[fish hawk]

No matter what he is, why would the Indians not be aboriginals?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

When Kennewick Man was first discovered, there was a lot of speculation about his origins. If Kennewick Man were Caucasian, and if his people were here first — that would make them the original aboriginals & the Indians the original interlopers. At the least, it would imply that there was more than one wave of migrants from the old world; thus invalidating the previous archaeological theories. That, in turn, could raise doubts about aboriginal rights.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I should clarify my last post to you a bit.

In my original posting, I was just echoing some things I recall from articles written shortly after the original discovery of Kennwick Man. IIRC, scientists wanted to study the bones more & the local tribe wanted to rebury them. There was a lot of speculation about the motives for reburying.

Here, in Canada, we don’t have the same laws as the U.S. regarding aboriginal title and other rights. For instance, Canada is bound by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (it’s part of our Constitution), which requires negotiated treaties with each of the First Nations. When the U.S. broke from England, following the Revolution, it ceased to be bound by any Royal Proclamations. Also, aboriginal rights are enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, and not (so far as I know) in the U.S. Constitution. From what I’ve gathered, questions of original origin are, therefore, more important in regards to aboriginal rights in the U.S.

[Navy Patriot]

why would the Indians not be aboriginals?

The root of the word (original) implies "first".

Those second cannot be first. Many theorize that the first humans are the valid owners of all the land, those thereafter must purchase or steal the land from those first. If you can't show proof that you purchased the land, then you STOLE it from the rightful owners. The first can't be thieves and those after can't prove they aren't.