1. Contemporary Native Americans have very good reasons to not participate in these studies of earliest Americans.
Just like in “Battle of the Bones”–which attempts to make a science-versus-creationism argument for studying Native American remains–people take this “paucity of samples from North America” as an opportunity to bash contemporary Native Americans for opting out of these studies. Dienekes blog asks if this is “Petty identity politics contra science?” and commenters on various articles condemn Native groups for this supposedly “petty” refusal.
For many years I’ve been showing the BBC production, Bones of Contention: Native American Archaeology for Introduction to Anthropology. Produced in 1995, this film is even older than “Battle of the Bones,” but it takes a BBC perspective to give a fairer presentation of U.S. politics and Native issues. What this film at least makes clear–and seems lost on so many–is that Native Americans have plenty of good reasons to still be suspicious of genetic investigation.
Genocide. Treaty abrogation. Children sent to boarding school to be stripped of language and identity. Contemporary inequalities. The fact that every time I assign “Battle of the Bones” and screen Bones of Contention, some students openly snicker or rant about Native Americans holding back science. It’s one of the factors that went undiscussed in that re-study of Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man–how did Morton get all those skulls anyway?In my opinion that is a lot of hooey to justify the unjustifiable. I won't argue about the veracity or details of this version of history, but surely native Americans from the US were not especially mistreated compared to other people colonized by Europeans?
Petty identity politics indeed.
I mean, there are now samples from Native Australians, East Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans from all over the Americas except the US. Why don't all these people not "hold a grudge" for their bad treatment at the hands of Europeans, but, apparently, are perfectly willing to participate in genetic research if it's explained to them how they might learn more about their ancestors from it?
And, why limit ourselves to people colonized by Europeans? Surely, Slavs, for example, have a lot of things to say about German Rassenkunde scientists belittling them, studying their skulls to "prove" they are an inferior race, and hatching up and executing plans for their annihilation. So, why do the Russians give the Denisova fingerbone to ze Max Planck folks to study, or allow them to study ancient DNA from all over their territory?
Scour the literature for a while, and you'll find plenty of (modern) Germans studying Jews, and Jews studying pretty much everybody, including many not-so-friendly Muslim populations. You'll find Russians too, studying all the subjugated ethnic groups of their former Empire, and plenty of Han Chinese scientists studying some of the 57 ethnic groups of their country. You'll find Serbs and Turks forgetting about the Battle of Kosovo or the Balkan Wars to participate in joint research about the origins of the Neolithic. You'll find Roma and Saami being studied by their native European "oppressors."
And, how about those African Americans whose ancestors were dragged across the Atlantic in chains, and forced to work as slaves, surely they have as good a reason, if not better, to be suspicious of being made an object of study by people outside their community? But, last time I checked, there were plenty of studies on that population, informing them about the sources of their African ancestors and the timing and extent of admixture with their European ones.
In short: you'll find plenty of groups with historical or even contemporary sources of conflict setting aside their differences in the interest of science.
The anti-scientific attitude of certain Native American groups cannot be ascribed to a history of oppression or conflict with the ancestors of the scientists wishing to study them. And, indeed, if Native Americans were once oppressed by the Palefaces, why don't they let themselves be studied by Chinese or Japanese researchers, or indeed by their own scientists: there are Native American geneticists after all!
There are two answers to this question:
- The cultural relativist nonsense about science being a "white man's way of knowing" that is of no use to Native groups who already know who their ancestors were.
- "petty identity politics" indeed.
59 comments:
Actually Native Australians are also very difficult to persuade to help with genetic research (you should have noticed that Aborigine samples are almost always missing, and these are a most critical population to understand human prehistory from the viewpoint of genetics - by comparison the Apache, for example, are quite irrelevant in fact).
"Jews studying pretty much everybody, including many not-so-friendly Muslim populations"...
There are also major issues here. Actually in this case I'd blame mostly the researching side for not being sufficiently open-minded and ambitious and have invariably an ethnocentric view and Zionist political justification in mind (hiding or making up part of some results for that reason).
We do not have enough Palestinian samples... which happen to be a much more interesting population than Jews, based on the little we have seen so far.
And you certainly forgot about the restrictive genetic testing policies in France (also in India but that has been overcome somewhat by now) but the French case is incredible: probably the most important geographic entity in West European genetics and we just have a sample or two invariably labeled "French", as if Provenzals and Normands would be the same.
My lesser concern in all this matter are Apaches or Lakotas.
Your argument here is flawed, however true it is that "Native Australians, East Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans from all over the Americas except the US" aren't holding the grudge (the very least they could hold for the atrocities committed to them) and are contributing samples to genetic databases there is no justification for attacking Native Americans in the US for not. It's backwards reasoning to assume that because some groups don't mistrust western institutions all others shouldn't. Evidently there is a particular reason why Native Americans in the US mistrust scientists, the evidence being their lack of participation in research, unless you (a scientist) are really willing to reduce the actions of an entire group to pettiness (an absurdly one dimensional argument) and identity politics (what other kind of politics is there?).
You (personally and as a scientist) are in no place to say when or even if any colonized group forgive and forget.
Actually Native Australians are also very difficult to persuade to help with genetic research
There are now at least two sample sets now, probably more, for Native Australians. Things could be better, but now that there was a major study on Native Australians and the sky didn't fall over their heads, I'm hopeful that there will be more of them.
There are also major issues here. Actually in this case I'd blame mostly the researching side for not being sufficiently open-minded and ambitious and have invariably an ethnocentric view and Zionist political justification in mind (hiding or making up part of some results for that reason).
Well, the "ethnocentric Jews" have made most of their data available online, so no one's keeping anyone else from analyzing it if they disagree with their conclusions.
That's the beauty of science, you have Morton and his skulls, Boas and his fraud, and the truth finally came out by re-analysis of the data.
We do not have enough Palestinian samples... which happen to be a much more interesting population than Jews, based on the little we have seen so far.
There's plenty of Palestinian samples; some Palestinians have even submitted their data to me, and there is of course the Palestinian HGDP sample. I see no evidence that Palestinians have opted out of genetic research like Native American groups from the US seem to have done.
It's backwards reasoning to assume that because some groups don't mistrust western institutions all others shouldn't.
If the vast majority of the peoples of the world submit their data to genetic science and Native Americans from the US and a few others are the only holdouts, one has to ask why they do so?
Perhaps everyone else is a fool; or perhaps, they're the ones that have it wrong, and their science denialism accounts for little more than the people who deny blood transfusions or vaccinations: irrationalism masquerading as "indigenous people's rights".
Thank you, Dienekes, for responding to Mr. Aldamiz's verbal fecal matter. I (a Jew and partial Israeli, my dad) was about to be banned for my highly unpleasant words in response to his...I don't know what to call it...mental disease?
I agree with your premise partially, Dienekes. There have been numerous studies using uniparental marks concerning US Native Americans. I have no idea if the DNA is still viable or available for further testing. I would expect to see a moderate frequency of European admixture among the US Native groups, especially, if going by the Y-haps found among them.
Also there are US Native American genetic testing groups on the Web. As for what information can be gleaned...maybe you should write to them and ask if they will partcipate in the next Dodecad project.
Indigenous Australians, I am using the PC words for these people, practice a form of passive aggressive resistance in just about anything that involves participation as regular citizens of their country. The dna thing is just another example. They don't participate because they can refuse to cooperate. There is no logic in this, it is just pure childish refusal.
With the Native Americans, their refusal is namely due to the fact that so few of them are unmixed, and they know that fact but do not want to acknowledge it. It is similar to the way African admixed Americans refer to themselves as having Native American ancestry.
