Image: Courtesy of Jan Austin/Santa Monica College
A rare set of nearly 10,000-year-old human bones found in 1976 on a seaside bluff in La Jolla, Calif., may soon be removed from the custody of the University of California, San Diego, and turned over to the local Kumeyaay Nation tribes. The Kumeyaay have long sought control over the bones, which they contend are the remains of their ancestors. In accordance with new federal regulations, the university has initiated the legal process to transfer the remains to the Kumeyaay in the absence of other claimants. The Kumeyaay have said they may rebury the bones. Being some of the oldest human skeletal remains in North America, the bones could help scientists piece together the peopling of the New World. The excellent preservation of the specimens hints that they might contain DNA suitable for analysis with techniques geneticists have recently developed—the results of which could yield crucial insights into where early Americans came from. Such studies may never come to pass.
Some might consider a loss of knowledge an acceptable trade-off to right the historic wrongs that the Kumeyaay and other Native peoples have suffered. Archaeologists and anthropologists of yore treated Native Americans disgracefully, looting their graves and using the remains to argue for the intellectual inferiority of Native Americans to peoples of Caucasian descent. But what makes this case disturbing is that the Kumeyaay claim is based on folklore. The physical evidence indicates that the La Jolla bones are not affiliated with any modern tribe, including the Kumeyaay, who moved into the area only within the past few thousand years. The new federal regulations are blind to this evidence. In effect, they privilege faith over fact.
The original intention of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, was to facilitate the return of Native American bones and sacred objects to descendants and culturally affiliated groups. NAGPRA sought to balance the rights of Native Americans to reclaim ancestral remains with the right of society as a whole to learn about our collective past. By and large, the law was succeeding. In recent years scientists and representatives of Native peoples have been working together to everyone’s gain. For example, archaeologist Alston Thoms of Texas A&M University has been consulting with Native Americans about their cooking techniques, to gain insights into the subsistence strategies of people who lived on the South Texas plains thousands of years ago. Members of the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation—who consider themselves the descendants of those ancient Texans—have, in turn, been learning about ancestral foods and incorporating them into their diet to counter the high rate of diabetes in their population.
Many Native Americans do not object to studies per se but to analyses that destroy remains. Respecting this concern, anthropologist Ventura Pérez of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who studies violence, has developed techniques for making high-quality replicas of cut marks on bone that leave the skeletal material intact and allow it to be repatriated, while creating a permanent record for future scholars.
To be sure, not all was well. Many tribes worried that museums were stalling on identifying remains to avoid having to return them. In May 2010 the U.S. Department of the Interior responded with regulations that allow tribes to claim even those remains whose affiliation cannot be established scientifically, as long as they were found on or near the tribes’ aboriginal lands. These rules nudge museums to get on with evaluating their collections, but they have too broad a brush. They upset the balance that NAGPRA had achieved and foster antagonism, not just between tribes and scientists but also among tribes with conflicting claims. The La Jolla case is just one example. Thousands of remains could be made inaccessible to researchers. In our view, the new regulations should be repealed or, at least, revised to distinguish different classes of unidentified remains.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentPast the point of readily apparent and established connections to actual living persons, all human remains and artifacts should belong to all of humanity as a record of our common journey from stone age until today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly remains found in Greece, whether it be a paleolithic skull or the Parthenon are within the boudaries of the current Grecian government and people but rather than owning the remains they hold a responsibility to all people around the world to preserve, study, and make avilable for study all such remnants of our common human history.
A relic taken from, let's say, Egypt in 1820 dated 2000 BC belongs no more to the current Egyptian political manifestation than it does you or I; it belongs to all of us equally. Whomever holds the article is responsible for it's proper use in preserving and understanding our past.
After all, if my point is not correct, why was the world outraged when the Taliban destroyed ancient non-Islamic artifacts in Afghanistan? If we all believed the articles belonged to the that regime we would have happily watched them blow up historical monuments.
Similarly, the remains in lLa Jolla belong to everyone, especially as there is no direct or provable connection a person living. I would expect my remains, if of interest in 1000 years from now, to be considered likewise.
