Replies

I agree the genocide accusation is a giant leap with no evidence. But if the Kennewick or other remains prove to be non-Indian it would certainly muddy Indian claims to be the "first Americans." Maybe the Siberian immigrants lived in peace with the [possible] earlier North American inhabitants, maybe not. I'll wait for evidence on all counts.

But political interference with the scientific investigation of the evidence doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe there are some nefarious motives on both sides of the issue. I don't see all the Indian threads but I don't recall anyone suggesting the abrogation of treaties and agreements.

But if the Kennewick or other remains prove to be non-Indian it would certainly muddy Indian claims to be the "first Americans."

My point is, so what? Such findings would impact bragging rights, but little else. It is completely irrelevant, as far as I can see, to the agreements our government made with American Indian tribes. Some people here seem to be arguing that it would change everything.

I don't see why.

I agree the genocide accusation is a giant leap with no evidence. But if the Kennewick or other remains prove to be non-Indian it would certainly muddy Indian claims to be the "first Americans." Maybe the Siberian immigrants lived in peace with the [possible] earlier North American inhabitants, maybe not. I'll wait for evidence on all counts.

I think we may be on similar pages here. AS an American Indian who's people have lived here for over 10,000 years, I don't have any vested interest in proving whether anyone was here first, or second etc... That doesn't define who I am.

There were waves of migrations to this continent - over thousands of years, varoius groups came here and passed through the northwest on their way to other places. Some stayed, some didn't. Not all of those groups are going to be the same. There is a huge difference between those arriving cultures, and those cultures that developed here.

Kennewick man wasn't what we would consider a modern American Indian - cultures and people change after thousands of years - but he was an ancestor, most certainly. He was of Asian stock, based on all the studies. So, he doesn't really prove anything, other than that 9300 years ago there was a guy here with asian ancestry.

But political interference with the scientific investigation of the evidence doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe there are some nefarious motives on both sides of the issue.

I'm sure there are. However, I think there is a valid point that having on'es ancestor dug up and studied kinda sucks if you think about it... Other than that, they have no valid reason to stop the studies...

I don't see all the Indian threads but I don't recall anyone suggesting the abrogation of treaties and agreements.

It happened even in this thread... not by you, but by others...