The refusal to participate in dna studies just tacitly proves these Native Americans are genetic frauds, claiming ancestry from people long dead in pure form.
According to the interviews that Brian Sykes did in the US whilst he was promoting his book "DNA USA", the resistance to genetic testing amongst Native Americans was caused by some cases of samples being given for one purpose and then being used without consent for genetic analysis. That's all the information that I have. Perhaps someone knows more about the cases to which he referred.
Here's a link to a transcript of one of Sykes' interviews.
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2012-04-25/genetic-portrait-whats-americas-dna/transcript
"And, indeed, if Native Americans were once oppressed by the Palefaces..."
Are you really questioning if that oppression actually happened? It is exactly that sort of attitude that can cause people to say 'Why should I help you with your bleeping research?'
"I won't argue about the veracity or details of this version of history..."
Again, you imply there are different versions of the history of Native American genocide?
Compare the USA to other parts of the Americas - there are large surviving native populations in other regions (including some who have not even been contacted yet), but Native Americans were essentially wiped out in most of the USA. The small populations that remain in almost all cases are a mixture of different tribes, and European and African ancestry.
While I share your desire for research, I think your dismissive, antagonistic attitude could not be more perfectly designed to prevent any research from ever being done in the future. You should learn a little about the history of genocide in the USA, and the continuing problems of that legacy, before you shoot off your mouth.
Native Americans have been suffering, violence, murder, prejudice, cruelty, stripped of their culture and way of life on their own homeland for over 500 years, that is reason enough not to trust our oppressors.
I have given a DNA sample and I know of other family members that have also given samples in the name of Science, for others, they aren't ready but you can't condemn them for that, you don't know how they feel until you have walked a mile in their moccasins.
"You (personally and as a scientist) are in no place to say when or even if any colonized group forgive and forget"
Stan, the point is that that is irrelevant to the discussion.
"The general consensus is they were Asian migrants, which is just as questionable today..."
This is verging on Creationism, Niineta - denial of genetic data and analysis leads directly to denial of evolution.
"But it’s been the “white man's” obsession to prove Native Americans are Asians. Interesting since there were no “Asians”, during the time of early human dispersal. In fact there were no Europeans or any other specific population during that period."
What does this even mean? If humans dispersed to Asia, they were Asian then.
More productive than stewing in the apoplexia brought on by the fact that native peoples have resisted what you have asked of them might be taking pause to consider how you have asked it of them. Bruce Trigger understood this well:
Viewing the Indians’ past as a convenient laboratory for testing general hypotheses about sociocultural development and human behavior may be simply a more intellectualized manifestation of the lack of sympathetic concern for native peoples that in the past has permitted archaeologists to disparage their cultural achievements, excavate their cemeteries, and display Indian skeletons in museums without taking thought for the feelings of living native peoples. If prehistoric archaeology is to become socially more significant, it must learn to regard the past of North America’s native peoples as a subject worthy of study in its own right, rather than as a means to an end.*
*“Archaeology and the image of the American Indian.” AmerAnt 45(4): 671.
This is verging on Creationism, Niineta - denial of genetic data and analysis leads directly to denial of evolution.
This has nothing to do with creationism. If someone doesn’t subscribe to the common migration theory, then they’re a creationist. What bunk.
Native Americans could have arrived in the Americas by a number of routes. None have been proven including the land bridge theory, in spite of the fact it has been under investigation for several hundred years. Simply believing it’s a “proven fact” as opposed to a “theory” doesn’t make it true, and such a belief is little more than verging on mythology.
What the genetic data shows is there is a genetic connection between the populations on the west coast of Alaska and the Siberian Peninsula of Chukchi, which should be no surprise because the artic populations of those areas were the same or related populations before Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1949, and there was constant interaction between those populations right up to the modern day.
A border dividing a population does not make them a different population on opposing sides of a border. Those populations, regardless which side of the border they reside, are genetically distinct from Native Americans.
The only genetic connection to Native Americans (who are not Aleut/Eskimo) is haplogroup A2a found in the Na-Dene speaking Native Americans which is considered gene flow into Asia.
Nothing in this genetic data and analysis constitutes evidence this Artic population are the ancestors of Native Americans. In fact, archeology, anthropology and genetics have proven they are not.
If humans dispersed to Asia, they were Asian then
Given your logic, Aboriginal Australians are Indians, since they dispersed through India. Since Europeans didn’t originate in Europe, they are Asian, African and Middle Easterners. Wait; there are no Asians or Middle Easterners because they originated in Africa.
If passing through a landmass negates a populations’ existence, then no other world populations exist, except for Africans. Yet, such a ridiculous claim is never heard.
Maybe you can explain why it's only Native Americans who are deemed to be Asians, when no other world population is deemed to be a different population simply by passing through a landmass?
It is interesting to see how much distortions of reality there are on this topic.
There is not very much truth in the idea that cruelty and slavery were products of European man. Or that Europeans were more cruel to Africans,Indians, Asians etc then they were to each other.
1. Check out the Aztecs witnessed just at first contact by Europeans.Did they take slaves? Did they kill lots of enemies?
2. How many Indian deaths were directly caused by Whites and how many by diseases they had no resistance to? The Black Death wiped out
lots of Europeans. Granted there was deliberate use of germ warfare. But Europeans used it against each other as well.
There world is just not a very nice place. Holding peoples of other places and other times to the fantasy ideas of current political correctness helps nothing.It is better to light a candle then to curse the darkness.
No one can predict the effects of knowledge. But genetic medicine is certainly one way that Indians will lose out by hiding their genetic material from investigation
"The “sole” purpose of studying Native American origins is to prove, “Native Americans are not or at the least were not the original inhabitant of the Americas”."
@Niineta
I dont think that is fair to us. I genuinely want to know how the Americas were populated. How the tribes were related. What the first waves into America might be able to tell us about the first peopling of the world. What similarities in art and architecture might mean in terms of cultural connections. How the Arawaks differed from the Caribs, which tribe folk are descended from, etc.
Frankly I dont get your issue. In Europe, Asia and Africa it is already very clear that none of us were the first. H erectus or H neanderthalensis or others always preceded humans. I expect it will be the same in America (flea studies imply this). Its a non issue.
The main cat fight in Europe is not who came first but whether the original population was replaced or persisted. But this is a philosophical argument not a practical one. No one will lose land or money. At most what is at risk is self perception of identity. A movement from falsehood to something closer to the truth.
In Britain we have already had this shift once. Our history was wrong. History said our population was replaced several times as the invaders (Saxons, Normans etc) massacred the folk who preceded them. Ten years ago most English folk would have identified themselves as mostly of Norman stock with some residual Saxon. Completely different from the Irish (of course). Genetics has shown that the Roman, Saxon and Norman genetic impact was almost undetectable. We are essentially the same as the Irish. Our self image was completely wrong and it changed with barely a ripple.
I dont get what you are concerned about. So maybe the Cree get tagged to a third wave rather than the first. It was still thousands of years ago. What difference could it make?
"There world is just not a very nice place. Holding peoples of other places and other times to the fantasy ideas of current political correctness helps nothing."
We are talking about very recent history - not a thousand years ago. Sure, you can find other examples of war crimes and genocide in the last century, but in most of those case we at least recognize that the crimes occurred and in some cases there are efforts for reparations. The Armenian genocide might be another of crimes unrecognized, but it pales in comparison to the American genocide. The attitude of some of the commenters here seems to be "Just quit whining and give me your DNA." Good luck with that approach.
It is a matter of personal choice whether to allow DNA to be sampled for these scientific purposes. The decision not to sample is taken by many people. Beyond my hubris to criticize their decisions.
"The cultural relativist nonsense about science being a 'white man's way of knowing' that is of no use to Native groups who already know who their ancestors were".