No one owns a human being! Human are not materials. My understanding is that the Native American Indians migrated to North American some 30 thousand years ago. Therefore, these 10,000 years old human bones are of some Native American tribes. Their cultures is to buried the died and let them return to mother earth. not display them. If some people do not have their tradition landuage and culture anymore, it is harder for them to understand. The federal government has already destroyed so much history along with American Indians way of life, so they need to quit messing around with any new regulations. The area were the Kenwick man was found was destroy and covered. what does that tell you. So much earth mounds in Ohio, Wisconsin or the east were cover up and lost. So much lost history with all the mounds back east.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see why we cannot make the needed DNA tests on the remains and then return them to whatever native American tribe that is the closest genetic match to the remains. I do not think it is respectful to the person who's remains we have dug up to drag these tests out. But at the same time, I wonder what the actual religious beliefs of this person were and if they even relate to the current religious beliefs of the current indiginous tribes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder what will happen some 10's of thousands of years from now when someone digs up my bones and wants to study them. I personally do not mind. I won't be around to complain about it anyway. And if it will give society a better understanding of this portion of history so they can learn from it, fine. Of course, hind sight shows that man has never really learned any real lessons from history. We always feel we are different and that could not happen to us. So when future scientists are studying my bones to understand what was happening during that period of history known then as the decline and fall of the American empire, they will also be thinking that this could not happen to them because they are different.
10,000 year old skeleton didn't belong to any modern tribe! Non-industrial cultures change over time, often not slower than industrial nations. Languages evolve, dresses and other cultural artifacts disappear and appear, new tribes colonize, often violently taking over old ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronically, Native Americans propagate the same myth which was used by racists: that they are primitive examples unchanged for millenia.
If the aim of the new laws is to prevent museums from stalling on testing & returning remains, then wouldn't a deadline for conducting that testing make more sense than forced "repatriation" of those remains to a people who might not even be the true descendants? For example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) A Native American Nation (NAN) claims a set of remains as their ancestor.
2) The museum has 30 days to formally contest the claim.
3) If the museum contests, they have to send samples to an independent testing lab within 30 days of filing their objections.
4) The testing lab has 90 days to complete the necessary testing.
5) (a)If the results show that the remains are ancestors of the claiming NAN, they must be returned within 30 days. (b) If the results show that the remains belong to another NAN, the museum has 30 days to contact that NAN to determine their wishes. (c) If the results show no affiliation with any NAN, the museum keeps the remains. (d) If the results are inconclusive, the museum has 30 days to submit additional samples to the testing lab.
This is political correctness gone nuts. We do not want to offend various ethnic groups, and therefore we do not question their dubious claims. Scientific facts and logic do not matter anymore; primitive tribalist politics does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is better not to burden scientist with decisions regarding matters such as respect and dignity. It is not part of their job, and, unfortunately, many times they've failed doing so, with horrible consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitical correctness is a form pride, which does not have integrity. It is based in arrogance and denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitical correctness is always going nuts, because that is its true nature.
The article does not tell us details, but why should the Interior Department's response to political pressure have the force of law? It sounds like Congress did not change the underlying law, so why would the bureaucracy get to radially change it's application? But the real bottom line here seems to be cowardice from judges, who should simply say "the science shows it's really unliklely this was your ancestor, sorry you don't get him" per the original laws, but instead give in to even the most spurious claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes me wonder, if someone did a dig at the Little Big Horn, and found a bunch of human remains, can the natives there, (Lakota maybe?) claim the remains are theirs? After all, they are unidentified remains found on their land. Must be my ancestor, I'll put them in the traditional burial ground. I don't think great great Grandpa would WANT to have Custer buried next to him.
This is why I am going to be cremated and have my ashes spread in the Gulf of Mexico and the Wekiva River. It is where I found peace, love and meaning so I hope to recycle some of it back. I also want people to remember me when they are there not on a piece of land in a box that may be dug up in 10,000 years and fought over. I just want to go back from where I came.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMadScientist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are perfectly sensible and logical but we are dealing with the government and they have neither of those.
Bones are not a human being. What gives some group the right to claim something is "sacred" and deprive the rest of humanity the right to learn from it? Aren't we in the midst of a huge controversy because some people think it's a violation of their religious rights to offer contraception in insurance plans? If they don't have the right to translate their demands into policy, why does this tribe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Editors" exalt themselves as the representatives of "science" and designate the Kumeyaay as enemies of their desires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey, snidely, term the reburial of remains, a "loss of knowledge" as equate it to a mistaken idea of "righting of historic wrongs." Despicable.
