tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2933209210228369162..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Petty identity politics indeed, or, holding a grudge is no excuse for anti-scienceDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70872663866279879512013-07-07T21:58:20.660+03:002013-07-07T21:58:20.660+03:00"And I was informed otherwise, by my grandmot..."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)." <br /><br />This equals to: I cannot prove any connection to a Native American tribe. This is an insult to Native people's. You're White. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10879752734869436551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77743725182854688652012-07-26T05:22:55.802+03:002012-07-26T05:22:55.802+03:00"just because genocide is commonplace, doesn&..."just because genocide is commonplace, doesn't make it alright. It's inexcusable". <br /><br />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'. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />The offspring of the cross between horse and donkey are almost always infertile. So no doubt: separate species. <br /><br />"A mule can breed offspring with either a donkey or a horse" <br /><br />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. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule<br /><br />"While there is no known instance of a male mule siring offspring, female mules have on very rare occasion given birth to viable offspring". <br /><br />Most would still believe that is insufficiently common to call the horse and donkey the same species.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85247776754796128872012-07-25T18:15:53.315+03:002012-07-25T18:15:53.315+03:00Terry, just because genocide is commonplace, doesn...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40794944107732826372012-07-25T05:54:55.401+03:002012-07-25T05:54:55.401+03:00"So you admit that in his case 'petty pol..."So you admit that in his case 'petty politics' is a valid complaint". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />" All for the purpose of denying us land and other material reparations. All because of ~greed". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"What I just quoted, was from an Act of the South Carolina legislature". <br /><br />And that sort of injustice is widespread, and carries on. It is not confined to the USA or Canada. <br /><br />"I'm more concerned about the Hybrid species varieties (Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.) than the fully Human types". <br /><br />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.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26156760886334266232012-07-24T00:43:45.134+03:002012-07-24T00:43:45.134+03:00"Yes. It does seem that your personal situati..."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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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". "<br /><br />What I just quoted, was from an Act of the South Carolina legislature.<br /><br />As for genetic "cooties", I'm more concerned about the Hybrid species varieties (Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.) than the fully Human types.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70927827609527560292012-07-22T02:34:34.879+03:002012-07-22T02:34:34.879+03:00"'...no evidence...'? Not even enough..."'...no evidence...'? Not even enough evidence (for you) to maintain objectivity, I see". <br /><br />Well, how about directing us to some of this so-called 'evidence'. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"Based on the current bias, the studies keep looking for evidence that the Amerindians are 'Asian migrants'". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />You are confused. No-one here would disagree with any of those 7 points. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />So what's the problem? <br /><br />"And we know who we are NOT related to, regardless if our 'haplotype letters' fall on the same branch". <br /><br />You 'know' that? How? <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />Now you're talking sense. <br /><br />"As always, it simply PETTY IDENTITY POLITICS". <br /><br />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.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44294914348856624932012-07-21T02:15:01.324+03:002012-07-21T02:15:01.324+03:00terryt said...
"If so, there's no need t...terryt said...<br /><br />"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".<br /><br />That’s the issue “BIAS”. Based on the current bias, the studies keep looking for evidence that the Amerindians are “Asian migrants”. <br /><br />“ALL” of the worlds’ populations are migrants and most migrated through Asia. So there will not be any major breakthrough in knowledge there.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The first problem is they “DON’T KNOW” who they’re studying.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />(1) Has no connection to the Amerindians culturally, linguistically, genetically or politically.<br />(2) Has had no significant genetic impact on the Amerindian populations.<br />(3) Has always inhabited only a “sliver” of the landmass under study.<br />(4) Have been geographically isolated from the Amerindians from the time of their arrival, except at their point of entry.<br />(5) Who identifies with their Asian origins and clearly states they are NOT Amerindians.<br />(6) Resides on both sides of the Asian/American border.<br />(7) Are the population whose ancestry is being traced to somewhere/anywhere on the Asian continent.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />Nor does it make any difference whether there were 1 or 3+ Asian migration events; that didn’t impact on our lives in anyway. <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, it simply PETTY IDENTITY POLITICS.Niinetahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16915175155778576367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78710421642811542012012-07-20T23:29:55.561+03:002012-07-20T23:29:55.561+03:00"I believe it because there is no evidence ot..."I believe it because there is no evidence otherwise."<br /><br />"...no evidence..."? Not even enough evidence (for you) to maintain objectivity, I see.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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'.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28527128640851907642012-07-20T07:02:10.258+03:002012-07-20T07:02:10.258+03:00"If any 'European' (ie Caucasoid) wom..."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'". <br /><br />I'm not talking about women joining before 1492. I'm talking about European women joining after that date. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />I don't see what your problem is. No-one would disagree with that. <br /><br />"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')". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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? <br /><br />"And there's nothing 'petty' about attacking a person's identity. It's very ~personal". <br /><br />We (collectively) are attacking your claim, not your identity. <br /><br />"You yourself have stated (on my own blog) that 'mtDNA cannot establish a person's ethnicity'. Yet that is exactly what you do" <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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?" <br /><br />I believe it because there is no evidence otherwise. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90586306192040240272012-07-20T01:10:04.330+03:002012-07-20T01:10:04.330+03:00"It is quite possible to have non-American mt..."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'."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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").<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40013085954181040572012-07-19T07:17:04.433+03:002012-07-19T07:17:04.433+03:00"Get over your fantasy, Kennewick Man is NOT ..."Get over your fantasy, Kennewick Man is NOT European". <br /><br />I haven't said anything about Kennewick Man here. <br /><br />"Regardless of where you place the border it still doesn’t make the Eskimo-Aleut populations Amerindian". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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?" <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"Because they know the mtDNA A, B, C and D found there are not closely related to the Amerindians mtDNA". <br /><br />But in each case they a just a single haplogroup within East Asian haplogroups. In turn: <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61113479063502684242012-07-18T22:53:55.551+03:002012-07-18T22:53:55.551+03:00This debate has confirmed what many Ethicists have...This debate has confirmed what many Ethicists haved warned about.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-366974893523500352012-07-18T22:27:26.873+03:002012-07-18T22:27:26.873+03:00What Deinekes and other authoritarian types have s...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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25084545793219508042012-07-18T20:13:56.181+03:002012-07-18T20:13:56.181+03:00terryt said...