That seems to me to be the main inspiration. Luckily here in New Zealand the indigenous people are just as fascinated by what genetics reveals about their ancestry as is anyone else.
"Evidently there is a particular reason why Native Americans in the US mistrust scientists, the evidence being their lack of participation in research"
And that may be the answer to the problem. Many Polynesians are actively involved in the research. Although they have suffered much the same problems historically as:
"You can name all the atrocities suffered around the world as the result of colonization/oppression and Native Americans suffered the same fate. From death marches and starvation internment camps to scientific experimentation. Interesting how those facts are never mentioned in history books".
Depends on what history books you read. I have always been well aware of what they suffered, and I live miles away.
"How does the Native American origins influence the knowledge of human evolution and world migration patterns? It doesn’t".
It can actually tell us a great deal about how genes have spread around the world. In exactly the same way as studying Austronesian/Polynesian patterns of movement.
"Native Americans could have arrived in the Americas by a number of routes".
Native American haplogroups are all related to East or Central Asian ones.
"The only genetic connection to Native Americans (who are not Aleut/Eskimo) is haplogroup A2a found in the Na-Dene speaking Native Americans which is considered gene flow into Asia".
B, C and D are all East Asian. X is presumably Central Asian.
"This is verging on Creationism, Niineta - denial of genetic data and analysis leads directly to denial of evolution".
I have definitely come to the conclusion that much of the denial of genetic evidence is inspired by a wish to deny evolution.
It seems to me that some Native Americans have a different view of reality than a "scientific" one. An example of this is kind of a lack of fear of heights. Whether working at great height, or even jumping 3 meters across a void at height. The scientific reality would say there is a small probability that you may fall etc.
The U.S. law is that people cannot go around robbing gravesites, so any "culturally" related remains must remain undisturbed. Fortunately for "science" the Kennewick man and the Paisely cropolites have not been classified as such, the Kennewick man after judicial proceedings.
Well, sure, Solis, but they obviously weren't "African Americans" at that point. (Sorry, had to)
Niineta
"...Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1949,..."
It was purchased in 1867, 1949 is the year when it become a formal member state of the USA. You should polish the history knowledge you are so proud of.
Also the suffering of the native Americans is know, and it is in the history books, at least I found many of these things in history books. It does not seem to be worse than many other events of our cruel history.
Question:
What is your problem with Asian origin? Do you think Asians are inferior?
What is really your alternative theory? So far the only version that has any factual suuport currently is what you attack.
"Native Americans were not really made slaves..."
Another ~myth. (They didn't make very GOOD slaves, however, lol... That's probably why it didn't work out. It was extremely difficult to break their spirits or force them to do anything they didn't ~want to do.)
I know of a case in New York where the household slaves (one African and one Native American) of the Hallett family were scapegoated and executed in a very cruel and unusual fashion for the massacre of that entire family. They'd been killed in their beds one night and the house burnt down over their bodies. This was during a time of intense border and land wars in that region (Long Island) between the British and Colonists, shortly after the British had grabbed New Netherlands from Holland.
One of my English ancestors had sold the Halletts that house, when they decided to move from there to New Jersey. This was prior to the Revolution.
In that brief era, the Indians and Colonists got along fairly well. However, I know of other cases of early American colonists buying, selling, and keeping Native American slaves.
I also know that South Carolina census-takers were once instructed to count mestizos (Indian / white mixes) as "negroes". The intent was to classify them as slaves, because at that time negro slaves were taxed at a higher rate than "Indian" slaves.
Bravo Dienekes and thank you Annie Mouse for your reply to Niineta's anti-science diatribe. She acknowledged what I had heard many times over my last several weeks in the American Southwest from both Native Americans and whites trained to understand Native cultures: "they know who their ancestors are". Several of their religions teach that they came from the underworld, and in some cases literally out of the Grand Canyon. Seriously. They do not want to hear, for example with the Navaho, that they migrated from Canada and almost wiped out the farming Hopi that are now considered to be the descendents of the Ancestral Puebloans (changed from Anasazi as being politically incorrect; anasazi being the Navaho word for "ancient enemies") To acknowledge a fairly recent migration and war against the natives who inhabited the area before them would work to diminish their claim to what is now a reservation of over 20% of Arizona.
There is a tendency to romanticize Native cultures and history, and to see them as having been stewards of the environment. This is complete nonsense. In the case of most cultures, they were primitive hunter-gatherers who lacked the technology to exploit the areas they lived in. Now free to use the same technologies as everyone else, they are as rapacious as any timber or mining company, seeking to extract as much as they can, whatever the damage to the environment. For proof, one should drive through the clear-cuts of the Makah reservation in Washington State or the several strip mines on other reservations.
As seen with Kennewick Man, the political agenda of Native American tribes is to assert that "they were always here" and not just another group of migrants to the New World.
There were plenty of Native American slaves in the Caribbean.
---------------
"You guys don't even know how to ~define "Native American""
Well yeahhhh. That is the point. How can you expect good outcomes if you withhold the data?
Science is not magic. You dont wave the magic test-tube and out comes the one true disputable answer. Its more like trying to excavate a statue with socks filled with rocks. The first efforts are often not great, but you keep trying and if you are focussed on the truth, eventually you get close to it.
The paper by Reich is not the end of the story, just another effort to uncover the truth. Some of it will be right. Some of it wont be right, mainly because of the missing info.
I am a Native American and a scientist, my PhD focus was in collaboration between Indigenous science and western science to solve global ecological sustainability problems. One of the biggest problems global indigenous people face is the Eurocentric entitlement and egocentric mentality that only they are the experts in anything. The "because we say so attitude" has uplifted the American people to the "most hated" globally, for a reason.NO ONE trusts western scientists. To think that it is just Native Americans makes you very naive. I have a saying that I teach to my college students "the number one predator to Native Americans has always been white anthropologists". Think about the history of American Anthropology. The biggest reason Native Americans will not allow their DNA to be used in research is because The Human Genome project lied to several tribes promising to help discover genetic connections to several diseases that are common to Native Americans, such as diabetes. Instead, the Human Genome team misappropriated tribal people's DNA using it for profit and to further their Paleoindian theories. This was illegal. This is not the first time, nor the last where the dominant society lies, or misinterprets treaties of sovereign nations for their own benefit at the expense of the underrepresented. White Americans see this as capitalism. The world sees it for what it is. This continues today and there are no aboriginal groups that trust western scientists or anthropologists.
As for Native Americans as slaves...Where are your citations. Really people, you are just making this up. I challenge you to find peer reviewed work FROM aboriginal people substantiating your claims. Columbus came to the Americas looking for slaves. Bartholomew and Columbus both wrote about stealing babies to feed to their dogs, women as sex slaves and men brought back as slaves. This continued for many years. Colonists were brutal, killing and maiming their own people (family) as slaves (indentured). This patriarchal mentality that humans can be thrown away, tested on, or forced into subjugation is still prominent today. Especially if there are natural resources to be stolen....
Well, I'll say based on what I've learned from natives in Brazil. You don't persuade them rhetorically, but instead, you offer them something in exchange, like a good and strong alcoholic beverage.
Seriously, it's political, here social anthropologists insist on playing the lawyers of the oppressed, they will say that native's interpretation of body is different and that when the native dies everything that refers to that person must be vanished. So that's why you can't hold blood samples, pictures or DNA from dead natives.
These same natives complain when government doesn't offer proper health care, which is interlocked with all other scientific fields of research. Just for your information, almost 50% of all adult natives in Brazil are at the moment suffering from Diabetes. They are, which is probably genetic, very vulnerable to sugar and modern diet. For opposing science will not bring their old world back, neither it will make sugar and fast foods less palatable.