They mention "disgraceful" treatment at the hand of archs and anths of "yore," as if lack of grace is all they and this society are guilty of.
They deride Kumeyaay motivation’s as "folklore." *A typical patronizing feature of science and dominant culture, used to avoid truth and deride opposing values*
"Newer Newcomers" deride the Kumeyaay for being "Relative Newcomers", while (trying to) make it seem that science transcends time and social context.
note-NAGPRA isn’t a person, like some corporations are in the modern imagination. It’s a federal Act. It is a result of Indigenous pressures within a system unfriendly to them. Against all odds, there is victory and the "Editors" try to credit the Act with that victory and establish it’s ostensible reason for being as a result of some humanitarian feeling by "society."
They give short mention to collaborations, as a sign of scientific conscience, which they consider progressive. Surely there are humane and inhumane practitioners of science. No doubt.
then again, Science has always had it’s "Curly’s." [If you’re Native, you know what I mean.]
The "Editors" lump all humans into one category and assert "Science’s" ownership over all, in the name of everyone’s right to the conclusions presented by science, knowledge. To oppose them is an illogical if not heinous act, perhaps due to "superstitions."
But the reality is there are different cultures on this planet, WHILE we are all of one "race." Some of these culture’s have opposing histories and legacies and surely, values. These must be understood to be negotiated and the ’Editors’ fail here to do justice to the Kumeyaay and the reader, who has a supposed love of inquiry.
The "Editors" engage in tired old positivistic methodology, demagoguery and witchcraft (aka expository prose, or polite lying.)
I encourage readers to cling to inquiry as a life preserver on the seas of b.s. Remain Human!
Religion and faith based opinion consistently make bad policy and bad decisions based in ignorance. It doesn't matter if they are "native" or the dominant organized religions. They are today, as they have always been, the antithesis of knowledge and understanding. Such "believers" cannot be reached with reason nor can they be educated. Had their views been predominant throughout history, we would still be living in caves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. berta "No one owns a human being!" Bones are not a human being. See: "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer. I think that this book explains your confusion. Personhood ends at death. If you found the bones of some 10,000 year old European, as you might in America, I would expect that they would be sent to research. Their similarity to my ancestors says nothing about religion, either the religion of the bones' original owner or the religion of my parents. I have no religion. I can live by science alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if the bones were proven those of a direct ancestor of mine and found in Europe or Asia, I would give them no honorary treatment. 10,000 years is too long for emotional significance. Honorary treatment should be limited to bones of people who died within living memory.
Religion says nothing about anything other than the mental illnesses and engineering configuration of the religious person's brain. There is no validity or truth to any religion. There are perhaps about half a dozen mental conditions that cause religion. If you are religious, then you need the proper medical treatment to overcome your disability. I could give you a list of books. Religion is purely nonsense to be gotten over. Appeal to religion should have no effect whatever. The bones should belong to the researchers.
Those individuals (that's what we're talking about) don't belong to us. They need to be returned. Regardless of what the DNA says (and DNA evidence is not a smoking gun, by any means), the Kumeyaay have a greater claim to cultural affiliation with these individuals than any White scientist like me. They should have the right to determine what happens to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The colonization of the New World was a watershed in the odyssey that carried Homo sapiens from its African birthplace to the entire globe." As we all know, this is merely theory. And, as we all know, data can be manipulated in many ways to support theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs mentioned, studies done in the 1800s were for the sole purpose of 'proving'intellectual inferiority of Indians in comparison to Europeans. That practice is supported and perpetuated by articles that dismiss our
origin and creation stories as being invalid because there exists no empirical evidence. We have no need for scientists to explain our origins to us, unlike many cultures, we have not forgotten our origins, memories, or indigenous knowleges.
A major inaccuracy in this article is "NAGPRA sought to balance the rights of Native Americans to reclaim ancestral remains with the right of society as a whole to learn about our collective past." NAGPRA was passed as a 'human rights' law for, as Sherry Hutt so
eloquently stated during her congressional testimony in 1990, "Rather than extending special rights to Native Americans (which would violate the 14th Amendment), NAGPRA awards an equal protection of property rights already extended to other Americans. NAGPRA is one of the most significant pieces of human rights legislation since the Bill of Rights." (Thomas. 2000. p. 214).
