Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sad, that. The Kennewick Man had so much to possibly tell us. I'd like to hear more of what he might provide us. An opportunity lost, perhaps for all time. These opportunities don't grow on trees. Incorrigible, What happened to the Kennewick Man? Would you tell me something about it? Should I just look it up on line? I can't remember hearing about this finding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Incorrigible, What happened to the Kennewick Man? Would you tell me something about it? Should I just look it up on line? I can't remember hearing about this finding. Not incorrigilbe, but here... Basically the skeleton and artifacts were returned to the claiming tribe before the analysis could be finished, and a ton or so of dirt was dumped on the site where it was found and packed down, ruining any chance for archaeologists to find anything else there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) 2) We treat no other minority population as well legally as we do N Americans. No other minority population is regarded as a legal, sovereign power, or given enclaves of territory that effectively are another nation entirely. You don't see "reservations" for Hispanic people, or African-American people do you? Is there a Spanish-American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or an African-American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, for example? Wow Mulder... I'd like to spend a few minutes on this one, and several other points you've made. Regardless of your tiny percentage of Native American blood, this ^^^ comment and others you've made- are both naieve, and historically inaccurate. "We treat no other minority population as well" ?? Does this include all the treaties that Jefferson, Jackson, and numerous other US Presidents made and then basically tossed aside when it suited them to do so ? Does it include rounding up thousands of Indians from their homes, and marching them hundreds and hundreds of miles in Winter, watching as several thousand of them fall by the wayside and die ? Your statement reeks of historical ignorance so badly, that im actually more sad for you then upset. You need to go back and read some history books and reaccess your attitude and feelings in regards to how NA people were looked upon and treated. Regardless of what any mod or admin has to say about it- im telling you that you should be ashamed to put such nonsense in writing on here....! "Which means nothing in the modern context, even if true. The NAs are the ONLY minority (and they ARE a minority population) who have en bulk refused to assimilate into the common American culture in whole or in part." So if the Allies hadnt removed Nazi Germany from France for instance- the French people refusing to assimilate to the culture and ways of Germany would make them ..what ? an annoyance to you ? A reason to look down on them ? Tell me how it would be any different than what NA people have done? Because I dont see it as them "refusing to assimilate"- I see it as them trying to preserve what's left of their culture. "But somehow we have convinced ourselves/been convinced that this one group is special, based on a claim of "being here 'first'"--a claim that we now know is scientifically rebutted, and was (and is) functionally irrelevant in any case." I believe its a pretty simple concept- for you, or your "great great great grandparents". If you came here on a boat, your NOT NATIVE. You can try to bring all the semantics and spear points and "facts" you think into this argument, and it is an argument-> because by you suggesting that NA people have at least partial european anscestors, you yourself are making an argument in the "who was here first" discussion. And you know what- your right it doesnt matter a **** bit. Because in the end, the ones who WERE here first got screwed royally, and became nothing more than a temporary obstacle in the way of "manifest destiny", and GREED. You talked about modern claims to land ? Even the modern day "battles" about land- many of these go back to treaties over 150 years old, many of which the US Govt completely ingnored and didnt honor. The entire NA situation is still one to this day that the Federal Govt. doesnt like to acknowledge, discuss, or deal with.... its just another dark stain on our history (like slavery) that people try to make excuse after excuse to justify something that was WRONG and SHOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing these points... I doubt you'll have any appreciation for what i've said, and you'll most likely continue beleiving what you want anyway. I just love revisionist history... makes all the bad stuff "go away" .... and everyone can feel good about themselves.... Sort of like the people who try to say that all the slaves brought to the US had a better life than they would have in Africa.... at least they can sleep at night that way... ok time to get off the Art Edited March 22, 2011 by Art1972 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Further, going back to one of your points: The presence of the genetic markers is not "theory". The markers are THERE. That is physical fact. The spear points are THERE. That is also physical fact. Even genetic markers can be interpreted in more ways then one Mulder. Who is to say these markers began in Africa first for example? There is something called Concurrent Evolution too which may explain a lot, but it also mixes up the stew so to speak. And