finally petitioned the federal government to send investigators, and in April of 1923, the Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the FBI, assigned agents to the case. Here's what Randy had to say about the investigation. Well, it was called the reign of terror, because people just lived in terror. They were afraid to to talk. And when the FBI came in there in 1923 to try and sort things out in their in their letters and reports and so forth from that time, you know, they talk about how people are just terrified to talk and and they would not talk to outsiders at all. And, in fact, this is just been talked about a lot with with this book and movie. They wound up putting some some men undercover to try and insinuate themselves into the community so they could get information because people were afraid if they if they told what they knew or what they thought and they were honest about it, they they'd be killed. And and this and this was true of a lot of a lot of people. And, you know, I think Mollie Burkhart, at one time, she told her priest that she was afraid. People just, you know, people people who were not part of the and even some of them who were part of the these these organizations that were that were doing these things were afraid to talk about it. And sometimes they were afraid to talk about it because they were involved, too. You know, but but they often they were afraid to talk about it because of repercussions against themselves. Tulsa World's Jimmy Trammel commented about the investigation's primary target. Who were the the FBI, you know, kind of focusing on or suspecting of all these crimes? Well, Jesse Plemons plays the FBI character, I think, in the in the film. And as far as the actual suspects, you had some other people had kind of amateurish early tried to be the detective or figured this out or, you know, paid to find things out. What ended up happening was the gentleman who was ultimately the suspect and the primary culprit and was put on trial, many people was like, oh, my, he couldn't it couldn't be that guy. He couldn't do it because he's friendly. He was probably the most soldiers. But I mean, you just never know. I mean, it was some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing kind of deal. I asked Tulsa World's Tim Stanley about how well the boy investigated and who they held responsible for the 24 murders that they determined were on an official record. Federal investigators did a good job in so far as it went. I mean, they did they did investigate it. They did bring charges. And they did get convictions. I think the problem is, is that they were more or less content to kind of tie a bow on the whole thing at that point and then move on, which I mean, that's we see that even today in cases of mass killings or where you have serial killers or who are suspected of being connected to any number of deaths, once they get the conviction on on one or two deaths and they get that person off the street, often that's the end of it. You know, for them that, you know, the value in the case to them has, you know, they've they've achieved. But that's yeah. I mean, I think that's kind of what you had here is it was investigated and the federal agency which you know, as we may have discussed previously, the one that it would become the FBI, they did they did a solid job and bringing at least some justice in this case. But they were they didn't really want to dig any further than than just the initial investigation. I mean, J. Edgar Hoover, you know, who was the boss at the time? You know, he got he was well-known for enjoying publicity. And he saw that as valuable to the agency. And he's right. I mean, public relations matter. So, you know, coming in and getting this getting some convictions here, getting a lot of good press out of it, I think satisfied him. And he had no reason to to investigate it or direct that it be investigated further. So, yeah, unfortunate. But you know what that leads us here. You know, 100 years later and tribal members over the decades leaves us all asking a lot of questions that unfortunately can never be answered. How many people were eventually held responsible or convicted, at least of some of these crimes? There were three principal convictions. And the one that's, you know, most significant is the trial and conviction of William Hale and two of the others who were convicted along with him were associates of his. He he has always been considered the mastermind behind many in the slayings, although, again, I think, as we just discussed, the investigators were pretty happy to hang the whole thing on him that made it, you know, a cleaner case and then they could move on in all likelihood. You know, there were many other perpetrators acting independently of Mr. Hale, just opportunists, again, close family members who saw an opportunity to inherit. He was the primary conviction. He was. And he was important, very significant. Even if even if the feds didn't, you know, go any further than this. I mean, it's just, you know, without a doubt, he was behind several of them. And, you know, he ended up I think everyone, the three Hale and his associates were given life sentences, but they were all eventually paroled after just a handful of years, which, you know, is kind of a sad, you know, footnote to this is that while they did face justice, well, they were convicted. You know, they they did end up not serving all of that long. And so while the people obviously it's often this way with justice, but obviously the people that they killed, you know, that that was it for them that these guys did eventually get to get out. But yeah, so three primary, there may have been some others and some tangentially related cases, but three primary convictions. And with William Hale being the chief one. We have to take a quick break. So don't go too far. And Randy added more details about those held responsible and a little about those who weren't. How many people were held responsible for the reign of terror? Almost no one. Almost no one. So in the case of the murders that are highlighted in killers of the flower moon, the two main defendants, as it turned out, were Bill Hale, who was accused of being that kind of the mastermind, and a guy named John Ramsey, who was kind of a ne'er do well cowboy, who basically just, you know, did whatever Hale told him to do. And so each of them was tried three times in federal court for the same murder. And and they were of the first time was a hung jury. They were convicted. This is they were convicted in the next two. And and after the first conviction, there was an appeal. And so they had to be tried again. So those two guys went to prison. Molly Burkhart has been also went to prison. A guy named Kelsey Mawson who killed Anna Brown, who was who was Molly Burkhart sister, he went to prison. Byron Burkhart, who was a Molly Burkhart brother in law, even though he had confessed to killing Hannah Brown, never went to prison. He he testified against Kelsey Morse and in his trial ended in a hung jury. He was never retried. And I'm getting a little bit off your your question here, but I think you'll find this interesting. In the sixties, there was an Osage woman die and she left behind a letter that said, if something happens to me, look at Byron. Well, she was living with Byron Burkhart, who had been involved in these things 40 years before and in and again, he nothing ever happened to him. So I think there were some others that were prosecuted, but but they were very few. And one of the things you realize, especially in going through these FBI papers and reading the trial stories, is how hard it was to get convictions in these things. And and emails case. He had a lot of money and he just pretty blatantly went out and bought tried to buy alibis. I mean the the federal officials and some of the state officials that they were working with were just furious at what they considered to be dishonest and unethical behavior, behavior by his lawyers and some of these lawyers were pretty well known. One of them was a former attorney general in the state of Oklahoma, the the his defense lawyers. So the answer to your question is not many and not only not many, you know, go to prison over this. They really didn't stay very long. They'll have all got out in 16 years. But Burkhart got out before that but then got in trouble again. He violated parole. And so they put him back in in prison. Kelsey Morrison got out in a few years and was killed in a shootout in Texas. So, you know, most of these guys, they didn't serve very long in it. I remember, you know, I was reading some of this stuff and at the same time, we had the the Jones case going on here. And and, you know, whether you think he's guilty or whatever. But I just I couldn't help thinking about the difference in the way, you know, we think about that, at least in Oklahoma. It's pretty routine for people to get life without parole, if not the death penalty. And these guys were out in 16 years. So, you know, I'm sure somebody who is a lot smarter than I am to try and figure out what all of the different racial biases and so forth were in the criminal justice system or in the criminal justice system. I will say just in general, at that time, they didn't they tended not to keep people in prison any longer than they had to. They were you know, they were. It wasn't for profit back then? It wasn't. Well, no, it was it was a cost. And a lot of the states didn't have a lot of money to to they'd rather turn the guys loose and than keep housing and feeding them. Right. Yeah, exactly. How did the government kind of impact this? The FBI came in to investigate. Was the federal government making sure allocations and money were going to the right places and right people? Was it state or was it tribal responsibility? So in theory and this is one of the things that we're still fighting about in Oklahoma, but in theory, the the Osage reservation was dissolved, that statehood. And that's pretty much held up even with some recent Supreme Court decisions that have decided that some of the other reservations weren't dissolved, that statehood. So it was dissolved, that statehood. However, you still had the Osage is owned a lot of the land there because it had been allotted to them. So again, this gets a little complicated, but the state officials did not think they could get a conviction in this case, in state court and in Pawhuska. They wanted the federal government to come in. They wanted. And so the federal government has jurisdiction over Indian land. And and so and there was a lot of discussion at the time to our guys even have any kind of authority here. The the FBI was not even the FBI at that time. It was just the Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice. And it had very, very limited authority. And so the key sort of the key thing in bringing this case down, or one of the key things was that one of the men who who was killed, Henry Roan, was killed on an allotment that was still owned by the original L.A. The federal judge in Oklahoma originally ruled that the federal government didn't have authority over that allotment, and it went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court said no and allotment is Indian land. And that means the federal the federal government has the authority to to to do this. And so almost all of the real police work, if you will, on this was done by the by the Bureau of Investigation. And they were helped by somewhat by state and local officials. But in their letters, they talk about they just didn't feel like there were many of those people they could trust because of their interest in, first of all, what was going on in Osage County. But then more broadly, you know, they did not want anybody looking too closely into the what was going on with these Indian allotments and in the mineral rights. So. So the involvement of the federal government was key. It's really unlikely that that anything could have been done in the Osage Nation, had actually gone to Congress and asked them to intervene. The Osage is pay a big part and maybe all of the federal government's expenses in prosecuting this case. They paid the federal government to investigate these, or at least they paid the expenses of the federal government to do that. I think another important person in this does not get a lot of attention was Charles Curtis. Charles Curtis was a U.S. senator from Kansas, his whose mother was a college Indian, who was born in in that in what is now Oklahoma. And he was later the vice president of the United States. And he got involved in it and and pushed the Department of Justice to do something. And that, folks, is where we're leaving it for this episode. Thanks for listening to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles. Don't forget to hit that. Subscribe button so you don't miss what's coming up next. A look at where the head write stand currently with the Osages and how the Reign of Terror has its own place in pop culture.