The shared history of American Indians and Europeans began with the first wave of European invasion in the Americas. Any event (including birth, marriage, or death) that predates that invasion does not fall
under the the category of 'collective past' nor does it convey the'white privilege' which claims ownership of anything it decides it wants to own. Comparing the information gathered from plants and seeds to ancestral remains is insulting, rude, and just plain ignorant.
The practitioners within the scientific community which continue to adhere to outdated white male supremacy ideologies and practices need to understand that American Indians will not back down on this issue. Whether protected by law or not, the day when you could indiscriminately loot Indian graves for physical remains and artifacts is over. We will not sit quietly while you attempt to dismantle NAGPRA for your own material and/or professional gain.
Donna L. Moody
Repatriation Coordinator, Abenaki Nation
MA/PhD Candidate, Cultural Anthropology
Department of Anthropology
215 Machmer Hall
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003
"The practitioners within the scientific community which continue to adhere to outdated white male supremacy ideologies and practices need to understand that American Indians will not back down on this issue."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does somebody ALWAYS have to play the "race card"?
It's not about race, it's about knowledge. A respect for cultural traditions about one's "origins, memories, or indigenous knowleges[sic]" is fine, but using those traditions to justify willful ignorance is not. It just puts you in the same boat as the fundamentalist Christians using the Bible to fight the teaching of evolution in schools. Think of all the information that would have been lost if the Sardinians and/or Corsicans had insisted that Italy repatriate the remains of Otzi the Iceman.
I am also of Abenaki ancestry and I want to know whatever science can discover about prehistoric Americans. As a student of anthropology, I would have thought you would too. I guess activism trumps intellectual curiosity.
So you don't understand how this works in a colonized society. Read Deloria, Zimmermann, Joe Watson, Linda Smith, Mignolo, and scores of others. This isn't about race and it isn't about knowledge, it's about power and about those in the academy who only want to maintain that power. And guess what? The power has been held by white privilege since invasion. Look at the wording of the article and how it's used to value one position above the other. Just your use of the word 'prehistoric' illuminates your own (unconscious maybe) colonization. Indian people in the Americas were not prehistoric or without a history before invasion. Prehistoric is identified as not having a method of documenting history. We did document our histories but they were discounted because the Western alphabetic system wasn't used. Eurocentrism discounted anything that Europeans had no knowledge of or could not understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ancestral remains referred to in the article were looted in 1976 and have been sitting on shelves in a store room. After 36 years they decide these remains need to be 'studied.' Seriously? And BTW, Anthropology is not a science although it does make use of some scientific disciplines as in Bio Antho. Another BTW--this article has been the topic of conversation this week in our department and it has been negatively reviewed by every grad student and professor I've heard discuss it. This is not a game of cards, race or any other, and curiosity is not a valid reason to disrespect anyone's beliefs or sensitivities as to how their ancestral human remains should be treated. This publication is neither a professional or academic publication but for the consumption of the general public. Unfortunately by creative wording, the general public is 'led' to a particular perspective. The author of the article positioned Dr.Perez as being supportive of the 'scientists' when in fact, she took his comments out of context. He has since sent the author a very extensive rebuttal of her portrayal. Dr.Perez is a strong supporter of NAGPRA and repatriation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreply to #2 Berta
quote My understanding is that the Native American Indians migrated to North American some 30 thousand years ago. endquote
Your understanding is wrong.
Some people migrated to North America 30,000 years ago (we think). Some people that we sometimes refer to as Native Indian appear to have been hear for some thousands of years. It is possible that they have some connection to the original migrants. Then again it is possible that they don't.
"Anthropology is not a science"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat depends on whether or not you consider the "social sciences" to be science.
"this article has been the topic of conversation this week in our department and it has been negatively reviewed by every grad student and professor I've heard discuss it."
At UMass? I'm not at all surprized - the politics out there tend toward the far-left (and I'm no conservative by any stretch of the imagination) and pervade everything that goes on there, especially in the social science departments. When I was there in the 1990's, it seemed like it was the protest-of-the-week club.