this is just one interpretation of the process. In addition, there is also the theory that as societies develop, there is a natural ability to design like-technologies on their own, independently, even though there may be no physical connection between the two. You start with a need to eat and thus hunt. We may have started by throwing rocks and hitting the prey with clubs. We grow smarter and more skilled because we learned they sometimes fight back or run, but we also realize that animals bleed, so we come up with ways to make that happen because it gives us an advantage. But we soon realize that our pointy wooden sticks have their limits and aren't always effective. So we find ways of gaining an advantage there too. We recognize that stone can be splintered and shaped to accomplish many tasks, spear points being one of them. People of different lands were smart enough to figure that out all on their own Mulder, including Australia and the Americas. Just because a spear point from this continent may look like one from another, doesn't mean they were copied, carried over, or handed down. It just means that spear points were the logical outcome for the tip of a spear when you make them out of a universally existing resource, rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 That is why one should not involve the bureaucrats when such a discovery is made. Simply extract the find, keep your mouth shut and wait a suitable period of time before presenting it. Do not reveal where you made the find except for very general terms like "North America". I really like the way you think! Hugs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Wow Mulder... I'd like to spend a few minutes on this one, and several other points you've made. Regardless of your tiny percentage of Native American blood, this ^^^ comment and others you've made- are both naieve, and historically inaccurate. No, they are level-headedly realistic and accepting of historical fact as it stands, not as certain factions or advocacy groups would like it to be. "We treat no other minority population as well" ?? Does this include all the treaties that Jefferson, Jackson, and numerous other US Presidents made and then basically tossed aside when it suited them to do so ? Does it include rounding up thousands of Indians from their homes, and marching them hundreds and hundreds of miles in Winter, watching as several thousand of them fall by the wayside and die ? Obviously not. I do not deny that the government of the day did not live up to it's treaty obligations. That, however, was then, and this is now. The "white man" is not going to pack up and move back to Europe and turn the US over to the tribes, no matter how many of their die-hard nationalists might want it to happen. And our modern laws bend over backwards to cater to N American interests (casino tax breaks, adoption laws that prevent NA children from being adopted outside the NA community, etc). Your statement reeks of historical ignorance so badly, that im actually more sad for you then upset. You need to go back and read some history books and reassess your attitude and feelings in regards to how NA people were looked upon and treated. See above. I see the entirety of the picture, the good AND the bad. Regardless of what any mod or admin has to say about it- im telling you that you should be ashamed to put such nonsense in writing on here....! Truth is never "nonsense". "Which means nothing in the modern context, even if true. The NAs are the ONLY minority (and they ARE a minority population) who have en bulk refused to assimilate into the common American culture in whole or in part."So if the Allies hadnt removed Nazi Germany from France for instance- the French people refusing to assimilate to the culture and ways of Germany would make them ..what ? an annoyance to you ? A reason to look down on them ? Tell me how it would be any different than what NA people have done? Because I dont see it as them "refusing to assimilate"- I see it as them trying to preserve what's left of their culture. First, nice Godwin. The US is not Nazi Germany, and you should be ashamed in my opinion to make that comparison. Second, you are again engaging in the game of "infinite regression". Who came before who where and when centuries ago is not what is NOW. By your logic (that NA refusal to assimilate is a good thing, as is their protected status as a sovereign power), we should parcel out the US to the African-Americans, the Mexicans, etc and all move back to Europe. Then everyone in Europe should move back to Africa and Asia, since that is where the European ethnicities ultimately came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Part 2 I believe its a pretty simple concept- for you, or your "great great great grandparents". If you came here on a boat, your NOT NATIVE. The Asiatic component of the NA ethnicity walked...what's your point. Mine is that NO ONE has truly valid "We were First" claim. You can try to bring all the semantics and spear points and "facts" you think into this argument, and it is an argument-> because by you suggesting that NA people have at least partial european anscestors, you yourself are making an argument in the "who was here first" discussion. Only insofar as I am correcting the record as to the facts. And you know what- your right it doesnt matter a **** bit. Because in the end, the ones who WERE here first got screwed royally, and became nothing more than a temporary obstacle in the way of "manifest