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Martin Scorsese präsentiert mit seinem vielleichten letzten Film eine neue Facette in seinem umfangreichen Werk: Robert De Niro und Leonardo DiCaprio sind in ihren düstersten Rollen zu sehen. Wir befinden uns im Land der Osages in den 1920er Jahren in Oklahoma: Die Osages wurden durch Ölfunde sehr reich, was Begehrlichkeiten und Neid bei den Weißen weckt. William Hale (De Niro) und sein Neffe Ernest (DiCaprio) wollen durch Heirat und sinistere Verbrechen an die Bodenrechte gelangen. Ernest wird Mollie (Lily Gladstone) heiraten, durchaus nicht nur aus Kalkül, und dann nimmt ein schleichendes Verbrechen seinen Lauf. Scorsese erzählt aber nicht nur die Geschichte von ausgebeuteten Indigenen, sondern auch viel über die fiktionale Ausbeutung. Mehr dazu von Wolfgang M. Schmitt.   Mein neues Buch ist erschienen und kann hier bestellt werden (Affiliate-Link): http://amzn.to/45N0P4Y (http://amzn.to/45N0P4Y)   Am 24.10. bin ich in Mainz zu Gast. Gezeigt wird der herausragende Film IN TIME. Anschließend halte ich einen Vortrag und diskutiere über den Film. https://www.filmz-mainz.de/programm/muschelkino/ (https://www.filmz-mainz.de/programm/muschelkino/)   Am 26. Oktober bin ich in Augsburg zu Gast: https://www.instagram.com/p/CyQFYEgo_Br/?img_index=1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/CyQFYEgo_Br/?img_index=1) Am 16. November bin ich am Staatstheater Wiesbaden zu Gast: Chefdramaturg Constantin Mende und ich sprechen über Oper & Politik. Der Vorverkauf hat begonnen: https://www.staatstheater-wiesbaden.de/programm/spielplan/2023-11/operntalk/10014/ (https://www.staatstheater-wiesbaden.de/programm/spielplan/2023-11/operntalk/10014/) Sie können DIE FILMANALYSE finanziell unterstützen – vielen Dank! Wolfgang M. Schmitt Betreff: DIE FILMANALYSE IBAN: DE29 5745 0120 0130 7858 43 BIC: MALADE51NWD PayPal: http://www.paypal.me/filmanalyse Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/wolfgangmschmitt Wolfgang M. Schmitt auf Twitter: https://twitter.com/SchmittJunior Wolfgang M. Schmitt auf Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wolfgangm.schmittjun/ Wolfgang M. Schmitt auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wolfgangmschmitt/ Produziert von FatboyFilm: https://www.fatboyfilm.de/ https://www.facebook.com/fatboyfilm/ https://www.instagram.com/fatboyfilm/

Cette tribu d'Amérindien, c'est celle des Osages, qu'on retrouve notamment dans le dernier film de Martin Scorsese, "Killers of the Flower Moon". Pourtant, aucun rapport avec le film. Car tout commence en 1827... Les Grosses Têtes vous proposent de découvrir ou redécouvrir le podcast de Florian Gazan. Dans "Ah Ouais ?", Florian Gazan répond en une minute chrono à toutes les questions essentielles, existentielles, parfois complètement absurdes, qui vous traversent la tête. Un podcast RTL Originals.

Cette tribu d'Amérindien, c'est celle des Osages, qu'on retrouve notamment dans le dernier film de Martin Scorsese, "Killers of the Flower Moon". Pourtant, aucun rapport avec le film. Car tout commence en 1827... Dans "Ah Ouais ?", Florian Gazan répond en une minute chrono à toutes les questions essentielles, existentielles, parfois complètement absurdes, qui vous traversent la tête. Un podcast RTL Originals.

durée : 00:09:04 - L'invité de 7h50 - par : Sonia Devillers - "Avec le peuplement de l'Amérique par des Européens, (...) ces derniers se jugeaient supérieurs à toutes les autres cultures et voulaient les dominer", rappelle le cinéaste, qui a adapté au cinéma l'ouvrage "Killers of the Flower Moon" de David Grann et qui raconte le sort des amérindiens Osages.

Cinq mois après sa présentation exceptionnelle en avant-première au Festival de Cannes, Killers of the Flower Moon sort enfin au cinéma. Le nouveau film tant attendu de Martin Scorsese, basé sur l'ouvrage du même nom de David Grann publié en 2017, arrive dans les salles obscures et promet aux spectateurs une expérience hors du commun avec Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro et Lily Gladstone, entre autres.Killers of the Flower Moon revient sur une part sombre de l'Histoire américaine - la série de meurtres de membres de la tribu native amérindienne des Osages dans le comté d'Osage en Oklahoma dans les années 1920.Le pétrole a apporté la fortune au peuple Osage qui, du jour au lendemain, est devenu l'un des plus riches du monde. La richesse de ces Amérindiens attire aussitôt la convoitise de Blancs peu recommandables qui intriguent, soutirent et volent autant d'argent Osage que possible avant de recourir au meurtre jusqu'à ce que le FBI mène son enquête...Retour au 20 mai 2023, lors de la 76ème édition du Festival de Cannes, pour une montée des marches historiques avec le retour de Martin Scorsese, qui n'était pas revenu présenter un film sur la Croisette depuis trente-sept ans. Le dernier long-métrage du lauréat de la Palme d'or en 1976 pour Taxi Driver présenté à Cannes était After Hours.AlloCiné avait eu la chance de découvrir Killers of the Flower Moon à cette occasion et a débriefé au retour de projection sur le nouveau film de Martin Scorsese. La sortie du long-métrage dans les salles de cinéma est l'occasion de réécouter notre podcast dédié, en compagnie de Mégane Choquet, journaliste à la rédaction d'AlloCiné.N'hésitez pas à partager, noter, commenter l'émission et à vous abonner à AlloCiné Podcasts.Tous nos épisodes sont à retrouver sur les plateformes de podcast, dont Deezer, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Acast...Crédits :Journaliste - présentatrice : Brigitte BaronnetJournaliste - chroniqueur : Mégane ChoquetRéalisation : Arthur Tourneret

The latest episode of Late Edition: Crime Beat Chronicles is in partnership with the Tulsa World to introduce the story of the Osage Reign of Terror and the upcoming film Killers of the Flower Moon. In this episode, show producer Ambre Moton is joined by two writers from the Tulsa World, Randy Krehbiel and Jimmie Tramel, to explore the history of the Osages and what led to the crimes committed against them. Read all of the coverage of the film Killers of the Flower Moon and related stories here. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Slack and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Welcome to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles, a Lee Enterprises podcast. I'm Ambre Moton, the producer and editor of the show, filling in for Nat Cardona, who is taking some well-deserved time off.  Our next few episodes are going to take us back to the late 1800s through the 1920s to Osage County in Oklahoma. With the help of and in partnership with reporters from the Tulsa World, the daily newspaper for the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and primary paper for the northeastern and eastern parts of the state. Before we dive into those conversations, a tiny bit of background over the next set of episodes we're going to cover the Osage reign of terror, a series of murders of members of the Osage tribe and those who supported them that took place in the 1920s. By all accounts, these crimes are committed by people attempting to gain control of the Osage as oil rights and the profits from it. We'll cover some of the history of the tribe, the crimes themselves, the investigation by the be a lie, which later became the FBI, and later a look at the crimes place and pop culture captured in books, newspapers and the soon to be released Martin Scorsese film Killers of the Flower Moon, which was filmed in the same area that the events took place. But back to the beginning, I spoke with Randy Krehbiel of the Tulsa World, someone we'll hear from several times as we tell this story about how the Osage tribe ended up in what is now Oklahoma. My name is Randy Krehbiel. I've been at the Tulsa World since 1979. I came here as a sportswriter, did that for about 13 years, switched over to news. And over the years, I've written a lot of things. I've written about a lot of different subjects, but I've written a lot about history and the history of this area era. I actually published the book several years ago on the 1921 race massacre, and I've written a book on the history of the Tulsa World and the city of Tulsa. And so all of these things are really interesting to me. And and some things, you know, you kind of know about for a while and some things you don't. My main job actually is covering state and federal government. What kind of led you to writing about the Osage tribe, the the reign of terror and everything that goes into the story of killing of the flower moon? You know, I had actually written a little bit about it probably 15 years ago or something like that. And there's nothing in-depth like, you know, the book or the David Green book or some of the other books that have been written about it. And I got into it and, it's just like a lot of other things. It's, you know, part of our our story. It's part of how we we got here and, you know, I think I was probably somewhat fascinated, if that's the right word, by just just how terrible some of these people were. And also, you know, the people who were victimized by them, too, you know. So it's you know, it's part of who we are. And not only, you know, in Oklahoma, but really across the country. And it's it's part of it's part of the history that, you know, we probably don't like to think about as much It does it doesn't make us feel as good as 4th of July. Kind of, I guess, on that topic. I think people obviously in Oklahoma, but people of a certain age, I guess I should say, because I'm not sure that it's necessarily being taught as widely as it used to be, are aware of, you know, like the Trail of Tears and the establishment of, you know, Indian territory. But like people may not be familiar with the existence of the Osage people and everything they went through. So can you just kind of talk a little bit about how they ended up in what is now Tulsa and kind of what what went into that? Yes, ages originally were a very large tribe and they they're they're sort of their home grounds, at least at the time of, you know, European encounter was most of the state of Missouri and and some of Arkansas and then out onto the plains in Kansas and Oklahoma and then in the 1800s and they were kind of pushed by treaty into an area in Missouri and then that and then into Kansas and in 1872, they sold their reservation in Kansas and bought 1.7 million acres from the Cherokee Nation. And for their what became their final reservation. And because they bought their reservation, they they owned it. They they had a title to it. It gave them a little