"The power has been held by white privilege since invasion."
That's the same "the white man is the devil" attitude I remember from out there. Odd how some people don't realize (or can't accept) that bigotry is NOT a one-way street.
"how their ancestral human remains should be treated"
I think you missed the part where it was said that the remains in question CAN'T be the ancestors of the Kumeyaay, because they're from thousands of years before the Kumeyaay's ancestors arrived in the area.
"Look at the wording of the article and how it's used to value one position above the other."
I think you're just seeing what you want to see. The article isn't advocating any disrespect for Native American traditions or remains, it's just saying we need a rational way of dealing with claims to those remains that strikes a balance between those traditions and science.
I would apply a few tests:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you tell me his name?
Can you draw a genealogical chart and tell me who his descendants are?
Can you, through DNA or other procedures, demonstrate that he is an ancestor of some specific individual?
Perhaps you can come up with some others, go ahead.
Another rule should be that all remains should be treated with respect, whether the remains are human or animal they came from a living, breathing being that inhabited this world at the same time that my ancestors did. The idea of displaying an Indian, African, Asian, etc. skull or other body part just because I find repugnant. However to learn how people (or other creatures) lived, fought off diseases, etc. is a valid scientific study.
I don't know what kind of relationship exists between archeologists and natives in the field, but should we get them more directly involved during research, similar to what mining exploration does in Canada and elsewhere? Maybe they would appreciate and see the scientific rationale behind these research, in other words, see it in a different perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo many of the comments, not to mention the editorial itself, are so profoundly Euro-American as to be examples of the Euro cultural mindset.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is simply not a 'given' that inquiry into bones is more critical than respect for the personhood associated with them who has not agreed to the inquiry; it remains to be established that the scientific inquiry is more important than the cultural respect.
I know this comment will boggle the mind of the modern Euro-American scientist, and by that person the immediately preceding paragraph will be taken as unbelievably ignorant. I suggest that proves my point.
Respect for those who have gone before us is part and parcel of being Native American so far as any of the tribes I am aware of are concerned, though I would not rule out there being one or two who were never so concerned. That is why consent is provided for. There are 550 or so recognized tribes, which implies 550 cultures, albeit within language families there are similarities, and there's been some borrowing in Pow Wow culture. However, funerary matters and respect for the deceased are critical to all I've learned anything about.
The old Christian formulary is 'dust thou are and to dust thou shall return' doesn't say 'unless some alien scientist thinks otherwise.'
A core belief of one people is 'political correctness' in the eyes of another people. Proves nothing. "Politically correct" is a turn of phrase too often used by someone who cannot respond on the merits, and thus just disses the other view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral relevant points are commonly overlooked in the NAGPRA debate. First, some Native Americans do not want any analysis to be done of human remains, even those from discovery situations, but the age of remains is often not clear without analysis, and it is highly possible that more recent human remains from murder victims or otherwise missing persons will be overlooked if these beliefs are followed. Therefore, the refusal to allow any analysis is an untenable position, and also conflicts with local laws in many cases. Second, even within given Native American tribes there often is not consensus regarding how to handle repatriated remains, and it is generally a vocal minority from communities who are involved, and it is unclear to what extent these people's beliefs reflect consensus opinions. Third, demonstrating that your ancestors are buried in an area is a very widely recognized land tenure and cultural patrimony claim, and tribes are quite potentially weakening their own claims by not allowing any analysis and immediately reburying remains. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising to either side of the debate that Federal land managers are eager to turn over human remains as quickly as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat analysis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===
New Attack on Repatriation
By Duane Champagne- April 9, 2012
Who owns the past? That’s the headline of an editorial in the April copy of Scientific American. The question is occasioned by regulations that the U.S. Department of the Interior added to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in May 2010. As the magazine puts it, these rules “allow tribes to claim even those remains whose affiliation cannot be established scientifically, as long as they were found on or near the tribes’ aboriginal lands.”
Scientific American argues that the addenda to NAGPRA are too favorable to American Indian communities and that archaeologists should be having a greater say in these matters. “In our view,” the editorial board says, “the new regulations should be repealed or, at least, revised.” Perhaps not surprisingly, the argument against the new regulations is coached in Western theological terms: “In effect, they [the Indians] privilege faith over fact.”
