February 7, 2004
BLABBERMOUTH:
Kennewick Man speaks (Seattle Times, 2/07/04)
Kennewick Man has held onto his secrets for more than 9,000 years and now, finally, scientists will get a chance to be his voice.This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pushed the truths resting within the bones at the Burke Museum closer to the light with its decision that scientists can study them. The appeals court affirmed a lower-court decision that the Interior Department erred in its decision to give the bones to the Native American tribes that claim them as those of an ancestor. The government might appeal to the Supreme Court.
But the 9th Circuit's ruling explicitly concludes there is no evidence of a genetic or cultural link between Kennewick Man and the modern-day tribes. Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt ruled the remains found on federal property should be given to the tribes under the federal repatriation law because the bones predated Columbus' 1492 landing in North America. The tribes, who want to bury the remains, argued Kennewick Man was their ancestor because their oral histories contained no migration stories.
But eight prominent scientists sued for the right to study Kennewick Man and shed light on the peopling of the Americas. Limited studies concluded the remains more closely resemble modern-day people in Polynesia or the Ainu of Japan than they do Native Americans. Experts say they also resemble those of other ancient bones found elsewhere in the Americas far from the Columbia River Basin and, some believe, a set of 25,000-year-old bones in China.
Strange they can figure this stuff out if race/ethnicity is just a social construct. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 7, 2004 4:39 PM
The 9th Circuit sided against Bruce Babbit and Native American groups? Have we suddenly swapped downtown San Franciscos with some alternate opposite universe?
Posted by: John at February 7, 2004 5:10 PMI recommend Cavalli-Sforza on clarifying the various meanings of the word "race."
So far as genetics can say, there are no human races, only varieties.
Ethnicity is certainly a social construct.
So you get a melange, which Cavalli-Sforza says is difficult to disentangle.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 7, 2004 5:45 PM"He belongs to all of us."
And therefore, as scientists by definition work only for the good of all of us, his bones go straight to the lab?
How old does a man have to be before it is open season on his grave?
Posted by: Peter B at February 7, 2004 5:51 PM"... their oral histories contain no immigration stories."
True enough, but their oral histories DO include stories of non-Indian explorers and wanderers. I know one very prominent Pacific NW Indian who is appalled by the tribes' position on this issue.
Posted by: Tonto at February 7, 2004 6:13 PMAs I understand it they can't do anymore digging on the site where the bones were found. Seems the government dumped tons of rock, sand, and gravel on it when the Indians started demanding the bones.
Posted by: rps at February 7, 2004 6:46 PMHarry:
Woman I know has studied Cavilli-Sforza -- once I heard her talking about how, when he publishes, he erects a PC smokescreen in the introductory parts to soothe anyone who might balk at evidence of concrete racial differences -- and then in the nitty-gritty graph & numbers portion, not easily read by laymen, presents evidence that tends to indicate the opposite.
Is she right? I don't have the slightest idea!!
Posted by: Twn at February 7, 2004 7:28 PMrps: the story I read is that the government did it at the behest of the tribes, against the wishes of the scientists. It seems the tribes are worried that research might show that they are *not* the "First Americans"....
Posted by: PapayaSF at February 7, 2004 7:32 PMTwn:
Darwinists have to disguise the degree to which it supports racism, genocide, etc.--that's what led to Gould's falling out with the profession.
Posted by: oj at February 7, 2004 8:20 PMI would say Gould's disguising the degree Darwinism refuted his Marxism led to his falling out with the profession.
Posted by: Carter at February 7, 2004 11:17 PMCarter:
Exactly. Darwin's moral/political component is intolerable to such a man.
Posted by: oj at February 8, 2004 12:18 AMPerhaps the Indians don't want people to realize
that they too engaged in genocide prior to the
arrival of whites.
Harry, the statement that "ethnicity is a social
construct" implies that culture can be fully
transferred from one racial population
to another. I tend to think that the line
between race and ethnicity is a blurry line
and that culture is not 100% transferable insofar
as culture may originate to reinforce racial
predilections.
If race is biological, then we can surely know what race this person belongs to by examining DNA, right?
Wrong.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 8, 2004 5:43 PMThen what's the argument over?
Posted by: oj at February 8, 2004 6:13 PMTwn, your friend is wrong, and in the book I cited Cavalli-Sforza states explicitly that since genetics is a continuity, it is impossible in principal to define "race."
The variation in the genes in any largish village, he says, will equal the variation in the genes of the whole of humankind.
He then goes on to say that the frequencies of distribution of alleles can give his information about the ancestral histories of different groups.
J.H., try telling Orrin that culture was not 100% transferrable in the case of Condoleeza Rice.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 8, 2004 6:38 PMHarry:
I doubt if Orrin ever sang in choir for three hours on Sunday morning.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 8, 2004 7:25 PMjim:
You'd be quite wrong. I was the only white kid in the East Orange Gospel Ensemble.
Posted by: oj at February 9, 2004 12:11 AMWell, as you have put it elsewhere, I'm down with that.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 9, 2004 3:08 AM