different status going forward and and it allowed them to get some concessions. Then when the state of Oklahoma was created really in 1960 to accommodate and become a state until 1907, but by that time, they had been reduced to, you know, just a few thousand people. They all all of that moving around and man squished together. And they'd undergone a lot of illness and so forth. So they they were down by statehood. They were down to fewer than 2500 people living on the reservation. It's my understanding that the Osage land that they had, it wasn't, I guess, the most hospitable, especially when it comes to like agriculture. So how did they initially I'm assuming they didn't buy it and then strike oil immediately? No, actually, yeah. So the story is, is that they actually chose that land because they thought it was the least attractive to white people and they would be left alone. And the story the chief Standing bear tells and there's a tell the story, too, is that they sent out these scouting parties and they told them to throw their spear into the ground. And if the spear stuck, they were supposed to move on because it meant the soil was too thick and too rich and there'd be white people coming for it. But if they threw their spear into the ground and it fell over because it had hit rock, that's where they wanted wanted to be. And so the story is, again, that they actually chose pretty poor agricultural land. Now, it almost immediately didn't work out that way because it wasn't very good for farming, but it was very good for for grazing. And they had, you know, the cattlemen from Texas driving cattle up into Kansas. So they wound up, you know, making a fairly good living off leasing their their land to the cattlemen for grazing. That's a great visual, though. The story that you said that it was cheap standing there. Right, that he said that the steers. That's a great visual. We have to take a quick break, so don't go too far. An important thing to note is that in 1887, the Dawes Act divided up communally owned reservations into privately owned allotments as a way to force Native Americans to assimilate, to make each member of the tribe an owner of 160 acres and selling the quote unquote, surplus land to non-natives. This made tribal members, private property owners and effectively ended their communal way of living since the Osage bought their land outright. They were exempt from the allotments under the Dawes Act. Instead, Chief James Big Heart insisted on what is known as the Osage Allotment Act in 1906, where the Osage allotted all of their land to their people, giving 657 acres each to the over 2200 registered Osage. I also spoke with Jimmie Tramel, pop culture writer at the Tulsa World. Hey, I'm Jimmie Tramel. I'm a pop culture writer at the Tulsa World, a newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and TulsaWorld.Com. I was a sportswriter for 25 years, but for the last ten years, I've been our pop culture person. You know, I think everybody or most people of a certain age anyway, should be familiar with the Trail of Tears, everything with how Oklahoma was formed. But they may not have, you know, all of the insight into what happened with the Osage people. What you just said is fascinating and said you should know. I think maybe the words you use, we should have known about this. But like the Tulsa race massacre of the 1920s, the Osage reign of terror occurred in the same era. And until recently, I think many people not I mean, Oklahomans and around the world, we're not familiar with these things. Sometimes it takes pop culture to bring awareness to these things that the history books haven't told us. Like the movie HBO's Watchmen brought the Tulsa Race massacre into the consciousness. And I think this movie, Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon, is Bring is doing the same thing to bring the awareness to the Osage reign of terror. Yes. And thank you for mentioning the film is called Killers of the Flower Moon. Yes. Filmed in Oklahoma, we're on the same turf where the actual Osage reign of terror happened. At one point in history, the the Osage nation of It's a Tribe, one of many tribes in Oklahoma was prior to statehood. Oklahoma was known as Indian Territory because all the tribes had land here that were there. People could live, and maybe this would never be a state, but actually it became a state in 1907. But the Osage land, I think a lot of people would say was not the best land in Oklahoma. But guess what? Oil was found under that land and the Osage people became like the wealthiest people on Earth overnight almost. And then what happens when moneys are involved is greed, betrayal, and in this case, even murder, where there were several murders of the Osage, because people wanted their oil money. It's funny how money can motivate people to do such heinous things, right? Yeah. I mean, brings out the worst in people and in many occasions. And and eventually you hope someone will step up and do right. But if you when you read the book Killers of the Flower Moon, you'll see that many people who should have known better were conspirators in this. What kind of wealth? Do you know how that translates into terms to current day? Well, this kind of wealth, when they would run out of gas in an automobile they had purchased rather than just fill up with a new tank of gas. They would be so like, here's a new car. So that kind of money. That does incite less scrupulous people to do bad things, definitely. And that's where we're going to leave the story for today. Thanks for listening to Late Edition Crime Beat Chronicles. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss our next episode where we discuss the crimes that became known as the Osage Reign of Terror.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

durée : 00:47:21 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - Le peintre Bernard Dufour s'entretenait en 1995 avec Alain Veinstein dans son émission "Du jour au lendemain" à l'occasion de la parution de son livre "Des collectionneurs tels André Breton" dans lequel il disait son admiration pour le grand amateur d'art et collectionneur qu'avait été André Breton. En 1995, c'est pour son ouvrage Des collectionneurs tels André Breton, que le peintre mais aussi écrivain Bernard Dufour était l'invité d'Alain Veinstein dans son émission "Du jour au lendemain". Bernard Dufour peintre mais aussi écrivain Peintre ou écrivain ? C'est ainsi que débute l'entretien, question à laquelle Bernard Dufour répond : "Je suis un peu écrivain." Il dit avoir toujours eu envie d'écrire, il s'y attelle d'ailleurs pour des revues d'art et a déjà fait paraître deux livres autobiographiques, L'Oranger des Osages et Au fur. Mais c'est le tournage de La Belle Noiseuse de Jacques Rivette, où il était la "main" de Michel Piccoli, qui l'a "décollé" de son atelier. Il explique avoir eu du mal à se remettre de cette coupure et a décidé de se remettre à écrire en partageant ses journées en deux : le matin la peinture, les après -midis écriture dans son bureau qu'il appelle le "cagibi". Ecrire sur sa vie et prendre des photos de ses tableaux en train de se faire, l'ont fait réfléchir au sens qu'il donne à sa vie. "Ma vie est une suite de rebondissements" où "les choses s'emboîtent les unes sur les autres, c'est assez excitant", confie-t-il. Et d'ajouter, "il y a quelques fois des coups de théâtre qui sont plutôt des tragédies" et qui coupent sa vie en deux, la fracturent. André Breton, un collectionneur passionné Dans son ouvrage Des collectionneurs tels André Breton, Bernard Dufour montre son enthousiasme pour l'amateur d'art et le collectionneur passionné qu'a été le chef de file des surréalistes, André Breton. Tout en affirmant n'avoir jamais été surréaliste lui-même, Bernard Dufour s'est attaché à comprendre le fonctionnement de Breton collectionneur qu'il trouve "hallucinant" et "fabuleux". Incohérent dans ses choix artistiques, André Breton revendiquait ce que certains lui reprochaient. Il pouvait être ébloui et aveuglé par une ouvre d'art comme quand on tombe amoureux. C'est tout ce processus qui se déroule comme un rite de possession, une épreuve initiatique envers un tableau que raconte avec fascination Bernard Dufour. C'est aussi un livre qui en glorifiant ce qu'avait été le rapport d'André Breton à l'ouvre d'art, permet à Bernard Dufour d'évoquer le rôle de l'argent dans l'art et ses propres relations avec les marchands et les collectionneurs dans ce qu'il appelle "la triade féconde". Retrouvez l'ensemble du programme d'archives Bernard Dufour, la poursuite du réel, proposé par Albane Penaranda. Par Alain Veinstein Du jour au lendemain - Bernard Dufour pour son livre "Des collectionneurs tels André Breton" (1ère diffusion : 17/01/1995) Avec Bernard Dufour, peintre Réalisation Bernard Treton Édition web : Documentation de Radio France Archive Ina-Radio France

durée : 00:29:59 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - Dans ce dernier entretien d'"À voix nue", le peintre Bernard Dufour parle à nouveau de son expérience du film tourné avec Jacques Rivette, de l'écriture de son autobiographie dans une recherche de totale franchise, puis de sa relation avec ses modèles qu'il tient à distance. Dans le cinquième et dernier des entretiens d'"À voix nue" que lui consacrait Catherine Millet en 1993, le peintre Bernard Dufour revient sur l'expérience qu'avait été pour lui sa participation au tournage de La Belle Noiseuse, le film de Jacques Rivette, et les difficultés qu'il avait eu à se remettre au travail à la suite de ce tournage. Un moment de creux dans sa peinture qu'il avait mis à profit en se consacrant à l'écriture d'un texte autobiographique qui l'occupait encore à l'époque de l'enregistrement de cette série d'"À voix nue" et qui sera publié deux ans plus tard sous le titre Au fur. Son projet autobiographique était de tout dire Après le tournage du film La Belle Noiseuse pendant lequel Bernard Dufour dit s'être senti dépossédé de lui-même et avoir créé un grand désordre dans son travail de peintre, il a décidé de continuer son autobiographie entamée avec L'Oranger des Osages publié en 1990. "Mon objet autobiographique était de tout dire", affirme-t-il y compris des choses dangereuses pour lui. C'est cela qu'il recherche dans les écrits autobiographiques, une franchise totale, sinon cela n'a pas d'intérêt. Bernard Dufour et ses modèles, "un rapport complexe et énigmatique" La relation avec les modèles qui, comme Emmanuelle Béart dans La Belle Noiseuse, posent nues pour lui, fait partie des questions que Bernard Dufour aborde dans cet ultime entretien. Ses modèles ne sont jamais des professionnelles mais il sait que ces femmes "vont aimer être regardées nues". S'il peut éprouver du désir pour elles, surtout elles "doivent restées très lointaines", à distance, dans "un rapport complexe et énigmatique". "Les heures où j'attends le modèle sont des heures de fantasmes délirants", se plait-il à révéler. Retrouvez l'intégralité de la série "A voix nue" avec Bernard Dufour Retrouvez l'ensemble du programme d'archives Bernard Dufour, la poursuite du réel, proposé par Albane Penaranda. Par Catherine Millet A voix nue - Bernard Dufour 5/5 (1ère diffusion : 07/05/1993) Avec Bernard Dufour, peintre Réalisation Nicole Salerne Édition web : Documentation de Radio France Archive Ina-Radio France

durée : 00:54:43 - Autant en emporte l'Histoire - par : Stéphanie Duncan - À la fin du XIXe siècle le peuple des Osages fut relégué en Oklahoma. Incroyable pied de nez du destin, dans les terres arides qu'on leur avait octroyées et qui devaient être leur tombeau, on découvre un des plus gros gisements de pétrole des États-Unis ! Les Osages deviennent soudain milliardaires. - invités : Marie-Claude Feltes-Strigler - Marie-Claude Feltes-Strigler : Maîtresse de conférences honoraire à l'Université Paris 3 - Sorbonne Nouvelle - réalisé par : Anne WEINFELD