Such a statement shows little understanding of the forms and strength of indigenous relations to ancestors and to the requirements of maintaining the spiritual stewardship of the land. From all appearances, Scientific American isn’t making much effort to understand indigenous cultures’ interpretations of reality, meaning, and life. Instead, the publication gives credence to scientific, professional, and nonspiritual understandings of the value and meaning of human ancestors and sacred funerary objects. As far as the editors are concerned, American Indian perspectives are irrelevant. They’re even irresponsible because they don’t protect human history and knowledge.
To understand this more fully, read the piece, which uses as its springboard a set of bones nearly 10,000 years old, found in 1976 on a bluff in La Jolla, California. The bones may soon be returned to the Kumeyaay Nation of the Southwest, who claim residence in their homeland for more than 12,000 years and who are eager to recover remains and other artifacts.
Scientific American prefers to side with archeologists who argue that there is no Kumeyaay link here because “the Kumeyaay claim is based on folklore. The physical evidence indicates that the La Jolla bones are not affiliated with any modern tribe, including the Kumeyaay, who moved into the area only within the past few thousand years.”
Read more http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/04/09/a-new-attack-on-repatriation-107181A
The Indians are in an interesting position, they got caught in the transition to modern times. In earlier times there would have been no reservations; the survivors would simply have been absorbed. We are left now with an illusory romanticism towards the Indians including making up a past for them that never existed. To be sure, the Indians are participating in the construction of this illusion as it benefits them, but it's not real. The Indians didn't live in harmony with nature any more than any other hunter/gatherer society; and that's only by necessity. As soon as they were given guns, they tried to kill everything in sight. They had no interest in saving the beaver and were willing to sell them all to the traders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what's worse, it was deadly out there, before the Euroamericans took over. Walking from one tribe to the next could get you killed. Didn't matter who you were. Or it could get you feted and a wife; chances went either way. Not to mention that everyone had slaves, and we won't get into cannibalism. You want something that will get every Indian in America upset?
But don't let me kid you, my ancestors were the same way. They were Norwegian. They had slaves. They obliterated their enemies. They ate people. I can guarantee you that in my past I have family who were enslaved and family who were the enslavers. You do, too. We're all in this together.
The disservice done to the Indians was not that they were wiped out by invaders, that happens to everyone; ask the Palestinians. The disservice was giving them reservations. It sounded like a good idea at the time for both good and bad reasons, but all it did was permanently lock them in a ghetto. Go to our nearest casino. Look at the multimillion dollar facility. Look at the tour buses lined up. Look at the biggest store in town: a pawn shop. It's going to take them hundreds of years to become Americans. We did them no favors.
And we do them no favors by keeping up this illusion out of shame for what someone did to their ancestors. It's not my shame, guys. If you feel ashamed, too bad, but don't bring it onto my head. I don't care if my ancestor was Harald Bloodaxe. I don't care what he did to the Swedes. I am not ashamed. (Take that, Sweden!)
I'm afraid I'm part of the camp that says religion is religion, no matter what the stripe. I think we have to be gentle with believers; we have to let them down easy. But we can't let them dictate policy; that's madness.
I think, if we all got together and smoked a peace pipe, we'd be a lot better off.
The problem is an old one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amount of money on politics.
When the various Indian tribes decided to base their claim of being above the law on the basis of being the “first peoples” instead of on broken treaties, they boxed them selves into the need of denying that anybody was here before them.
This was blatantly untrue, even at the time they made the claim. Their various histories were full of boasting accounts of conquering and driving out previous inhabitants when they moved in.
But now, based on those “first peoples” claims, that they have the right to operate casinos in the face of local laws, and not pay taxes or be subject to accounting inspections, they cannot afford any evidence to surface that they were not the “first peoples.”
That is literally over a billion dollars a year they have to spend to insure their position.
With no oversight as to it’s origination.
That kind of money will get you a lot on influence in DC.
Some investigation into the history of the whole “we were here first” argument is very interesting.
It is a classic case of money equals power equals corruption.
And of “the tangled webs we weave,”
You would think that people in this day and age would spend there time trying to improve things for the living instead of wasting their time argueing about bones that could help history. If they cared as much for the living instead of the dead we could have a better future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this