I tried putting an large wink on it, Solis... how could you not grasp that the first Africans to set foot on the Americas weren't , by definition, the first African Americans?
For the dense, "African american" slaves were theoretically impossible until well after the colonies started slave colonies in the Americas. I can't believe his took more than the first "lol" comment to point that out.
Annie Mouse said...
• It’s a non-issue. . . . No one will lose land or money.
You hit the nail on the head. For the indigenous people of the Americas; it’s a non-issue.
For the European colonizers it’s a major issue. The common argument is there are no people indigenous to the Americas, since mankind didn’t evolve there. The argument is those Asian immigrants have no more rights to the “land” than the European immigrants simply because they arrived a little earlier.
The “little earlier” is why the antiquity of any archeological site found in the Americas has been denied. It’s been establish Native Americans were isolated from other world populations for 40,000 years, but, the problem was “How could the people of the Americas develop so much genetic and linguistic diversity if they were only in the Americas for such a short period of time?”
Eureka, a new theory a “Beringian Standstill’. . . those Asians were hanging around on a scrap of land developing all that genetic and linguistic diversity. With a single theory, they were able to fabricate a story to account for the diversity, a late entry into the Americas and maintain the Asian immigrant scenario since those people were not on American soil.
I could go on with all the debate of who actually discovered the Americas, which never includes Native Americans. The nonstop claims that skeletons found in the Americas are Caucasian and the proliferation of artifacts which proves a pre-colonization European presence. The new theory claims ice-age Europeans colonized the Americas, and were kill off by the later Asian immigrants. The latest fabrication is the European genetic signature found in Native American populations is not the result of admixture but evidenced of a European presents in the Americas pre-colonization.
Make no mistake; for the colonizers, all of this ridiculous fabrication boils down to who has the rights to land and money. There questions are; “Why do people think this was Native American land when they were nomadic and had no concept of land ownership.” Why do Native Americans get all those benefits when we won and they lost? On and On.
Genetic studies indicate the populations of the Americas are a homogenous population from the edge of the Arctic Circle to the tip of South America.
For the indigenous people, it makes NO difference who was first, the indigenous people are a single population.
There is obviously more to this topic, for someone to be so irate simply because a population didn’t provide their DNA, given the population has no relationship to other world populations, culturally, linguistically or in any other way.
To say you want to know who is related to who through their DNA makes no sense, because that is already known through their culture, language, history and geographical locations.
terryt said..
Native American haplogroups are all related to East or Central Asian ones. B, C and D are all East Asian. X is presumably Central Asian.
OK, let's look at haplogroup X. This study says:
It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that “lacks close relatives” in the entire Old World, including Siberia. The position of X2a in the phylogenetic tree suggests an early split from the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East.
The study further states . . . “the few Altaian (Derenko et al. 2001) and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are “not related” to the Native American cluster.
Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/
The study states Native American haplogroup X2a is not “related” to any Asian haplogroup. This contradicts your claim that Native American haplogroups are all related to East or Central Asian ones.
No related haplogroups have been found between the Asian and Native American populations, except in in the Aleut/Eskimo/Koryak/Chukchi populations, which are related populations who reside on the opposite sides of the US/Russian border.
Excluding these populations would result in a “Zerro” genetic connection between Native Americans and Asians.
• I have definitely come to the conclusion that much of the denial of genetic evidence is inspired by a wish to deny evolution.
Actually, much of the denial of genetic evidence is more the result of a political agenda than interest in understanding the factual human story. And that is not limited to the Americas. So we have come to different conclusions but, to each his own.
Slumbery said...
It was purchased in 1867, 1949 is the year when it became a formal member state of the USA
Regardless of the date, the “point” was if a border divides a population, they are still the same related population regardless of which side of the border they reside.
Tracing DNA from one of those populations to the other population, to show there is a genetic connection between Asia and the Americas, is rather pointless.
I ask you the same questions. “What is your problem with Asian origin? Do you think Asians are inferior?”
So far the only version that has any factual support currently is what you attack.
What factual support are you talking about? Please do share that.
"You bet we don't like being told that because our mtDNA isn't specific clades of A,B,C,D or X -- that we're 'European', not Native American".
You're distorting things here. Nobody has said that Native Americans are European, Asian, or anything other than Native Americans. What genetics tells us is that the first Americans came from Asia, mostly East Asia.
"As seen with Kennewick Man, the political agenda of Native American tribes is to assert that 'they were always here' and not just another group of migrants to the New World".
And that seems to be the main reason for opposition to genetic testing. It falsifies that belief.
"there are no aboriginal groups that trust western scientists or anthropologists"
That's an extreme exaggeration.
"It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that 'lacks close relatives' in the entire Old World, including Siberia".
'Close' is a relative term. There is no doubt it has relatives in the Old World.
"No related haplogroups have been found between the Asian and Native American populations, except in in the Aleut/Eskimo/Koryak/Chukchi populations"
That's complete rubbish. Surely Native Americans mt-DNA A, B, C and D is related, no matter how distantly, with Asian mt-DNA.
"Regardless of the date, the 'point' was if a border divides a population, they are still the same related population regardless of which side of the border they reside".
And that comparatively recent borderland expansion is what divides American and Asian haplogroups from each other.
Personally I would rather know my true genetic history, warts and all, not just my preferred illusion.
It's a bunch of silly BS on the part of Native American activists and we all know it. There is so much that could be learned, but too many of allowed these immigrants from Siberia to cow everyone into submission. It's silly.
Niineta
I have better things to do than arguing with religious people, so this will be my last comment on this topic.
First I have to point out that you did not even try to answer my questions.
Of course I do not think Asians inferior, but you are the one who should answer this question (and you evaded a clear answer, any answer actually), because you seem to have problem with the scientific results that show Asians as the closest relatives of Native Americans. (As others pointed out this does not mean they are actual Asians.) What is your problem with it? So far the only thing you said about this that it is the theory is evil white scientist, therefore can't be true. This is just racism.
Also the evidence is not only the relatedness of the Alascan population, but the relatedness of the whole population. Others here wrote about this in greater length, also I recommend to read Dienekes posts on the topics in the last few years.
Also it is not clear what is your theory on the origin of Native American population. "Always been here" is not an acceptable answer, since it is just downright impossible. Nobody on the Earth was "always there", whatever place and whatever population is the question.
One reason it is very difficult to study *US* Native American populations in many case has LESS to do with the individuals/tribes than with the institutional review boards (IRBs) of the universities where the research is carried out, and whose approval is *required* for any research to be conducted or published. There are actually quite a few labs that have such samples, mine included. The problem is that because of cases like the Havasupai http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20538622
a lot of universities are very hesitant to allow any research/publications that could lead to lawsuits. It's also often the case that the samples were collected awhile ago, so the consent that was given may not technically cover modern analyses, in some cases the individuals have died and in some cases there is a legal issue involving individual vs tribal consent. So the individual may well have given consent, but legally, in the US, there could still be liability if the tribe did not give consent. Collecting new samples requires IRB approval and again, universities won't give it, and so the problem continues.
I think i know the answer: Spiritualism. The occidental scientific materialism can only explain half of the story, while the myths of natives people explain the other half. I recall a geneticist showing pictures of asian people to amerindians, telling them their ancestors came from asia. Scientist: "Of course your ancestors came from Asia! and the genetic supports it. It's evidence".
Red man: "No, We come from Here"
Scientist: "Just look how similar your faces are, how can you deny it?"