Había una vez un mundo en que la tribu Osage vivia en el cielo pero no tenian memoria de donde venian En los mundos superiores, los Osages existieron primero como seres espirituales y en su humildad se llamaban a sí mismos los Pequeños.Con el tiempo quisieron saber sus origenes y fueron donde el sol y le preguntaron. .  Dinos, tu que todo lo ves y todo los sabes, de donde venimos.  Él sol le dijo: "Ustedes son mis hijos, pero ya deben vivir en la tierra". , ellos en la busqueda de su origen siguieron caminado y llegaron donde la luna y le preguntaron los mismo. De donde venimos, la luna les dijo.: "yo Soy Su madre y  El sol es Su padre.  Luego le preguntaron a la estrella masculina y a la estrella femenina que debian hacer y estas le confirmaron que era hora de bajar a la tierra para vivir allí.  Así que los pequeños como se llamaban ellos a si mismo, decidieron buscar ayuda en el aguila real para que les ayudara a bajar. , El aguila que conocia todos los rincones del cielo los tomo y los llevo ayudandoles a pasar las cuatro divisiones del cielo. Cuando por fin llegaron a la tierra vieron que esta estaba totalmente cubierta por agua, de las que solo sobresalian las copas de 7 robles rojos, El aguila les mostro a los Osage como bajar a la superficie estirando los brazos y las piernas  como las alas de del aguila para que asi flotaran hacia abajo hasta llegar a las copas de los arboles.  Cuando llegaron allí vieron que todo realmente estaba cubierto de agua y desesperados le pidieron a la estrella radiante que les ayudara.  La estrella radiante les trago un gran alce que era el más majestuoso y capaz de los animales.  El alce se dejo caer sobre el agua cuatro veces para que el agua comenzara a bajar. Y con cada una de las veces invitaba a uno de los vientos para que ayudaran a remover el agua. Así el viento del norte, el viento del sur, el viento del este y el viento del oeste, soplaron  y soplaron hasta que en conjunto pudieron levantar las aguas hacia el cielo formando una gran neblina y la tierra firme comenzara a surgir.  Los Osage pudieron finalmente bajar de las copas de los arboles, pero la tsuperficie que surgio estaba compuesta solamente de rocas, sin ningun asomo de vegetación o comida. El alce cuando vio que los Osage no tenian comida, se tendio sobre la superficie rocosa y comenzo a rodar por toda la tierra.  A medida que rodaba sus pelos se fueron pegando a la superficie y de cada uno de ellos fue surgiendo un arbol, la hierva,  y plantas. Así pronto el mundo se fue llenando de judias, maiz, patatas y nabos silvestres que ellos podrían comer.   Ahora si los Osage podian caminar por la tierra recien formada y se fueron distribuyendo para formar su pueblo.  Cuenta la leyenda que tiempo después los Osage se dividieron en 3 grupos y aprendieron a sobrevivir y a distinguirse unos de otros. El primer grupo se llamo a si mismo la gente del agua, el segundo se llamaron la gente de la tierra y el tercero se llamaron la gente del cielo. Y juntos formaron la tribu que hoy se conoce como los osage que viven en las planicies de Oklahoma. 

Pod Crashing Episode 203 With Rachel Adams-Heard From In Trust A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly-dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades-helped along by policies created by the US government. Learn more and follow our listener guides at bloomberg.com/intrust.

Pod Crashing Episode 203 With Rachel Adams-Heard From In Trust A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly-dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades-helped along by policies created by the US government. Learn more and follow our listener guides at bloomberg.com/intrust.

By the 1920s, Fred Gentner Drummond was deeply embedded in Osage financial affairs. His store extended credit to Osages. He administered the estates of many of these same Osages – approving big debt repayments from them to his own store. But Fred Gentner and his brothers had another lever – a way to make Osage money work for themselves, and their friends. Hear how it worked, and how one Osage man fought back. Learn more and see bonus material from the episode at bloomberg.com/intrust.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government. Listen to In Trust on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-in-trust-101274258/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government. Listen to In Trust on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-in-trust-101274258/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government. Listen to In Trust on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-in-trust-101274258/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government. Listen to In Trust on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-in-trust-101274258/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government. Listen to In Trust on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-in-trust-101274258/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A hundred and fifty years ago, the Osage Nation bought a stretch of prairie the size of Delaware, in what's now Oklahoma. The Osage owned the land and everything beneath it. Today, much of present-day Osage County has left Osage hands. In some cases, appropriation was swift and brutal: Dozens of Osages were murdered for their share of lucrative mineral rights to this oil-rich land, a period often referred to as the Reign of Terror. But other transfers of wealth played out more subtly—dollar by dollar and acre by acre, over decades—helped along by policies created by the US government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Black and Indigenous SolidaritiesWith Robert WarriorPatty: So we're here with Robert Warrior. And so funny story, Kerry, I'm reading this book Crossing Waters Crossing Worlds by Tiya Miles. It was for Aambe book club, History a couple of months ago back in February, and I can't and, as happens a lot of times, you know, when I'm reading books or essays, I always think “is that person on Twitter, I got to find them,” you know. And so I'm going along, and I see Oh, Robert Warrior, and I'm really enjoying this essay. And so I log on to Twitter with the intention of seeing if I can find Robert Warrior. And in my notifications is like, Robert Warrior just followed you. *laughter* No way, I was just about to look for you. So that's Yeah. So there's a nice, nice, nice little bit of synergy there. I don't know what I might have been going off on on Twitter that got your attention, butRobert:I think it was on I mean, I think it was on Afro Indigenous issues or something like that.. That's a bit identity in general, I can't remember.Patty: But that was something that, I mean, really, thanks. You know, this is this is why relationships are important, right? You know, because it's relationship that I have with Kerry, and then, you know, and other, you know, and other people that I'm getting to know, you know, just really how important these conversations are between our communities, and recognizing that our communities are not discrete categories, either.Robert:Great points,Patty:Not only are people in the Black diaspora Indigenous in their own right, in other ways. But people who are Indigenous to here also had relationships with Black people.Robert:Exactly, surePatty:Also, you know, so we're, we're relatives in all kinds of ways. And, and, you know, one of the points that Tiya made when we talked with, you know, when, when she was on, Aambe, on the book club, was how there's gaps in gaps in our stories, and the story in our own stories. I mean, we all about what passes for mainstream education and the gaps that exist there, and how we're just not present. I just went off on a Twitter thread about Grapes of Wrath. And, you know, and how Steinbeck almost gets it, so close to understanding connection to land, you know, but where are the Indigenous people? On whose land, they're living? Oh, we're dead, like the snakes.Robert:Wow. Right.Patty:You know, so I go off on that relationship to land because like, we know that we're not in white literature in white education, but we're also missing from each other's stories. That was the point that Tiya made was, you know, in Black Studies, there's gaps where Native people should be. And then Native studies, there's gaps where Black people should be.Robert:Right, right. Well, I mean, I think that's a terrific point. And I think that I mean, so much this this conversation in general this topic I think, requires a lot of a lot of grace on the part of the people who are having the conversation, a lot of compassion for why people don't know the things they don't know. And and that people can only start where they start from and and we're trying to make the conversation better, we're not trying to have a perfect conversation right off the bat.And so it but they can be really difficult and Tiya is such a genius and such a wonderful person, such an amazing scholar, but also just an amazing writer. And how she has she's able to, to in her first book and Ties That Bind, tell the story of this one little family and illustrate through through Shoe Boots and Lucy, that story that is just so powerful. You know, it's not very often that I cry in in when I'm reading a book but you know, When, when, when Lucy at the end of it is freed. Finally, when she's a very old woman, you know, I just, I just cried because I just it just the weight of her of her servitude had weighed on me through the whole thing, you know, and the way that she had to persevere through all of that. And then to say, oh, it couldn't have mattered that much, which is what people always want to say, right? But of course it did. Of course, it did. You know, she even if even if she'd had 15 minutes left to live, she still want to prefer freedom for those 15 minutes, you know, than not.And but I do think that that being able to enter into a conversation where there's not a lot of rules, at the start, where there's not a lot of, of saying the only way that you can be part of this is if you will make sure that you do enough of this or enough that. I mean, you I guess I want to assume that a good author, a smart author will say, I hadn't thought about that, you know, the next time I do a story like this, I want to think more about that. And and that that can make that that we're trying to move forward. And we're trying to make the stories better. It doesn't be it doesn't make things excusable, that are inexcusable. But it does, I think it does offer a way into a circle of conversation that I think can be much more powerful.Patty: Mm hmm. Well, I know, I'm working on a book myself, I'm my editor, you know, we were going, you know, going through the first half of it, and I'm talking about Indigenous experience. But I can't exclude, like Black experience as part of that. Right, you know, part of a colonial, you know, it's part of a colonial project, it happened, you know, in tandem and intersecting it all kinds of ways and, and acted differently in some ways, you know, and you get at that in, you know, in your essay that you contributed to this book, about why we reacted differently, you know, in sometimes supporting the residential schools. You know, you kind of get at, where's our WB DuBois? You know, and so she said, You really need to have Black eyes on this, because you're talking about Black experience. So you need to have Black eyes on this, you know, as part of, you know, your posse of people that are reading it ahead of time. And so I was like, okay, so I shipped it off to Kerry and Kerry had some feedback for me.And I was like, okay, that's not what I meant. But you know, why, if that's the way it's being heard, and that matters, because