• You’re distorting things here. N...terryt said...<br /><br />• You’re distorting things here. Nobody has said that Native Americans are European, Asian, or anything other than Native Americans. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />• "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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />• That's complete rubbish. Surely Native Americans mt-DNA A, B, C and D is related, no matter how distantly, with Asian mt-DNA.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Anishinaabewaki.jpg<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />• And that comparatively recent borderland expansion is what divides American and Asian haplogroups from each other.<br /><br />Regardless of where you place the border it still doesn’t make the Eskimo-Aleut populations Amerindian.Niinetahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16915175155778576367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5274826773513967172012-07-17T22:33:48.801+03:002012-07-17T22:33:48.801+03:00I meant to say "less" than (not "mo...I meant to say "less" than (not "more" than) 94%. I'm at least 1/16 to 1/8 blood quanta.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18825488910815538382012-07-17T06:17:23.326+03:002012-07-17T06:17:23.326+03:00"DNA / genetics hasn't disproved our fami..."DNA / genetics hasn't disproved our family history, not by a long shot" <br /><br />Obviously not disproved it to you, but to everyone else it has. <br /><br />"My mtDNA has no published exact matches ANYWHERE in the world" <br /><br />But it has very close relations, and none of them Native American, as you admit: <br /><br />"its ~group (although not my own specific subclade) is most commonly found in present populations of Western and Northern Eurasia" <br /><br />Surely that should ring alarm bells for your belief it is Native American in your particular case. <br /><br />"My mtDNA is even older (phylogenetically) than A, B, C, D or X". <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />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.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35688054472650892192012-07-17T03:43:03.751+03:002012-07-17T03:43:03.751+03:00As Dr. Sykes pointed out in his latest book, DNA U...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. <br /><br />You are absolutely correct Dienekes in describing the issue as "identity politics"Mark Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03792117663748801194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73689149051309335592012-07-17T01:28:00.032+03:002012-07-17T01:28:00.032+03:00">=94%"
Although it's probably s...">=94%"<br /><br />Although it's probably somewhat more than 94%, it's not so much the percentage of total DNA that counts, but the TYPE inherited.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />That's also why mtDNA is the main issue for me, even though I realize I've also inherited other NA DNA.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24656380824587851772012-07-17T00:42:31.041+03:002012-07-17T00:42:31.041+03:00Denial of a person or a people's cultural or e...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53049780814412063112012-07-17T00:32:23.849+03:002012-07-17T00:32:23.849+03:00Yes, I consider myself NA based on my Grandmother&...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.<br /><br />I can be NA ~and other ancestry, too. It is quite common, in fact.<br /><br />Most "white" (or even mulatto) ladies didn't wear traditional Cherokee garb and hairstyle back in the early 20th century.<br /><br />My family isn't stupid, crazy, or liars. Most are of above average intelligence, and educated professional or business types.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You haven't shown how my mtDNA is not or cannot be NA.<br /><br />All you've shown is your arrogance and bias.<br /><br />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.shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36909758762814150932012-07-17T00:01:03.150+03:002012-07-17T00:01:03.150+03:00@shenandoah
So, basically you consider yourself &...@shenandoah<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"identity politics" indeed.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47539205451012062682012-07-16T23:52:21.093+03:002012-07-16T23:52:21.093+03:00"preferred illusion."
Our very real anc..."preferred illusion."<br /><br />Our very real ancestry is a "preferred illusion" in your mind? LOL. Are you jealous?<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33120460882363401002012-07-16T22:51:28.645+03:002012-07-16T22:51:28.645+03:00"Science is not magic"
That's my po..."Science is not magic"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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'?shenandoahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09220865518565583662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21384865690185139262012-07-16T01:26:24.736+03:002012-07-16T01:26:24.736+03:00@Val,
"I have a saying that I teach to my col...@Val,<br />"I have a saying that I teach to my college students "the number one predator to Native Americans has always been white anthropologists". "<br /><br />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.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91030862054987973452012-07-15T22:15:50.866+03:002012-07-15T22:15:50.866+03:00I think i know the answer: Spiritualism. The occid...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".<br />Red man: "No, We come from Here"<br />Scientist: "Just look how similar your faces are, how can you deny it?"<br />Red man: "No, our ancestors come from Here"<br /><br />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. <br /><br />And by the way, this apply to Europeans in Europe.Calculushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00968975589327744087noreply@blogger.com