destiny", and GREED. Again, do you propose we all move back to Europe, then Africa and Asia? That would include the NAmericans by the way, since BOTH parts of their ancestry were also immigrants. You talked about modern claims to land ? Even the modern day "battles" about land- many of these go back to treaties over 150 years old, many of which the US Govt completely ingnored and didnt honor. So they don't get special tax breaks, sovereignty within their reservations, etc? We don't allow them to "go their own way" even when the manifest results of that are misery and deprivation for most N Americans? If they would assimilate like every other ethnic group into the common culture they would be MUCH better off. We do them no favors by allowing them to wall themselves off in their enclaves and try to ignore the fact that the world is passing them by. I agree that in some things N American traditions have a great deal to tell us...so why don't they come out here and TELL us, instead of hunkering down on the Res and thinking that someday we're just going to "go away" and they'll get all the land back (which is never going to happen)? The entire NA situation is still one to this day that the Federal Govt. doesnt like to acknowledge, discuss, or deal with.... its just another dark stain on our history (like slavery) that people try to make excuse after excuse to justify something that was WRONG and SHOULDNT HAVE HAPPENED. Again, are you suggesting we should have stayed in Europe? That's where that argument leads. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing these points... I doubt you'll have any appreciation for what i've said, and you'll most likely continue beleiving what you want anyway. I appreciate you position, however wrongheaded it might be. I don't "believe" anything. I know what the documented facts show me. I just love revisionist history... makes all the bad stuff "go away" .... and everyone can feel good about themselves.... Nope. I just don't wallow in the "white men are bad/evil/wrong" self-loathing that so many groups would like to become the norm. Ok, back to the topic (if there's anything else to say on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Not incorrigilbe, but here... Basically the skeleton and artifacts were returned to the claiming tribe before the analysis could be finished, and a ton or so of dirt was dumped on the site where it was found and packed down, ruining any chance for archaeologists to find anything else there. Mulder, Surely not! Why? I know of entire subdivisions built over Indian graves. There are also many ghost stories related to people who live on Indian burial grounds. No one has buried those homes, nor relocated the bodies under the houses, or removed the homes to another spot. You could not pay me to live in an Indian burial ground area. But when science does not pay money to the NAs then all of a sudden they need and must have all of their artifacts returned? They block research? Why? Surly BF is not sacred to them, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would like to mention that since some of the Indian Tribes have opened casinos, they now have people joining, becoming members, of the tribes to live totally free off of the money the casinos bring into the reservation. Easy Street, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Do the Indian Nations pay taxes for their reservations? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Mulder, you can try to explain it any which way you'd like. From day one (except when they were starving/needed help), white immigrants from Europe did nothing but look down upon the entire race of NA people as "savage", uneducated, pagan, and pretty much worthless. Except when it came to looking over the fence and noticing the "grass was greener" over there.... "where the NA's lived".... Of course other immigrant groups were mistreated as well... Irish and Italian immigrants werent treated much better than NA's, however they were at least entitled to the same opportunities as others, and had the benefit of at least coming from a similar culture (european, christian, white, etc), so they werent totally excluded (like slaves and NA's). It's not an argument about whether europeans should have gone back, given up land, and its not even an excuse or argument why they should have special rights today, and its certainly not about "making the white man evil". That'd be pretty silly from my perspective, since im as white as they come. It's about understanding an entire race of people's frustration, their (legitimate) feelings of betrayal when it came to dealing with the new whites who suddenly surrounded them on every side. Me personally, I actually could care less what they do today. It's up to them to decide what they want to do with their lives, and as bad as their treatment was, it doesnt justify any special treatment today- that's not what im getting at. But that being said- it does not change their history and the history of how this nation swept them aside with a a mighty broom. What I really dont understand is where you started off in your FIRST post in this thread. The OP, mentioned Kennewick man, and you went off on a rant about how Native people were ticked off because it was a "caucasoid" skull, and it got buried and hidden under a ton of dirt before anyone could look at it.. You've built your ENTIRE arugment off a FALSE premise... The remains became part of a 9 year legal battle, which the NA people LOST, and study of the