communicating something if it's not going to be heard, or if it's going to unintentionally cause harm, like that's not. And I think these conversations with Kerry, have been really helpful for me as a human being, not just because we're friends. But just really helpful to me as a human being, because these are, these can be hard conversations. And I sometimes I say things that aren't right, because we're all raised in this soup. Having the grace to be able to share with each other and kind of go on like, sometimes Kerry, and I'll go. But that's, I don't know, like, I hope that we've created this space where we can have these conversations and that they're, they're hard, but they’re also a lot of fun.Kerry: Absolutely I and I agree, I'm listening to both of you and recognizing the uniqueness of what we are creating even just the facet of having this kind of a conversation. It's creating the safe spaces to fill in those gaps. You know, when I look at I was thinking, the other day, I'm reading a book called Lose Your mother. Lose Your Mother is all about a woman, um a professor in the US, who is tracking back her history to to Ghana and going back through the Gold Coast and and her experience of what it is to go home.And it's interesting because her experience of going home left her feeling much more of a stranger in that space. You know, we and why I think it's important to this conversation is what it got me thinking about is how when we don't get to really draw our tapestries really create our own stories and tell our own stories, it's left to get skewed, it's left to be romanticized in ways that may not be the actual reality. And we leave out some of those integral pieces that create the fullness of what our stories would be.So for Sadaiya in that book, she was talking about how she was received in Ghana, after a while, you know, she was, um, she came back with the idea that she would have been welcomed home and The Ghanian people would have been like, yes, you know, sister, you know, and, in fact, what they kind of saw her as the privileged American, and not understanding the experience of what it was to have that ancestor move through the Middle Passage and what was endured in North America. And it struck me, because I know that I've romanticized one of my, my bucket list things is to go to the Gold Coast, and to really, you know, go to see some of the slave forts. And that thought, to me of being lonely in the space that very, you know, most often might have been the launching spot for where my ancestor left was, it was sobering.And it brings back the idea that the stories that we tell each other, or we tell ourselves may not be in, contextualized in the right way, if that makes sense. And that, the the, the truth is to be able to hear the different voices as we move through that, and how those relationships really connect together to form the truth of who we are how we stand in this hear and now.So I I'm, I think you're right, it's, it's very important that we create these dialogues that we can tap into those pieces of the story, like, when I was reading, um, you know, your book, there were some pieces of tendrils of, of family or relatives that were formed from, you know, tribes coming together with Black folk that I did not know. And, and that to me, oh, like, Well, hey, because I've seen some pictures, where you see some Black people in regalia, and you know, wearing wearing tribal feathers and stuff. And it's never made sense to me, 100%. And that picture was opened up simply from us being able to read, or me hearing it coming from you. And so to me, these forces in ways are integral, it's integral to get a fuller picture of how things exist, and how we sit in the structure of our world.Robert:And it seems like to me, I really appreciate all that, Kerry, I think this is really powerful. And it seems to me that, that recognizing that the conversation happens in places of pain is just so crucial. And that that's one of the reasons why people shut gates on each other, and why they create a kind of a gatekeeping, of who's allowed into this conversation space, that is my life. And, and this is why I'm accepting and this and and, again, I always want to call people out when they're being inexcusable in their behavior. And at the same time, I want to try to, I want to try to lead with compassion and trying to find a way to say, Can I get you to open that gate? Could I get you to think about, because the person on the other side is trying to open theirs right now. And until they're both open, and this is what I mean,I think this I love your podcast already. Because, because it because it's about friendship. And I think that friendship requires this kind of this kind of vulnerability, right? And this kind of saying, I want to open myself to you in a way that allows you to see me and, you know, I'm pretty flawed. And so, but these flaws, that's part of what friendship is, you know, it's like saying, I'm overlooking your flaws. I'm not even seeing them anymore, because we're friends, we've moved past that point, right. And so the, the powerful conversations that can take place as you build that foundation of friendship is built on trust, and it's built on trust that, that we don't have to write each other off because we make mistakes, because we say the wrong thing.And, you know, but I think one of the things you're seeing that it's I think that it's still largely unimagined and that we lack imagination and having the conversation about the different kinds of indigeneity that that we're talking about in this conversation, and that there are so many versions of indigeneity that go through it. I know that that native people in the US and in Canada and North America tend to, I mean, we're so fortunate to have communities that are intact we can go to, not everybody belongs to one of those communities, which is really important to say, right? A lot of people are incredibly disconnected from those things. But the fact that they exist, the fact that they're over there somewhere, that someone is really tightly connected to that sort of, of reality is, is powerful.And of course, of course, those things exist in Africa as well, right? For African descended people. But the but the, the separation is, is so severe, right? I mean, in terms of distance, in time, and in geography, that, that it that it creates a different existential reality for people who are having to think it through. But on the other side of that is that connection to indigeneity, as well, and so for. And so it's unpredictable, right, and the way that these things intertwine with each other, usually through the process of love. And oftentimes just through people getting together to survive in the kinds of situations you're talking about.Not always I think we romanticize things, if we think it's always that way. But, you know, I think I think of New England and how, how, at the time, when Native men were leaving New England to become whalers, African, African descended men were moving to New England as free Blacks, and were working in the same households that native women were in that this is where we really see the start of a lot of the Native New England families that are mixed between African and Native. And they came together that they didn't, you know, they, they, for the heterosexual people there, they didn't have other people and they turned to each other, they found in each other the sort of intimacy and the sort of being able to share a life with somebody that was really deep and meaningful for them.And that this is, we see this now, you know, in, in the people that we meet. But being able to account for and not having to have made sense of them right off the bat, there's different forms of indigeneity that are in play. My I mean, I'm really fortunate coming from a family that is very deeply connected to who we are as Osage. And I'm able to, although that wasn't always true, just in the individual kind of end of my family, with my dad and others, but, but I've been able to connect with that. And you know, and I can dance and I can be a part of our traditions in a way that's really powerful part of our social life our political life. And, you know, I felt so fortunate about that. For other people that, you know, that that's not true in the same way.But I think that, that, that I still at this point in my life, in spite of that good fortune, my own indigeneity as an Osage person eludes me at times. It catches me, it catches me unexpected, I learn new things, I find new connections. And so for me to expect that someone else is going to have figured their ties to indigeneity out seems a bit unfair to me, you know, at best, you know, and and so I think that, that, that can create the possibility of, of connection.Patty: Well, and then you add to that, so we had those kinds of relationships. But some of our tribes were also slaveholders. And, you know, you can say all kinds of stuff. I read somewhere you know, about us not, you know, that. Okay, how did I, how did I put this, you know, this slavery is never, you know, it's it's never a good thing, but that a lot of native slave owners weren't as bad. And oh yes. Yes, I said that. I said that on Twitter. knocked over was a moment where I was like, wow, I'm really, really sorry, that was a huge misstep. You know, I clearly missread something and everybody who jumped on me was absolutely, absolutely correct in that, you know, because, you know, and I actually got a couple of book recommendations out of it. They said  “you need to read these books,” and I did. I did and we were jerks. Well, the Anishinaabeg weren't one of the slave owning nations. But you know, so we had those kinds of relationships too.Robert:Right.Patty:And then we're seeing the ripples of that with, you know, with what's happening with the freedmen?Robert:Absolutely,Patty:You know, and you know, and I wouldn't shut up about that with dead Holland's nomination because, yes, she's great, but but look at this legislation she sponsored, she has to do better, she has to recognize she is now in a position of some serious power. And look at this legislation she sponsored this is terrible anti Black legislation. And she needs to you know, she needs to do better. She's under the guise of Kerry, I don't know if you're familiar with the legislation I'm talking about. But under the guise of I think it was native sovereignty. She had co-sponsored legislation that would allow to try to determine its own citizenship, knowing that what they were going to do was strip Freedmen of their rights of their rights to citizenship and basically creating Jim Crow type situation for tribal citizenship. Is that correct? Robert?Robert:So I'm going to rely on your I mean, I’m new on that. But you know, I think that on those situations, I mean, these things are incredibly difficult politically to figure out and the policies behind them. In the end, I just, I mean, one of the things I've always said is, is, especially for Cherokee people, that whatever freedom you have to do something like you're describing to disenfranchise people, that you committed to not do that, too many of whom are your blood relations, even if they're not on your tribal roles, that when you do that, you really do have to open yourself up to the kinds of criticism, you can't just go hide from that critique. And if that critique ends up, alienating, you know, members of Congress who no longer want to send you the kind of funding that you have to say, why are we funding these folks? Yeah, of course, we recognize their freedom. But should we be? Should we be encouraging that through, you know, through the funding that we provide? And, and I think that that has to at least be an open question. It's one that can be debated, but I just don't think that people should just get