Red man: "No, our ancestors come from Here"
Why such obstination to deny the obvious? Just take a more spiritual mindset. Many amerindian myths talk of a long migration in the dark (long siberian polar night?), underground or through a tunnel (a narrow piece of land?)of their ancestors, but those ancestors are not 'indians' yet, in the spiritual sense. Only when they emerged from the tunnel in the Great Plains, the Spirit of the Red Man was given to them. Therefore the Red Man was created and received his Humanity in the American plains. He is born 'Here'. That asians look indeed like amerindians and that the amerindian genes (the material support of ancestry) tell a different story is irrelevant, but the geneticist will not understand it.
And by the way, this apply to Europeans in Europe.
@Val,
"I have a saying that I teach to my college students "the number one predator to Native Americans has always been white anthropologists". "
Hvae academics like you doen a hundredth part of preserving indigenous lngagues for later generations that white anthropologists did to repair the destruction white governments visited on those language communities? If it weren't for white anthroplogists there would be no record of dozens of languages or of communities that impotent resistance efforts failed to protect.
"Science is not magic"
That's my point. As you admitted, science doesn't have all the data - yet - some scientists use what little knowledge they have to ~deny our ancestry. "You're not Native American -- you're 'European'", adding that we MUST have picked up that DNA since Columbus. Sure, I got a lot of it since Columbus... but not my ~mtDNA.
You supposed intellectuals are so dense and arrogant, you still don't understand where you are going wrong. And you prefer to talk down to us as if we're children. You're on ego trips.
We don't like that: it's not "scientific". How are we to place any trust in people ("authorities", "experts") who ~stereotype us with such blatant, ignorant disrespect? Who stubbornly continue to classify us according to old, outdated 'data'?
"preferred illusion."
Our very real ancestry is a "preferred illusion" in your mind? LOL. Are you jealous?
If I was anything other than Native American, I would be just as proud of my ancestry. In fact, I am very proud of ALL my ancestry.
However, the problem I face now is due to the fact that my NA ancestry comes mainly (or most notably) from my mtDNA, and some very out-spoken internet "scientists" are in some sort of weird, hard-headed ~denial about it -- based on their own "preferences" and ~prejudices... it certainly isn't based on science.
I am fighting for science. The truth actually MATTERS to me. If anyone can offer ~real evidence that my gg-grandmother (maternal lineage) was not a full-blooded Native American -- I could accept that. But so far, no one has.
And I was informed otherwise, by my grandmother, whose word I know I can trust. gg-Grandmother's ~photograph was also quite convincing. So, I have enough evidence to prove to myself that she was NA, daughter of a NA mother (and probably NA father, too). Her husband likewise, was probably NA (at least half, or full-blooded).
DNA / genetics hasn't disproved our family history, not by a long shot -- despite the many contrary claims I often hear, from people who know NOTHING about my family.
My mtDNA has no published exact matches ANYWHERE in the world, so far. Its very rareness and age is also indicative that Grandma wasn't lying, crazy or stupid.
Furthermore, although repeatedly characterized as "European" by self-proclaimed "experts", its ~group (although not my own specific subclade) is most commonly found in present populations of Western and Northern Eurasia... which coincidently is where a lot of other NA mtDNA seems to have roots. My mtDNA is even older (phylogenetically) than A, B, C, D or X.
The anti-NA commenters here, are too biased to be reliable scientists. What makes you think you have the knowledge or ability to label people's ~identity, before you've even thoroughly studied our genetics and other histories? There are many things you scientists will never know, in fact (with or without our cooperation).
@shenandoah
So, basically you consider yourself "Native American" on the basis of your subjective assessment of a picture of a gg-grandmother, who, even if she had any Native American ancestry at all, was of mixed origin since she lacked a Native American mtDNA haplogroup.
"identity politics" indeed.
Yes, I consider myself NA based on my Grandmother's (and other family members') testimony, and the photograph of my Indian gg-grandmother only further proves it to me.
I can be NA ~and other ancestry, too. It is quite common, in fact.
Most "white" (or even mulatto) ladies didn't wear traditional Cherokee garb and hairstyle back in the early 20th century.
My family isn't stupid, crazy, or liars. Most are of above average intelligence, and educated professional or business types.
I'm not the only one in my family who knows about our ~history -- but I'm probably the only one who is interested in the science of our mtDNA, due to my interest in genetics.
You haven't shown how my mtDNA is not or cannot be NA.
All you've shown is your arrogance and bias.
Denial of a person or a people's cultural or ethnic identity, is a form of political/social ~genocide. Just because you SAY we don't exist, doesn't make it so.
Denial of a person or a people's cultural or ethnic identity, is a form of political/social ~genocide. Just because you SAY we don't exist, doesn't make it so.
You can believe whatever you want, but if you are >=94% non-NA, then I have to question why you call yourself one in such strong terms.
">=94%"
Although it's probably somewhat more than 94%, it's not so much the percentage of total DNA that counts, but the TYPE inherited.
Ie, I was born of and raised by a woman who was born of and raised by a woman, who was born of and raised by a woman who was born of and raised by a full blooded Indian woman... direct maternal lineage.
That's also why mtDNA is the main issue for me, even though I realize I've also inherited other NA DNA.
I don't understand why you would feel the need to "question" my emotional bonds with my family? I'm a woman, so I naturally 'relate' to my maternal ancestors.
As Dr. Sykes pointed out in his latest book, DNA USA, the Cherokee Nation requires only 1/32 Cherokee heritage to be a member. One of his DNA test volunteers, self-identified as Native, like Shenendoah, had hardly any Native American admixture - the same small amount as Dr. Sykes himself, myself, and probably a majority of Southern American whites whose ancestry dates back a while in the South.
You are absolutely correct Dienekes in describing the issue as "identity politics"
"DNA / genetics hasn't disproved our family history, not by a long shot"
Obviously not disproved it to you, but to everyone else it has.
"My mtDNA has no published exact matches ANYWHERE in the world"
But it has very close relations, and none of them Native American, as you admit:
"its ~group (although not my own specific subclade) is most commonly found in present populations of Western and Northern Eurasia"
Surely that should ring alarm bells for your belief it is Native American in your particular case.
"My mtDNA is even older (phylogenetically) than A, B, C, D or X".
Where do you get that idea from? If I remember correctly your mt-DNA is W1e, a downstream mutation within W1, a 'sister' to W1a, W1b, W1c, W1d, W1f and w1g, all Western and Northern Eurasia. In turn W1 is 'sister' to W3'W4'W5'W6, downstream mutations within N2. W1e is no more basal than are the American varieties of A, B, C, D or X.
"I was born of and raised by a woman who was born of and raised by a woman, who was born of and raised by a woman who was born of and raised by a full blooded Indian woman... direct maternal lineage".
Quite possibly so. But somewhere before that time your maternal line inherited a west Eurasian mt-DNA. The woman with that mt-DNA could well have been accepted into the Cherokee, and so been considered a full member of that tribe.
I meant to say "less" than (not "more" than) 94%. I'm at least 1/16 to 1/8 blood quanta.
You guys believe whatever you like, you don't have the proof for it. You talk as if you know a lot more than you actually do.
My grandmother was raised in the same household with her Indian grandmother and mother. She knew both of them quite well. I in turn knew my grandmother and her sisters as well (one was her next-door neighbor for decades, if not their entire adult lives). We had conversations about the family. We didn't just fantasize all of that.
My mother's lack of communication about the family history was mostly due to her own health issues (she didn't have the strength to stand up to bigotry, like I do), and I excuse and forgive her for it. I refuse to be shamed or humiliated, for who I am.
terryt said...
• You’re distorting things here. Nobody has said that Native Americans are European, Asian, or anything other than Native Americans.
That’s exactly what we've been told Over and Over. The Amerindians are Asians and not indigenous to the Americas. It’s simply a feeble attempt of the colonizers to justify their actions in the Americas. The current trend is to try to prove Europeans were the first people of the Americas based on the same reasoning. Just as you state below.
