The Campaign to Thwart Paleogenetic Research Into North America's Indigenous Peoples

[wnylib]

9. I don't care what credentials

Bourque has. Dennis Standford of the Smithsonian was respected in his field until he proposed an alternative "theory" without sufficient evidence and with doubtful motivation due to the timing and to his open opposition to NAGPRA. Actually, since he had so little science-based evidence, it was more approprate to call his notion a hypothesis than a theory. The words are too often used interchangeably.

It is not racist to propose alternate hypotheses or theories. It IS definitely racist to claim that Native Americans oppose DNA testing because they want to preserve an image of themselves as a "secular Eden." It overlooks completely the valid mistrust that Native Americans have about being scientifically studied because of how such studies have been used against them in the past. It assumes that the insulting white European stereotype of the "noble savage" (secular Eden in the article) originates with Native Americans themselves.

I accept the correction on the riverbank location of Kennewick Man instead of cliff, although a riverbank can be a cliff. Regarding facts, the origin of NAGPRA is a fact. The X haplogroup controversy is a fact.

When I questioned why the article was posted, I was not accusing YOU of being racist. I was wondering if you had enough knowledge of the subject to see the fallacies in the author's claims.

A few more facts about the article. The article claims that Native tribes use blood quantum to determine eligibility for membership, as if all tribes are the same culture with the same criteria. Each tribal nation determines qualifications for membership. Most require some degree of proven recent Native ancestry, which can be 3 or 4 generations in many cases. Many also require commitment to the well-being of the tribe and to an identification with the tribe. Some tribes, like the Seneca, are matrilineal. If your mother is Seneca, you are Seneca, regardless of who your father is. If your mother is not Seneca, neither are you, even if your father is.

So, there could be a Seneca woman married to a white European-American. Her daughter is Seneca. If that daughter also marries a European American, her children are still Seneca. This could in theory go on for generations until the children have red or blond hair and blue or green eyes, as long as there is an unbroken line of Seneca women who are tribal members that identify as Seneca. There are, in fact, people among the Mohawk with blue eyes and/or blond hair due to history and intermarriage around the Vermont and NY borders of Mohawk territory in Canada.

The article mentions the mobility of people in its argument against Native claims to Native remains. Human mobility is definitely a fact, well illustrated by the diversity of the US, but also in the history and prehistory of the world at large. A lot of intermixing throughout human and hominin existance. I don't see how that, in itself, eliminates Native claims to Native remains in a given region. The mobility and resulting admixtures do not decrease the possibilities of a relationship between remains and the people of the region. It can increase the possibilities of a connection.

Making or disallowing claims based on how long a specific people are known to have been in a region is interesting when applied to "possession" of the land where remains are found. Who has been there longer? Native Americans of any group, or non Native archaeologists who want to claim for themselves what is found on the land? This criteria of land rights due to length of residence on a land would put non Native people off of the continent altogether.

The article also mentions the "homogenizing" of Plains people. Really?? Even the modern EU has not homogenized Europe. Does the author know anything at all about Native Americans?

I understand his interest in archaeology, anthropology, and DNA. I share those interests myself. It's why I studied cultural anthropology with a focus on indigenous people of North America. I also sympathize with the frustration of not having access to the material that he and other scientists want to study. I would like to know, too, what the studies could tell us. But he uses the wrong way to get the access he wants when he uses inuendo and ignorance of Native people for his arguments.

I do not respect Bourque's methods in this article of seeking access. He might try conferences with Native people and learning about their concerns and objections. He could propose compromises and information sharing, which would bring Native people into the process. There are some tribes that are more comfortable with archaeology and DNA studies than others. He might start with meeting with them.

Archaeologist James Adovasio was working in the field out of a university in my home town (Erie, PA). Besides his well known work at Meadowcroft Rockshelter before going to Erie, he has done work in former Seneca territory in northwestern PA. He met with the Seneca people to discuss what he was doing and the results. He developed a relationship with them. Burque might try the same thing. And make it a give and take experience.