a free pass.Patty: Well, we're to hide behind sovereignty. Right,Robert:Right. Exactly.Patty:The South tried that argument. It didn't work. They fought a whole war about it. Don't get too well. And we talked with Azie Dungey about the Pamunkey tribe, which she's connected to. And, you know, the laws that were on that were still on their books about, you know, if you're Black, you can't inherit what you can't be a tribal member have land or something. And it had to do with protecting their own land. But the rules that required them to do that required is really the wrong word. But kind of boxed them into that corner 100 some odd years ago, don't exist anymore. So why are you still disallowing these members? Why did you set your membership criteria based on when that law was still legally enforceable? Like? That's not very nice. Yeah, so our relationship is complicated. And we need to be able to me that's the book that I had held up the Crossing Waters Crossing Worlds, that conference, you wrote the afterword for it, talking about the conference. It got heated,Robert:I did, and it really did. I mean, it was a wild ride. I mean, I'm so glad that it happened. It was hard to watch at times. And at the very end, I mean, it, you know, it there was a great idea that that Tiya had to use that time when she was when she was a fellow at Dartmouth to bring people together, Eating Out of the Same Pot. And you know, and let's, let's come together and let's talk and it and just saw that it was really a volatile kind of situation for everybody who was there. And that, that I think it was because of of how painful these histories are for people. And that, that, that I also think that there's a lot of dismissiveness in, in, in all of these groups in both of these groups, especially,I mean, the main two groups that were at this conference, or whether it's really I would say four groups of people were there. There were Native scholars who do Native studies. There were African American scholars who primarily were there who do African American studies, but also the relationship to Native American studies. And then there were white scholars who were there who mostly did Native studies, who knew a lot about these things like [intelligible] really wonderful person and, you know, great scholar. And then there were there were there were Afro Native people there, there were Black Indian people there. And and that was part of the mix that really made things made things more, more tense at times, because there were people who had skin in the game literally, right?The and I think that that really taught me being a part of that gathering really made me see that, along with getting Black eyes into this conversation, it's also really important to have Afro Native eyes, in Afro Native Voices in that conversation that it said that there's a that there's a different state that people have, when they've embraced that identity. And they're putting themselves forward into the conversation in that way. That because that, that, that the Afro Native people at that particular meeting made, made, made, some of the Native American people uncomfortable, made some of the white people uncomfortable, and many of the Black people were uncomfortable too they hadn't really spent a lot of time around people who were so forward in, in identifying as Afro Native, they knew people like this existed, they probably have relatives who, you know, say, hey, you know, we're like that too, right.But it was a bit it was really, it was really, it really said something about where we are in all of this. And I don't know that we've come that far, either. And at the end, I mean, it was really I mean, it was so it was hard to watch at the end, because people, there was nothing resolved, we had a big session at the very end of it. And we tried to come together to say, this is what we've learned. But really, there was just a lot of bad feeling. And it's really hard to leave something like that when there's so bad feeling in the room.And I mean that the thing that I always remember about that there had been a group of people from Dartmouth who wanted to sing Amazing Grace in a bunch of different native languages. And they tried to do this at the very end, it was, you know, would have been a really beautiful thing. But everybody was just feeling so terrible at that point. It was just it didn't feel like there was any grace, amazing are not in the room at that point. You know, we just really were kind of feeling like, there's so much to do here. There's so much, you know, that remains undone that, that that we don't know how to do this.You know, we can't be kind of cold blooded scholars who just disinterestedly come into this conversation. There isn't a place of being disinterested here, we really have to see everybody's made to feel by this topic in some way. And and we have to own our own position within it. I've certainly seen that, you know, I we brought up the Freedmen issue. And, you know, thankfully, it's progressed, I think, in many ways, although I'd say there's so much more work to do on it still. But at least you know, the, the current leadership with the Cherokees has, has embraced has embraced the idea that moving forward is the best way with this and to just follow the treaty follow the law and and to move to move on. And so that to stop this process of trying to stop people from being able to vote and the Win I wrote about, I wrote about that issue when it was still pretty hot.And I wrote an essay that was the most widely read essay on news from Indian country for about three years, called Cherokees flee the moral high ground, saying and it just really set out I just think the Cherokees are wrong. You know, I'm not Cherokee, but I'm gonna say they're wrong. In what they're doing. It's just morally wrong. And, you know, I have people in my own community in the Osage community, including relatives who basically said, you know, we don't agree with you, right. And the Wii was really saying, we, we Osages, just don't believe the way you do, Robert. And, you know, and luckily, I was mature enough by that point that I said, to myself, at least, I know one Osage who does. And I'm going to hold on to that, you know, so I don't I'm not going to have somebody tell me Osages don't believe that because there's one right here who does?And I didn't ask for permission from everybody to write anything I've ever written. No claim it could be something that somebody else agrees with. I this is me, you know, and I wrote that I wrote that and I anytime I take a stand like that, whether it's saying I think that I guess on the on the issues of same sex marriage that have come up for the Navajo people, for the Cherokees, and for my own Osage people, we had our own version of that. And I took a stand against them. Because I thought it was right. And I think that that's such an important thing to do.I have to say that one, one person I learned that from was my philosophy teacher, Cornell West, who is just, you know, one of my philosophical heroes, and I had him as a teacher, when I was at Yale back in the 1980s. When I was teaching at Stanford in the 1990s, Cornell came and gave a, a big talk for like, 1000s of students, and then he did a smaller presentation for, for a bunch of us, like 20 of us. And it was so great to be in the same room with him again, hearing him hearing that, that, you know, hearing his voice and just hearing how he talks, and he's so inclusive, and so wonderful. And I know a lot of people disagree with him. And I do too, sometimes. But just as a figure as a moral figure, I just think he's so considerable.As somebody asked a question as a student of color, with this 15 minute long question. I remember, in my mind, I'm sure it was more like two. But the question was, well, what do you do when you when you're trying to make changes, but you know the change you're trying to make, isn't going to happen. And that, that, even though you're fighting for it, you just already know that the end of this is going to be you're going to be defeated, and you're going, you know that the thing you're trying to get, you're not going to be able to get and so you use all this energy to try to get it but then you don't get it. What do you do? How do you figure out when's the right time to fight for these things? And, you know, this is at Stanford was a very powerful institution, right? And in Silicon Valley, where everybody's just worried about money and worried about success. And it was just so great to hear Cornel West, his turn to that person and say, well, sister, sometimes you do things just because it's right. You just do it, because it's right. Yeah, that's it. Right. I hadn't heard that kind of moral clarity in so long, right? You say, I don't have to make up my mind based on some really complicated calculus that says, do I? Do I take this position or that position? And so I don't know, I think it's right. I'm gonna I'm gonna say it.Patty: Is this the right, you know, we get so caught up in thinking strategically, right? And that's where this question was coming from is, you know, what's the point of being right, of speaking up, if it's not a good strategic moment, if it's not going to gain the kind of traction, that it needs to go anywhere? And, you know, when you were asking that about, you know, when do you know when you know, when it's the right time to bring it up? And in my mind, I thought, when you know, it's the right thing. That's when it's the right moment. Because when you know, it's the right thing, then sitting on it and not speaking up, becomes the wrong thing. You know, because now I know better. So now that I know better. Why wouldn't I speak up?And of course, I don't speak up because it's scary. I will say things on Twitter, that I don't always say on Facebook, not that what because my Facebook friends are different, right? Like, it's a completely different crowd. You know, and I know a lot of people feel this way Twitter is my chosen family. Facebook are the people I have to see at Thanksgiving.Kerry: And she says that with love.Patty: But I think what I've gotten much better at and I'm in some of it really is the podcast. Because Kerry and I just keep putting ourselves out there week after week. And then people listen to it. You know, they listen to us, as both, you know, learning in real time. You know, but so but there's things I will talk about a lot of times mostly like about religion or something I don't know, because the people I go to church with are on Facebook, but I'm getting much better at kind of the crossover at saying the things where there might be some social consequences. In my day to day life.Kerry: Yeah, I love this. I love that that you are bringing that up. It resonates with me so deeply. Oh, my goodness, Patty, because I have been in this space, I think over the last, you know, two or three weeks where I'm having to come into stepping into my power in that way. Where it's recognizing that the voice that I have I I'm I'm in the realization that I don't necessarily speak on it. Um, as largely as I would like to and when I'm starting to examine the whys behind that, I think it is because there's still that part of me that's looking for the acceptance or that or that, you know, not wanting to upset necessarily the different flows, or the different cliques of people that exist in my life. And with that being said, it's, it's coming to a point where I'm feeling not whole in who I am. So that, you know that stepping out is just what it's got to be because I'm I just, you know, it's I'm too compartmentalize, and it's not working very well.So hearing you say that really resonates, really helps me know that, that that emergence, I almost feel like it's like a growth I'm doing, I'm rebirthing in some ways,I’m wilding is the