remains continued. They were eventually classified as some sort (via Wikipedia) as ancient "Jomon", also related to the Ainu people of Japan. So from that post on you've done nothing but be abrasive to others, and spouting all kinds of stuff about NA's and Federal Govt's treatment of them- that is highly based on your own opinion, and your so called "facts". Again, I think you need to go back to school and maybe read a different (read true) account of our history. Maybe Howard Zinn's "A People's History of The United States" would be a good place to start. Since you were wrong about the outcome of Kennewick man- it actually just makes all your posts sound bitter... as though you've got something against NA people or minorities... You can continue digging the whole as deep as you want, and you can try to justify some of the comments you've made, but as a whole they make you come off looking ... well kind of "out of touch" to put it mildly.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Not incorrigilbe, but here... Basically the skeleton and artifacts were returned to the claiming tribe before the analysis could be finished, and a ton or so of dirt was dumped on the site where it was found and packed down, ruining any chance for archaeologists to find anything else there. WRONG !!!! maybe this is where from your 1st post you went wrong... maybe you should have looked it up before commenting !!! Maybe there was a 9 year legal battle, which the NA people LOST, and there was all kind of studies done on "Kennewick Man".... WOW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would like to mention that since some of the Indian Tribes have opened casinos, they now have people joining, becoming members, of the tribes to live totally free off of the money the casinos bring into the reservation. Easy Street, anyone? Hey Susi.. the simple answer to this question and the one about paying taxes is - no they dont pay taxes, and yes the casino's are built on land that is considered "soverign", as in not the United States... I dont think its personally fair for the casino's to rake in millions and millions and pay no taxes, but unfortunately (in most cases) the land being used, and their right to have a "soverign nation" status goes back to treaties that were negotiated 150+ years ago. I will say this... I have one here in NY "Turning Stone" and a two really big one's in neighboring Connecticut (Foxwoods, and Mohegan Sun), and although they dont pay taxes, they are employing thousands of regular folks with some pretty decent paying jobs. Not to mention the areas around the casino's there's been a surge of service industries- hotels, restaraunts etc... So its not all bad.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Pragmatic Theorist Clearly this bigfoot mystery is not something that tribes speak completely openly about. Not even archeologists get to hear all the secrets. If remains were found, I'm guessing their protective nature will surface openly and rapidly and be unilateral. A sleeping giant would come to life if you will. That's an understatement PT. Back in the 60's an 70's the running joke on reservation/reserves was Anthro's "every family had one"!! LOL!! The other fun going on was that they were deliberately fed mis-information by families they worked with. The more annoying the Anthropologist, the more BS was spoon-fed to them. People got tired of answering question after question, then when presented with the published material discovering it had been altered from the original meaning. You also brought up a very valid fact, in that the stories all have layers of meanings, the older you get, the more layers to a story you are capable of understanding. Native stories are at the minimum, comparable to something like Grimm's Fairy Tales. Only on a more complex level. Because this is not taught except at the college level as an elective most people read a Native story and are left with the mistaken impression it is a simplistic "quaint" tale. I equally believe in the statement that once remains are found NA peoples will indeed take an interest. However I also am hesitant to "speak for them". If no one has any objections I will ask that they swing by to speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would like to mention that since some of the Indian Tribes have opened casinos, they now have people joining, becoming members, of the tribes to live totally free off of the money the casinos bring into the reservation. Easy Street, anyone? Not that easy and not that much. I work in Cherokee and the casino there helps high school grads with college as well as paying the per cap twice a year. There are only about 500 full-blooded Cherokee left, I'm told, so most of the 15,000 or so registered members of the Eastern Band, at least, are some kind of mix. People have been kicked off the per cap for not having enough of a percentage of "Cherokee blood". The tribe owns the casino and leases it to Harrah's. Overall it's given the people hope and a decent standard of living. After the Manitoba footage I asked a very traditional Cherokee if the Cherokee have bigfoot in their tradition. He gave me a kind of strange look and said, "Nobody lives over that mountain". I asked what the Cherokee call them. He shrugged and said, "Bigfoot." Wasn't Kennewick Man found to not be related to any modern tribes, guys? The Ste-ye-hah' mah reportedly showers people with sticks, hence the name Stick Indian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts