|
|
Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Peter Nosko (pete@technologist.com)
18 Nov 96 06:28:24 GMT
Bob Whitaker <bwhit@conterra.com> wrote in article
<328F778F.7542@conterra.com>...
> frank@clark.net wrote:
> >
> > I moved this over from a thread called "Whites...the NEW native
> > Americans."
> >
> > Allan Matthews (amatthews@cybercom.net) wrote:
> > : In article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.961110011950.6880A-100000@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bretroth@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> > : >On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 flashm19@mail.idt.net 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
> > testing.
> >
> > Frank Forman
> > frank@clark.net
> > "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?
>
Yeah, right. Sounds just like a fish story-- "It was
<----------this---------> big, but I threw it back."
Anyone got the name of the Anthropologist that dug it up?
--
Peter Nosko
pete@technologist.com
Race is a Pigment of the Imagination
|