word I like to use. But it helps me know that I'm not alone in that journey. And I take that almost with with looking at how we, as Indigenous and Black people are forming relationships are looking at relationships,You know, when you mentioned the conference, and there being so much, you know, drama and trauma that sits in the air, I am, I celebrate it in some certain way. And in parts of that, because it's when we go through that kind of really feeling into it, I think a lot of times we do come at it from a strategy or we come at it from you know, the history, but we're not looking at what all of that brought into the room. And there needs to be a space to release some of that trauma, some of that pain, because it's a collective pain, what no matter what the perspective is, we all have come out of the direct response of this colonial capitalist system. And until we afford ourselves that space, the right to really feel into what the effects have been, then, and only then can we, I think fuse the other piece of it, which is to heal. To really be effective, you have to be able to offer some healing up so that you can process what the next phases of this game are going to be.And you can't do that without getting mad at each other, or having those tough conversations that will create that forum, that space to go. So now what i Okay, yeah, I don't like what you say. But maybe there's something there. And I so, I really think those are the things that we have to continue to do is, is get in the room, close the door, hopefully it can be soundproof a little bit and just hash it out, hash it out and see each other, see each other as we move through me.Patty: Robert, you had made a comment at the end of this essay, and I was just I was just rereading it the you were you were a Lone Wolf and Dubois For a New Century. At the very end of it, you as you say it will help us perhaps, work through the way we see ourselves in the way we exist in this world. Perhaps such work will help us re ask the question, what does it feel like to be a problem? Because that comes from the Dubois that comes from Dubois, right? I'm remembering this correctly. Can you talk about that a little bit about why you went looking at DuBois. And yeah, I love that essay. By the way, it was really interesting.Robert:Thanks very much, thanks. You know, I like so many things that had to do with the conference I had been invited to, to present at the 100 100th anniversary. There was a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Souls of Black Folk at the University of Wisconsin, that scholar, Caribbean American Scholar Nelly McKay put together. , And this thing was just, I mean, an incredible All Star lineup of people, especially of African American scholars, Nel painter, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. David Levering Lewis, who wrote the great WB Dubois biography, the two volume biography of DuBois. Lots of other people too.  Vijay Prashad, and I were invited to be the panel that was about people other than Black people. And he had just written his wonderful book, The Souls of Brown Folk. And. And so we did this panel together. And I wrote this essay for it. And what was interesting to me that one of the first the first question I got is, why didn't you talk about the train journey of Dubois through the South, when he talks about, you know, looking at the land of the Creeks, and looking at it that this, and I, you know, I kind of thought about that, I thought, well, that's probably more elegant. And as the person asked that, that, I probably should have done that I probably should have made this kind of more elegant kind of thing. But I also wanted to bring these two difficult things that don't really fit together, together into what I wanted to say about a Native American perspective on DuBois. I wanted to say, what was going on at this exact same time, you know, what was the Native world in, in 1902 1902, when When Souls of Black Folk came out? Or maybe it's 1903. But it's right there at the turn of the, you know, the turn of the 20th century. And that, that I guess, I mean, some of this had was probably a little bit of an exorcism to, along with, along with Cornel West, I had other Black mentors, James Cone who invented Black Theology of liberation was my doctoral advisor, wonderful, wonderful, very influential person, the academicPatty: Quite the academic ancestry.Robert:Right. And, and somebody's not as well known, but who was at Union Theological Seminary, when I was there as well, James M Washington, who Coretta Scott King brought down to the King Center, flew him down for a meeting, and she said, I want you to put together the essential writings of my husband, you know, and he did that. He’s this amazing African American church historian, you know, and, and he gave me, he just, he freed me intellectually from myself, you know, he taught me how to take myself seriously, as a student. And in a seminar, I just remember that. I remember, I put my hands down on a table. And I started talking to him like this, you know, I thought, What am I doing, you know, and I can't I can't do this, but he was okay.You know, he knew he already knew I had all of these things inside that are that I was trying to, and I was trying to cleverly pull them out of myself, you know, I tried to find some sort of safe, safe way of getting these things kind of blown out my ears and blown out, you know, other parts of me, when, in fact, they just needed to work through my brain and through my heart, and now, you know, and out my fingers in my writing, and, you know, the things that I said and, and like I say, I was felt as though Jim Washington, freed me from myself, from my own from my own conceits. In so many powerful ways.I learned so many other things as well from from James Cone. And it also allowed me to be a part of this company, of his graduate students who were from around the world. Many of them were from Africa, other African American students, and, and I was the Native American student in that in that group. And, and I just, you know, and I felt a kind of camaraderie, intellectual camaraderie in that group that was really, really wonderful and really powerful. And I think that, that around that time was when I was really figuring out what that legacy meant for me, because I always wanted, I always wanted the the Native intellectual tradition to be different. I wanted to have that Dubois figure, you know, that we could look to and to say, I want that person who does that thing that Dubois does kind of pulls everything together, and does this amazing, comprehensive look at the entire world.And, and I eventually just had to say to myself, we got what we got. And guess what, you know, the one thing that we have, it goes back to this thing of having these intact places and communities and political bodies and political people. You know, I always knew that, that that this is a little bit complicated, but it may be really helpful to the conversation.Let's say that I love the way in the African American in the history of Black thought, than African American thought. You always had these two dynamics going on, you know, at the same time, you had Malcolm and Martin and you Have you know you have DuBois but you also have Washington? Washington, Booker T. Right. But yeah, and are later Garvey too, right. And so you have these, you have these, these, this dialectic, and this historical dialectic, that's just really wonderful. And of course, you have an entire hidden world within that as well, that is all the other voices you don't see. But that the, the dialectic is always there showing me different things.And I was frustrated, because I couldn't find the other side of that dialectic in the Native tradition and the Native tradition of written thought. And I wanted it to be there, I wanted to see that more. And it was, I could see that in some places, but it seemed like our impulse in the world of Native thought was to try to come up with “The Position” with “The Native Way of Thinking About Things.” And, and I was never satisfied with that. And so I had this thing called discourse envy, I wanted to. And you know, the thoughts are greener, the grass is greener on the other side of this, this fence. Right? And that, that and, because the thing I realized early on, as I said, you know, we don't have that same kind of dialectic. But those other points of view do exist are out there. And there, you have to, they're, they're more, they're happening in the local places.They're happening in, in a world of,of the people who are, it's not just traditional knowledge, which is, I think, one of the in this, this could make some people want to turn off what I'm saying and that, I mean, that's fine with me if they do, but to say, it's not just the that I said to myself a little bit later, there's two kinds of subaltern thought within the native world. There's a subaltern thought, which is the subaltern are the  people who are unseeable to the, the regular world, they just can't see that there's this layer of experience within peasant life, or within Native American life or Black life, you know, that, that there are two kinds of subaltern just in general, I mean, there's probably 50 kinds, but the two kinds, I could really want to highlight that you could see people who had held on to those kinds of traditional knowledge about healing, about how to how to live with each other, social relations, and the people had this, this kind of intact sense of those of those traditions.But there was another kind of subaltern too, which was the voice of the destitute, the voice of the people who were, who were poorer than the poor, who are, you know, the most starving of the starving the people who just were so far beyond the reach of the things that were supposed to make their lives, work and make their lives better. And that there was without romanticizing the position, there's a kind of knowledge that comes out of that, that sometimes it's sometimes it's imbued with that sense of, of Indigenous tradition, but sometimes not. Sometimes it's just imbued, as it is so often in Black thought with just, how do you start from this place of living in a world that says, you're nothing, that gives you nothing? And then how do you make something out of that?And I knew that, that that kind of thought exists out in the native world, too. It often associates itself with that traditional knowledge with that kind of prestige of that, you know, of that Indigenous knowledge, because it's smart. You know, I mean, people like that are smart, and they know that people who are in those positions have answers. I think that's been really theorized so beautifully by by Leanne Simpson, in her book, As We've Always Done, and I think she does a really great job of getting at a lot of those thingsBut that essay about Lone Wolf, I think, and the boys too, instead of being able to find this worldwide gigantic figure like Dubois that I had to say, while the gigantic figure was the gigantic figure for the Kiowas. And he was he was going to be this enormous national figure for the Kiowas. But he may not be a big, enormous national or international figure. In the same way DuBois is because this context is different and his his struggles are different, who he's who he's trying to reach out. to then be a part of that's also different, too, and to say, let's settle into this intellectual space, this tradition that I'm a part of, and stop looking over my shoulder, stop looking over the horizon, you know, and to just settle into it and to learn the beauty of it.And to see, what does it take, if you're somebody like, like Lone Wolf, who, you know, doesn't have the benefits of education, the benefits of just knowing where the levers of power are? How do you figure out how to get all the way