• "As seen with Kennewick Man, the political agenda of Native American tribes is to assert that they were always here and not “just another group of migrants” to the New World". And that seems to be the main reason for opposition to genetic testing. It falsifies that belief.
Get over your fantasy, Kennewick Man is NOT European. Kennewick Man belongs to haplogroup D which is consistent with Amerindian haplogroups. Kennewick Man skull type was Caucasoid, which is consistent with ancient skull types found all over the Americas, which have been tested and found to fall within the same haplotypes found in “modern day” Amerindians. You can read the Hopewell studies, but wait that just might burst your fantasy bubble.
• That's complete rubbish. Surely Native Americans mt-DNA A, B, C and D is related, no matter how distantly, with Asian mt-DNA.
Why are they trying to establish a genetic link between Amerindians and the Altai populations, since you say those haplogroups are found all over East Asia? Why aren’t they looking there?
Because they know the mtDNA A, B, C and D found there are not closely related to the Amerindians mtDNA. Just as they know the Amerindians are not the same population as the Aleut/Eskimo/Inuit, which is clearly stated in every single study.”
The Eskimo-Aleut clearly state they are “Asians” and NOT Amerindian. This agrees with archeological, anthropological and genetic evidence. The US and Canada recognize the Amerindians and the Aleut/Eskimo/Inuit are distinct populations and have separate agreements and relationships with those populations.
The US identifies the Amerindians as “Native Americans” and the Alaskan populations are identified as “Alaska Natives” because two separate indigenous populations reside in Alaska the “Amerindians” and the “Eskimo-Aleut”.
The Aleut/Eskimo/Inuit’s political affiliation is with the circumpolar people from Norway to Greenland and not with the continental Amerindians. The political affiliation of Amerindians is between Canada and the US, because the vast majority of the Amerindian populations reside on both sides of the US/Canada border.
The largest Amerindian population North of Mexico are the Algonquin speaking populations. The map shows the distribution of the “Anishinaabek” but if their ancestral and sister populations were included it would cover an area from Virginia to Newfoundland westward to Illinois.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Anishinaabewaki.jpg
The largest Amerindian populations in the US the Cherokee and the Na-Dene speaking populations, where the vast majority of the Na-Dene population resides in the US and a small Na-Dene population resides in Canada and are spread over a vast geographical area.
“All” of these “major” Amerindian populations in have been extensively sampled as well as many smaller populations such as the Siouan and Salish populations among others.
All this “bellyaching” over the Native Americans that won’t participate in studies is just plain BS, and is nothing more than a political agenda trying to prove the Amerindians are not indigenous to the Americas and had no rights to the lands.
• And that comparatively recent borderland expansion is what divides American and Asian haplogroups from each other.
Regardless of where you place the border it still doesn’t make the Eskimo-Aleut populations Amerindian.
What Deinekes and other authoritarian types have suggested repeatedly, is that only those Native Americans whose genes are similar to modern Asians have any right to self-identify as such. So, if your NA ancestors came through Asia or Polynesia: you're in (as far as they're concerned).
But if ~some of your NA ancestors' genes were "unfortunately" similar to modern Europeans (like for example, the ones who carried your ~mtDNA or yDNA, or some of your autosomes): you're out.
If certain genes which they characterize as "European" (thus, not "Native American") actually turn out to be Amerindian -- guess how that will affect their admixture calculations? Lol.
Also, let's just hypothesize for a moment, that there is a strong possibility the several old Caucasoid remains found mummified in the USA are in fact the oldest (whether or not they were "always here", which is a point still debatable) -- that would not mean that all modern Europeans are Native Americans, any more than modern Asians are. However, that might mean that certain groups of Europeans are very closely ~related to Native Americans.
Obviously, the general scientific community distorts the very ~definition of "Native American", and discriminates against certain types (Caucasoids) of Native Americans for some political reasons. Likewise, aided by the distorted definition of "Native" they seem to have succeeded in convincing many bona fide, traditional Natives that proving the earliest Americans to have been Caucasoid might be against their best interests (especially economically, for a people who have been historically near-destitute)... emotional blackmail.
Although my mtDNA (which is Native American) is ~Caucasoid, I'm sure I have other (Asian) NA DNA, too. I simply haven't been tested for them (I've only gotten my mtDNA tested). And with the bigotry and bias I've witnessed so far in the supposed "scientific" community -- I don't intend to. It would be a huge waste of my time and money. The results may prove interesting to me, personally, but my case would be excluded and mis-labelled (as it is currently); I won't allow that to happen again. I'd rather simply wholly abstain from participating in any of their future nonsense. If they aren't going to use the data ~properly, why provide it to them? Why fund their 'projects', when they don't practice true science?
This debate has confirmed what many Ethicists haved warned about.
"Get over your fantasy, Kennewick Man is NOT European".
I haven't said anything about Kennewick Man here.
"Regardless of where you place the border it still doesn’t make the Eskimo-Aleut populations Amerindian".
Where did I say the Eskimo-Aleut populations were Amerindian? What I said was that the expansion of the Eskimo-Aleut had served to separate the Amerindian population from their ancestors in East Asia.
"Why are they trying to establish a genetic link between Amerindians and the Altai populations, since you say those haplogroups are found all over East Asia? Why aren’t they looking there?"
They have been. The conclusion has been that as Y-DNA Q (presumably with mt-DNA X) moved east from Central Asia members of East Asian mt-DNA haplogroups joined in.
"Because they know the mtDNA A, B, C and D found there are not closely related to the Amerindians mtDNA".
But in each case they a just a single haplogroup within East Asian haplogroups. In turn:
American A is A2, a branch within A4. The other members of A4 are found mainly in Northern Asia. A4 is one of 5 branches within a single haplogroup related in turn to A5, A8 and A10, variously found in Tibet and Central and Southeast Asia.
American B is B2, a branch within B4b. B4b is a memeber of B4b'd'e, primarily an East Eurasian haplogroup and related to several other B4 haplogroups, all East or Southeast Asian.
American C is primarily C1, although as far as I'm aware some C4 is also present in America. Haplogroup C is basically Central and East Asian.
American D is D1, one of 17 D4 haplogroups that appear not to have been resolved yet. Unlike haplogroups A,B and C perhaps it could be possible to argue that American D is basally separate from the other 16 D4 haplogroups, but I suspect that is not the case.
"But if ~some of your NA ancestors' genes were "unfortunately" similar to modern Europeans (like for example, the ones who carried your ~mtDNA or yDNA, or some of your autosomes): you're out".
It is quite possible to have non-American mt-DNA and still be primarily Native American. If any European woman joined a Native tribe her children would be genetically half Native American, her grandchildren three quarters, her great grandchildren seven eighths and great great grandchildren fifteen sixteenths, at which stage they would be indistinguishable from 'purebreds'.
"It is quite possible to have non-American mt-DNA and still be primarily Native American. If any European woman joined a Native tribe her children would be genetically half Native American, her grandchildren three quarters, her great grandchildren seven eighths and great great grandchildren fifteen sixteenths, at which stage they would be indistinguishable from 'purebreds'."
If any "European" (ie Caucasoid) women joined the Asian tribes or lived on the American continents prior to 1492, she would herself have been a "Native American". Thus her children would have been 100% Native American. NA is a geographical / chronological term, it's an ethnicity, not necessarily a specific race. You aren't NA because of your race; but because of when and where your ancestors resided: in America prior to 1492.
