Tasmanian Site Discovery

[Digit]

One of the problems as i see it from this side of the pond Min is the 'Native Americans'.
Mongoloid people have the high wide cheek bones that makes their faces oval, the cheek bones being pretty much the widest part of the face, the rest of world have people with long narrow faces.
The earliest recovered remains in the americas that I am aware of are non-mongoloid, the 'Native Americans' seem to have arrived later, and they seem not to like that idea too much.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Now you are moving into politics which always mucks things up.


Perhaps Native Americans think somehow that merely being here ahead of us is insufficient? That they need some mystical tie to the land?

I don't see where it matters. They were here before us. They were treated shamefully by the government on many occasions and worse by private citizens on others. So what? We aren't leaving. It is time to live in the now. Does it make any difference if their ancestors were here in 10,000 BC or 5,000 BC or 1200 AD? Not for any practical reason that I can see.

[Rokcet Scientist]

While you're of course totally right, Min, I know what Roy means. I've brought it up, on ocassion, and you may remember my posting a couple dozen NA indian portraits of the late 19th century to illustrate my point. I (have personally) observe(d) 2 main types of NA indians: the, what I would call, Asian/mongoloid type with the wider faces, flatter, wider noses and generally shorter stature, and the caucasoïd type with longer, narrower faces, on average longer stature, and 'Roman', or even 'Greek' noses. And I also see 2 distinctly different kinds of shades in them.
I am not a geneticist, but I have never bought the line that they're from the same origin. It's just too bloody obvious to ignore. As Roy seems to agree to.
But I was always met with 'politically correct' silence in that debate. Strangling it. Afaic to evade a controversial subject. An inconvenient truth. I understand that. But 'politically correct' ignoring doesn't make the subject go away. Or the questions. So I suggest we deal with them realistically.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken genetic science and DNA research has already clearly established that the Americas were peopled from all directions, in multiple waves. But as long as reports are shrouded in mystical expert lingo about haplogroups and mtDNA the large majority haven't a clue what they're on about, and what it infers. And that's OK with The Club, of course. And it's also fine with most of the 'first nations', as they get to keep their privileges and casinos. So they are allies in defense of that special interest.

[Digit]

From my point of view Min, not at all, but it annoys me that any early grave/goods is automatically claimed as inviolate because of their sacred ground, or is it that they wish to retain the myth of 'first footing'?
It looks from here as RS implies that the 'race' word must never be mentioned, watching experts tongue tied attempts to avoid the 'word' pisses me off!
Frankly I think just about everybody other than Columbus 'discovered' the new world.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Rok, the terminology can only be 'dumbed down' so much for the great unwashed. Too many of them get their 'history' from Hollywood in the first place. I lived in New York for 55 years and no one in New York gave a rats ass about Indians. They were never mentioned. Now that I'm in Arizona, where there are actual Indian Reservations not 30 miles away (granted, they are mainly casinos with a gift shop) the mention of Indians is not a whole lot greater.....except when they want to build another casino. So in general Americans do not care.

Who cares are the tribes themselves and like every other business in the country they wave a lot of bribes ( euphemistically known as "campaign contributions") at local representatives to push legislation which does exactly what you mentioned. No less than John McCain was trying to strengthen that absurd graves act to make sure that "Indians" gained control of any inconvenient remains that might have turned up. It failed....but only because someone started asking questions about how much money the local tribes were paying him and McCain backed off.

You know what's really odd, Dig, about the whole 'sacred ground' thing is that the connection with particular plots of land extends back only to the late 19th century. Andrew Jackson famously, or infamously depending on point of view, began removing the Cherokee from their ancestral homes and sending them west of the Mississippi.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

So, I agree with you that the "tie to the land" is tenuous in many cases. This whole First People thing is as much mythology as anything else.

[Digit]

I can understand their desire for 'roots' Min, I can understand an attachment to an area of land, but the blanket argument that anything discovered on that land is automatically one of their ancestors is rubbish. Kennewick Man looks nothing like an Amerindian, from here their screams look more like a desire to hide 'an inconvenient truth' than a sacred duty.
Like you said, what does it matter who was first anyway. I think I speak for you as well as myself when I say our motives are purely acedemic in these matters, we are not attempting to deprive them of anything.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I spent some time last night thinking about when this whole "ties to the land" idea arises. Using your "wandering human" model, in which one spot is basically just as good as another, there would be no attachment to grave sites because someone would die and the group would move on. Would they even bother to bury the dead? And how far back in human history do we have to go to get to that model?

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

Comic Chris Rock explains why Indians had it worse than anyone.





Caution: Not for All Tastes and Certainly Not Safe for WORK

[Rokcet Scientist]

[Rokcet Scientist]

[Digit]

I'm getting worried! I keep finding myself agreeing with RS!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[Rokcet Scientist]

Come to think of it: a paleo-anthropologist historian David Attenborough wouldn't be bad either!

Got time on your hands, Roy? Wanna travel?

I don't really jest now.

Who might be a good spokesman – or woman – for our past?

This could develop into a natural and logical successor to the BBC's "Walking with dinosaurs", "Earth", and "Life" series! And hey, for this project I propose the obvious moniker: "Origine"...
What about it?