Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Bob Whitaker (email@example.com)
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:37:35 -0500
> I moved this over from a thread called "Whites...the NEW native
> Allan Matthews (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> : In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961110011950.6880Aemail@example.com>, Maverick <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> : >On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 email@example.com wrote:
> : >>
> : >> I believe it is time for the whites in america to take thier rightful place
> : > as
> : >> native americans.
> : >
> : >funny you should say that. In Nevada, they recently dug up a 10,000+yr
> : >old body of a native American and it turned out to be European genetically
> : >rather than the Asian-Indian...
> : >
> : >The scientists said that this body predated the Indian migration here.
> : >
> : >looks like I'll have to start marking that native American section.
> : >
> : Gee, you'd think that something like this would be big news. Just where did
> : you find this little piece of information? Not that I think you're making
> : this up or anything...
> It was big news, as least in the scientific community. What happened is
> that an archeologist dug up a skull in North America that looked quite
> Caucasoid to him and dated it very early, but not earlier than the first
> Indian migrations. It was in the _New Yrok Times_.
> However, Federal law appears to let Indians keep their ancestor's remains
> and rebury them if they wish. So the tribe in question (which had only
> lived in the region for 500 years) claimed that this skeleton was one of
> "their" ancestors. Upshot: whatever Federal agency is responsible for
> interpreting the law ordered that the tribe could rebury the skull and did
> not have to allow any further scientific testing to corroborate the
> skull's race and to more precisely date it. As I recall the margin of
> error of the preliminary dating was a factor of two.
> A couple of weeks later the Tuesday "Science News" section of the NYT had
> a major article on the Indian Fundamentalists, which is exactly the word
> used. I looked in my pile of clippings for the piece, since I know I saved
> it, but it wasn't in that particular pile.
> Oddly enough, at least in terms of what gets said on this thread, there
> was no one saying that races don't exist, that race cannot be inferred
> from a skull, and other such things. Anyhow, it is an exciting discovery,
> and I hope the archeologist snipped off some hair or whatever for DNA
> Frank Forman
> "It is a far, far better thing to be firmly
> anchored in nonsense than to put out on the
> troubled seas of thought" - John Kenneth Galbraith
One of the ng's here is anthropolgy. Isn't it a surprise that not
one single Scientifi Anthropologist Who Proves Race Don't Exist even
mentioned this at all.
Is anybody surprised?