Like others, you are equating Native Americans with a race: Asians. Yet, even "X" is not Mongoloid -- it's Caucasoid. W1e is no more "European" than "X" is. Both are Caucasoid. Both originated in approximately the same regions of the Old World, in fact they're very closely related, phylogenically (along with "I").
It's quite likely, even proven, that some "European" (ie Caucasoid) women were already in America ~prior~ to Columbus' first voyage. In that case, they would be just as much 'Native American' as any "Asian" women who came to America prior to Columbus.
But you guys don't want to admit it. Talk about "petty" (and unscientific). And there's nothing "petty" about attacking a person's identity. It's very ~personal.
You're basing all of your opinions on one or very few studies conducted many years ago, when mtDNA was first being studied. You yourself have stated (on my own blog) that "mtDNA cannot establish a person's ethnicity". Yet that is exactly what you do, by labelling it "European". Furthermore, you continue to characterize my mtDNA erroneously, as "European" -- when in reality, it's "Caucasoid.
Now, do you still maintain your belief, that there were ~no Caucasoids~ types of mtDNA in America at any time prior to 1492? Or, do you maintain your belief, that "X" was necessarily the ~only Caucasoid type then?
If so, why do you believe that? Do you base your belief on those aforementioned studies? If so, there's no need to do further mtDNA studies on Native Americans, because you all seem to have reached a conclusion which would bias future data.
If you dismiss my case, because you don't believe my family history, you might as well dismiss all of them. Because no one else has any more evidence than I do, that I'm telling the truth about it. I'm also aware that many tribal Natives (traditionals, unlike myself) have also been dismissed on the same very limited and faulty data. That's why NAs want no part of pseudo-science. We know that the data presented to us as 'conclusive', is intended to exclude a lot of us from identifying as NA.
It's been political from the outset. Your goal as government funded scientists has been all along, to weed out a lot of NAs from tribal membership, and to prevent others from getting in. It's easy for us to see that, by the way you have blinded yourselves to the facts.
"If any 'European' (ie Caucasoid) women joined the Asian tribes or lived on the American continents prior to 1492, she would herself have been a 'Native American'".
I'm not talking about women joining before 1492. I'm talking about European women joining after that date.
"NA is a geographical / chronological term, it's an ethnicity, not necessarily a specific race. You aren't NA because of your race; but because of when and where your ancestors resided: in America prior to 1492".
I don't see what your problem is. No-one would disagree with that.
"W1e is no more 'European' than 'X' is. Both are Caucasoid. Both originated in approximately the same regions of the Old World, in fact they're very closely related, phylogenically (along with 'I')".
That's not really quite how it is. X is a basal N haplogroup while both W and I are derived, from N2 and N1'5 respectively. N1'5, N2 and X are each no more closely related than are the 12 other basal N haplogroups.
"It's quite likely, even proven, that some 'European' (ie Caucasoid) women were already in America ~prior~ to Columbus' first voyage. In that case, they would be just as much 'Native American' as any 'Asian' women who came to America prior to Columbus".
If such were the case they would be Native American, but I have seen no evidence that any 'European' women were in America before Columbus. Could you provide us with evidence of that?
"And there's nothing 'petty' about attacking a person's identity. It's very ~personal".
We (collectively) are attacking your claim, not your identity.
"You yourself have stated (on my own blog) that 'mtDNA cannot establish a person's ethnicity'. Yet that is exactly what you do"
True. Mitochondrial DNA does not define ethnicity. Just because someone's mt-DNA does not belong, say, to Native Americans it does not mean that they cannot be Native American. It just means their mt-DNA comes from some other source.
"Now, do you still maintain your belief, that there were ~no Caucasoids~ types of mtDNA in America at any time prior to 1492? Or, do you maintain your belief, that 'X' was necessarily the ~only Caucasoid type then? If so, why do you believe that?"
I believe it because there is no evidence otherwise.
"If so, there's no need to do further mtDNA studies on Native Americans, because you all seem to have reached a conclusion which would bias future data".
Further studies may show something other than what is generally accepted today. But even without such a result further studies will tell us a great deal about migration within America.
"If you dismiss my case, because you don't believe my family history, you might as well dismiss all of them. Because no one else has any more evidence than I do, that I'm telling the truth about it".
I'm sure you're telling the truth about what you understand of your family history. But such histories are comparable to myth if they are oral and go back anywhere near 200 years.
"Your goal as government funded scientists has been all along, to weed out a lot of NAs from tribal membership, and to prevent others from getting in".
For a start I'm not American of any kind, so I have no axe to grind on that point. I was a government funded scientist when I first left university but that was in geology. So I am completely unbiased in this discussion.
"I believe it because there is no evidence otherwise."
"...no evidence..."? Not even enough evidence (for you) to maintain objectivity, I see.
Enough bias to skew any further or future DNA research into the topic of Native American origins, assuming most "scientists" fall in line with the ones posting here. That's precisely the problem NA's have, with so-called "science": it's ~not scientific.
And I'll tell you something, Native American origins will turn out to be an extremely important key piece of the whole puzzle, of Human origins, because of its many unique characteristics. But there's no point studying it at all, if you're going to hold stubborn prejudices and preconceptions about it. Because as with so much other research done in that fashion, it would only lead to false conclusions, further muddying the waters of 'knowledge'.
As John E. Pfeiffer (Emergence of Man) pointed out, "...people only see what they're prepared to find..." His comment was in reference to the earliest beliefs about stone tools: "scientists" thought they were ~natural formations, ie made by strikes of lightning, etc. It took just one very open-minded and probably intuitive person, to finally overcome that particular barrier to learning about Human origins.
terryt said...
"If so, there's no need to do further mtDNA studies on Native Americans, because you all seem to have reached a conclusion which would bias future data".
That’s the issue “BIAS”. Based on the current bias, the studies keep looking for evidence that the Amerindians are “Asian migrants”.
“ALL” of the worlds’ populations are migrants and most migrated through Asia. So there will not be any major breakthrough in knowledge there.
All the hullabaloo is about, whether there was 1 or 3 Asian migration events. Almost every month a new study states. . . “We have conclusively proved there were ____” fill in the blank (1, 3, more than 3) migration events. And they go round and round chasing their tails.
The first problem is they “DON’T KNOW” who they’re studying.
They keep saying they are trying to understand how the Americas were populated, which to some degree would imply they should be studying the Amerindians, who have no “clearly identifiable” origins in the Old World. But NO they are studying two distinctly separate populations identifying them as a “single population” under the questionable label “Native Americans”.
The second population (Eskimo-Aleut) “is known” to have arrived into the landmass some 10,000 years after the Amerindians and have clear origins in the Old World. The Eskimo-Aleut population:
(1) Has no connection to the Amerindians culturally, linguistically, genetically or politically.
(2) Has had no significant genetic impact on the Amerindian populations.
(3) Has always inhabited only a “sliver” of the landmass under study.
(4) Have been geographically isolated from the Amerindians from the time of their arrival, except at their point of entry.
(5) Who identifies with their Asian origins and clearly states they are NOT Amerindians.
(6) Resides on both sides of the Asian/American border.
(7) Are the population whose ancestry is being traced to somewhere/anywhere on the Asian continent.
As for the Amerindians, we are told we have been in the Americas for some 20,000 years, and before that we were hanging around for 20,000 years on some now sunken land mass called Beringia. So I guess that makes my ancestors Beringian. I’m cool with that.
My Nation is the Anishinaabek, and our history has been confirmed by science back to about 9,000 years. We know who our ancestor and sister populations are. And we know who we are NOT related to, regardless if our “haplotype letters” fall on the same branch.
I know my family ancestors back about 200 years and they were all Amerindian. And if some Caucasian cooties got into any of their ancestors before that, it has no significant impact on my life.