to the Supreme Court with with with a case like that? Even Even, even if it's not successful? But that you figure out how do you fight? How do you how do you take what you have a fight with it, and to fight back? Right.I still, you know, I still want people to aspire to that, to that gargantuan sense of intellect that Dubois brings into, you know, what I see when I see my African American brothers and sisters in the academy, and then African American writing and other forms of African American thought, who are in that line of that DuBoisian line? You know, I marvel at it, you know, and I say, What a great gift that the world gave, that the African American world gave to everybody, the boys, but especially to the African American world, you know, to set this, this kind of example, and again, not to say that DuBois was perfect, or that you know, that he was just this ideal kind of person in all ways. But intellectually, it's just breathtaking, you know? And yeah, and I guess that was that was, I think, I guess the part that still lives on and that is to say, I really want to hold on to that idea of the intellect as being so crucial to how do we get how do we get from here to where we're going? I’m bringing mine along with me, I'm bringing my intellect along with me. And I don't want to I don't want to fetishize it, I don't want to make it the only thing I have, but I'm bringing it along, because it's helped me so many times. And it's helped other people, other people's intellects have helped them so many times.Patty: And it's important, right, because we, we don't … I just read Dale Turner's book, This is Not a Peace Pipe. And he talks about that he talks about the you know, the, the need for “word warriors”, you know, people that know the language that know how to navigate the legal system, they know how to navigate the intellect, you know, the, the international stage and know how to, I mean, when when I did social, when I did social work, so much of what I did was, you know, was act as almost as an interpreter, you know, for people to be able to access the system, because if you can use you know, if you want to access a certain mental health program, you have to hit the key words, you know, you have to be able to identify the things that get you into their mandate because you might meet their criteria, but unless you can, unless you can articulate it, you don't and you won't get the service and so that was a lot of what I did was that kind of interpretation. And so I think that's what Dale is talking about, is you know, we need these word warriors because they can be those interpreters and get us putting our putting our needs and thoughts in ways that will be heard on the global stageAnd I think Art Manuel was really good at that. From a Canadian standpoint, in terms of you know, we're not gonna deal with Canada we're gonna go straight to the World Trade Organization. “We’re nations dammit, we're gonna act like nations” you know, so that he was really good at bringing you know bringing things in and communicating it in a way that the people whose hands on the levers of power knew how knew how to do. So that's really really important you know, but then like he said, we also need that other thread those traditional people because otherwise what are we fighting for? What are we accessing those halls of power for?Robert:RightPatty:Not you know if it if it's just to set up another you know, just cut it just another capitalist society where we're the landowners instead of the white people. What's the point? That's not that's that that's not that's not going to save anybody that's not going to help anybody. So oh, we're just going to transfer land ownership. That's not a that's not what land back is for that? Do I want you know, do I want to transfer over ownership. Yes. Do I want it to end there? No, that's not that that's not what's going to fix this. So yeah, we need we need both of those traditions. But I think your what was neat was, as you were talking about that, yeah, like when you see that in Black history, you know, you've got like that yin and yang constantly. Both sides talking and making their cases. And then the power is in that, that friction between them. And what emerges and you know, and so often what we hear in Indian country, you know, you start disagreeing, like you had said, you know, being the only Osage you know, they'll say, don't think that.  Well, I know one that does. You know, we're told so often we need to speak with a unified voice, we need to agree we need to agree. And we don't. Disagreement is ok. That's where the important stuff happens.Kerry: Yeah, I find this so interesting to listen to because it one last night it interestingly enough, I was on tick tock, and tick tock has these fascinating little blips of information that you can pull in, and I was actually got on a tic toc. stream or hashtag, where they were playing Malcolm X, they were playing Martin Luther King, they were going into Patrice Lumbaba, um, all of the great African orders that have spoken and held our struggle from here to Africa. And it was fascinating to feel the passion and the power of all of those voices. And what I was left with as I was watching, you know, you go down a tick tock hole, let me tell you tick tock is one of the most addicting things you can get on. And I think after about three hours of it, what I was left with was the power of the voices. But that the sense that because we were, they were so different, or we couldn't connect them, and what power it would have been if that connection could be made.And so for me to hear both of you speak about the, the other side of that maybe where that, you know, when the voice is too unified, it may not necessarily or is one voice only, it may not have all of the the flow and color of that maybe right is an interesting perspective for me, because I know that one of the things that comes from our school of Black people is that we can't unify, we can't get it together, we you know, our scatteredness, and this is what is not allowing us the whole idea of the fist instead of the fingers, you know, whatever analogy you want to use. So I what comes to mind, for me is the sense of the balance between all of these sides,You know, we talk a lot on this podcast, Patty, about the different medicines, the different approaches to be able to create the change that we all want to see. And it for me, it's once again, being in appreciation for all of it, getting everybody at a round table, and allowing for a safety space, a space of safety so that every voice can be heard. And then maybe I don't know if it's picking out the best pieces of it. But I, or holding the space for all of it. So that we can bring about change. Because as you as you mentioned, we don't want the same picture that we have now. It's to to evolve it in a way that's going to suit everybody and be relatives. I love that idea. When you say relatives, it just brings me joy, to know that we can all be relative.Patty:We are all related.Robert:So I think an important concept in that for me is it's in the title for today solidarity. And that, you know that there's a there's a time for talking, there's a time for solidarity, and sometimes I hear people say, Why are you talking about that? We don't have a dog in that fight. You know, I mean, I hear that a lot. And And I'll say, I don't, that's not how I do things. I don't really think about them in that way. Of course, I have a course I have a stake in that. You know, because what's going on there something that needs to be addressed. And so I'm addressed that. I didn't I don't calculate things that way. And I don't think we should, and that that, that.That solidarity is such an important thing. And I think that at best it does grow out of relationships that are already that already exists. It's so much easier. Those relationships already exist. This, sometimes it doesn't sometimes you have to go stand with people. And that's where you start a friendship is by standing with them. And, and you stand with people without asking a lot of questions, you make up your mind to go stand with them, and then you got to go stand with them. And if you need to leave, then you leave. But you don't you don't say, Now, can we do this another way? Or could we? Could we change our goals a little bit here? It's like, no, no, no, you're you're standing in solidarity. If you can't do that, then stop standing, you know. But that, that, that's hard in and of itself, you know, and it can be hard for people to do. But it's also really important. But I think it's strengthened by the quality of conversations that happen. Before and after.I think that sometimes people these days are always looking for easy resolution. And they don't realize that part of solidarity is getting together afterwards and saying, what worked about that? What didn't? I had some questions about what went down over there? I wasn't going to slow things down in the moment. But could you kind of clue me in? What was that, you know, I got to pick up a bad vibe from that person. What was that all about? Do you know?And just to, you know, and one of the things that always is remarkable to me that amongst activists, people, people who really go out and put themselves on the line, it's not usually very hard for, for Black people and Native people to get together to stand with each other. You know, I mean, one of the one of the first things that Black Lives Matters did was to really stand with Native people, you know, other than doing things with and for Black people very specifically, were able to embrace the idea that, that even though Native people are a very small population, in comparison, that they got problems with cops too. Right, and that it's a really violent world out there for Native people, really dangerous place for, you know, for our people to and, and that was no trouble for people inside of that people who were the real activists, they understand that they get itKerry: And are used to being on the front line.Robert:And as an academic, I'm always having to remember that to say, sometimes people on the inside of, you know, the cloistered walls of academia can can have more trouble than then just people around the street people in the street kind of know what's going on. And, and stance and it going back to what Patty said earlier, you know how scary it can be to figure out how am I going to get up there? But am I going to say how am I going to do this right? But you know, the payoff of that is just when you get up there, just how how good it feels. You know, if you know something is right in your heart, and you go and you stand up for it. I was you know, I feel for people that have never done that, you know, who who can't bring themselves to do it not out of pity. But I mean, it's just because you don't know how good it can feel that you've done something. You've done something to make the world a little bit different. You don't have to win, win or lose that day. You’ve already won.Patty: No, that's Whoa, yeah, you give me some really good things to think about. I so appreciate your time.Robert:For sure. Well, you're welcome.Patty:Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much for this.Kerry: Thank you, Robert. I definitely got to follow you back. I think this talk was amazing, really enlightened. Mind that by night, I appreciate it.Robert:Thank you very much for having me.Patty: Bye byeRobert: See ya’ll Later. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit medicinefortheresistance.substack.com

Whelp...we have yet another filler episode till we can get our next guests on. I get burned by wax, we have a kid ask to buy weed off of us, we give some random guy a lighter and directions, then Isaiah goes on a rant about blackberries. That about sums the epsiode ☁️