They may have a point. Sovereignty is always on the table and up for grabs unfortunately that has been proven time and again in our history, so much so that there is reason for apprehension. I think that holds true of legal claims. Tribes always have been a small nation in the middle of larger, more powerful groups it isn't always easy to prove our point in court.
December 15, 2006
Tribes protest DNA research
Human history: It's all relative[T]he tribes most are concerned that the DNA research may undermine the moral basis for sovereignty and might chip away at legal claims.
They may have a point. Sovereignty is always on the table and up for grabs unfortunately that has been proven time and again in our history, so much so that there is reason for apprehension. I think that holds true of legal claims. Tribes always have been a small nation in the middle of larger, more powerful groups it isn't always easy to prove our point in court.
They may have a point. Sovereignty is always on the table and up for grabs unfortunately that has been proven time and again in our history, so much so that there is reason for apprehension. I think that holds true of legal claims. Tribes always have been a small nation in the middle of larger, more powerful groups it isn't always easy to prove our point in court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If the information is on the Internet, post a link to it. Let's see the so-called evidence.
The number of cases is just one argument against your theory. Another is that the six-digited people didn't have to intermarry with the other "Anasazi" regardless of their numbers.
Even if the "Anasazi" were a separate people from the Hopis' ancestors, are you arguing that they didn't intermarry and thus share their DNA? That's another speculative leap that I guess you can't or won't explain.
If this trait is so easily inherited, you must be claiming that the "Anasazi" literally never married anyone outside their tribe. And that the "Anasazi" were literally wiped out to the last person. Is that really what you're claiming?
Here's what archaeologists believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples
Ancient Pueblo People or Ancestral Puebloans are terms preferred by some modern archeologists for the cultural group of people often known as Anasazi, the ancestors of the modern Pueblo peoples. The ancestral Puebloans were a prehistoric Native American culture centered around the present-day Four Corners area of the Southwest United States. Archaeologists still debate when a distinct culture emerged, but the current consensus, based on terminology defined by the Pecos Classification, suggests their emergence around 1200 B.C., the Basketmaker II Era.
So the Basketmakers, the Pueblos' ancestors, have lived in the Southwest for at least 3,200 years. This raises a host of questions you haven't begun to answer. At what point in time do you think the "Anasazi" arrived? Where did the Basketmakers live if not in the territory occupied by the "Anasazi"? How did the two groups avoid intermarrying or merging?
If your theory is right, what was the "Anasazi" culture like before they moved into Basketmaker territory and began adopting Basketmaker concepts such as the kiva? Where's the archaeological chain of evidence proving the "Anasazi" had a separate culture unrelated to the Basketmaker culture that preceded theirs? Good luck with your answers. You'll need it.
FYI, I've researched the Pueblo Indians extensively for the last 16+ years. I probably have two dozen books about them on my shelves. In short, I'm betting I know more about them than you know about the "Anasazi."
I didn't say you claimed the "Anasazi" were wiped out. I said you must be claiming that, since it flows logically from your speculative hypothesis. If you think the "Anasazi" had six fingers and six toes, are there any modern-day people with the same trait? If not, then the "Anasazi" had no descendants. They were wiped out to the last person.
I already said that the six-digited people may not have intermarried with the other people of their tribe. Are you planning on addressing this alternative explanation? Or are you too smitten with your theory to analyze it critically?
So the "evidence" is on the Internet somewhere, but none of my searches has revealed it, and you can't find the URL. Wow, that's convenient. And you're complaining about my inability to complete a thought?
So you can't provide a coherent history of the "Anasazi" that explains where they came from and addresses all the archaeological evidence. In particular, how they interacted with the Basketmaker cultures that preceded them and the Pueblo cultures that followed them. Until you can do this, you have nothing--nothing except a half-baked theory based on a few scattered cases. Erich von Daniken would be proud.
Post a Comment