Nor does it make any difference whether there were 1 or 3+ Asian migration events; that didn’t impact on our lives in anyway.
Further studies may show something other than what is generally accepted today. But even without such a result further studies will tell us a great deal about migration within America.
Basically we don’t care about migration patterns. We know where our ancestral lands were and what little of those lands we have now. Nothing will change that.
I know my haplotype A2f1 is considered Amerindian. I have a “Status Card” from the Canadian government that confirms I am a “Registered” Indian. I have a “Blood Quantum” letter from my tribe stating, based on their records, I have 100% blood of the Indian race.
Based on the “Laws of the Day”, and since my family resided outside of Canada for longer than the 5 year imposed limit, we were ”enfranchised”. Meaning I lost my “Status” as a “Registered” Indian. Upon petitioning that standing, I was reinstated. But my records now show I am a “NON-INDIAN.
As always, it simply PETTY IDENTITY POLITICS.
"'...no evidence...'? Not even enough evidence (for you) to maintain objectivity, I see".
Well, how about directing us to some of this so-called 'evidence'.
"And I'll tell you something, Native American origins will turn out to be an extremely important key piece of the whole puzzle, of Human origins, because of its many unique characteristics. But there's no point studying it at all, if you're going to hold stubborn prejudices and preconceptions about it".
I have no 'stubborn prejudices and preconceptions' concerning American origins. I am merely commenting on what the evidence tells us. And, in spite of what you say, Native American origins already tells us a great deal about human origins.
"Based on the current bias, the studies keep looking for evidence that the Amerindians are 'Asian migrants'".
That is hardly a 'current bias'. People have considered that to be the case since the Americas were first discovered. Genetics has simply proved it so. Anyway, if not Asia where do you believe Native Americans came from? They did not evolve in America because no evidence at all for the presence of ancient humans has been discovered there.
"They keep saying they are trying to understand how the Americas were populated, which to some degree would imply they should be studying the Amerindians, who have no 'clearly identifiable' origins in the Old World".
I hesitate to call that a lie (I'll grant that you could be uninformed on the matter) but there is any amount of clearly identifiable origin in the Old World.
"The second population (Eskimo-Aleut) 'is known' to have arrived into the landmass some 10,000 years after the Amerindians and have clear origins in the Old World".
You are confused. No-one here would disagree with any of those 7 points.
"As for the Amerindians, we are told we have been in the Americas for some 20,000 years, and before that we were hanging around for 20,000 years on some now sunken land mass called Beringia. So I guess that makes my ancestors Beringian. I’m cool with that".
So what's the problem?
"And we know who we are NOT related to, regardless if our 'haplotype letters' fall on the same branch".
You 'know' that? How?
"I know my family ancestors back about 200 years and they were all Amerindian. And if some Caucasian cooties got into any of their ancestors before that, it has no significant impact on my life".
Now you're talking sense.
"As always, it simply PETTY IDENTITY POLITICS".
Yes. It does seem that your personal situation is a result of petty politics. But you are by no means the only individual, Native American or otherwise, to suffer the consequences of petty politics.
"Yes. It does seem that your personal situation is a result of petty politics. But you are by no means the only individual, Native American or otherwise, to suffer the consequences of petty politics."
So you admit that in his case "petty politics" is a valid complaint. Yet his case is common, not at all unusual for Native Americans. All for the purpose of denying us land and other material reparations. All because of ~greed.
On the contrary, Native Americans are practically the only group worldwide whose ethnic identity is systematically and deliberately distorted by a government's LEGAL definition. The same legal definition that has been applied to research into our genetic origins. The data has been repeatedly ~manipulated to fit tribal enrollment status (~legal definitions) of only a few tribes (and even fewer samples of those tribes). That's not science, that's politics. Politics has no rightful place in science. In fact it corrupts it, and corrupts all research touched by it.
The US and Canadian governments have long histories of manipulating NA ~identity for the purpose of DENIAL that we even exist. They can't do that to all of us at once, so they pick us off one or a few at a time. Not only individuals such as Niineta (whose case is actually very common, not unusual at all), but whole tribes have no "official" status, for the purpose of denying them just (and legal) reparations.
"1719 South Carolina Assembly in determining who should be "indian" for tax purposes (Indian slaves were adjudged at a lower tax rate than negro slaves..so the idea is to get as much tax as possible...remember, censuses were also intended to assess the taxable citizens in any given area, so race was determined by what the census enumerator felt that the person should be taxed as.) The Act passed that year stated "And for preventing all doubts and scruples that may arise what ought to be rated on mustees, mulattoes, etc. ALL SUCH SLAVES NOT ENTIRELY INDIAN SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED AS NEGRO. Inference: persons of Indian blood less than full-blood would be legally documented as "negro". "
What I just quoted, was from an Act of the South Carolina legislature.
As for genetic "cooties", I'm more concerned about the Hybrid species varieties (Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.) than the fully Human types.
"So you admit that in his case 'petty politics' is a valid complaint".
Yes. But there is no argument about his mt-DNA haplogroup. His problem is that he and his 'family resided outside of Canada for longer than the 5 year imposed limit'. Nothing to do with genes.
" All for the purpose of denying us land and other material reparations. All because of ~greed".
Native Americans are not the only ones with that problem. The Scottish Highlanders were pushed off their land through greed. The same with the Irish. But they have largely ceased complaining and got on with living.
"What I just quoted, was from an Act of the South Carolina legislature".
And that sort of injustice is widespread, and carries on. It is not confined to the USA or Canada.
"I'm more concerned about the Hybrid species varieties (Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.) than the fully Human types".
The usual idea of 'species' would mean that, because Neanderthals and Denisovans could form fertile hybrids with humans all three were the same species. Therefore any perceived difference between Neanderthal/human hybridisation and hybridisation between different 'fully human types' is artificial.
Terry, just because genocide is commonplace, doesn't make it alright. It's inexcusable. And for Native Americans, it never ended. Maybe others can accept injustice, but I won't.
As for species: I suppose you see no difference between Horses and Donkeys either (even though they have differing numbers of chromosomes). After all, they produce 'fertile' offspring.
A mule can breed offspring with either a donkey or a horse (just not with other mules). It just isn't done, because you wouldn't get an animal of predictable quality that way.
Also, it's not entirely impossible for mules to produce live offspring too; it's simply more rare. Hinnys are even rarer, but it's been recorded to have happened at least once in 500 years.
"just because genocide is commonplace, doesn't make it alright. It's inexcusable".
I agree completely. However it has been going on for thousands of years. The Bible records many cases, notably as the Israelites entered the 'Promised Land'.
"As for species: I suppose you see no difference between Horses and Donkeys either (even though they have differing numbers of chromosomes). After all, they produce 'fertile' offspring".
The offspring of the cross between horse and donkey are almost always infertile. So no doubt: separate species.
"A mule can breed offspring with either a donkey or a horse"
I don't think so. Where did you get that information? Once in 500 years is hardly sufficient grounds for claiming 'same species'. Anyway it is reasonably common for a hybrid to be able to breed with one or other parent animal. Usually just the female hybrid though. Female hybrids between different species are much more often fertile than are males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
"While there is no known instance of a male mule siring offspring, female mules have on very rare occasion given birth to viable offspring".
Most would still believe that is insufficiently common to call the horse and donkey the same species.
"And I was informed otherwise, by my grandmother, whose word I know I can trust. gg-Grandmother's ~photograph was also quite convincing. So, I have enough evidence to prove to myself that she was NA, daughter of a NA mother (and probably NA father, too). Her husband likewise, was probably NA (at least half, or full-blooded)."
This equals to: I cannot prove any connection to a Native American tribe. This is an insult to Native people's. You're White.
Post a Comment