Controversial Remains

A U.S. Appeals court had decided that scientists can go ahead and study the bones of so-called "Kennewick Man," despite objections from Indian tribes and the federal government. (The feds and the tribes can still appeal further.) The Indians say the 9,000 year old skeleton should be tribal property, under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, even though there is no apparent connection between it and modern tribes in America. For background on this controversy, see this piece I wrote for Reason back in Dec. 2002.

Comments

[brendan]

I insist that no ancient graves in Germany ever be dug up, because they might contain remains of my ancestors. It is my right. Screw "science."

[Jeff]

It's more than science - the entire concept of "native" american hangs on this.

[Ron Hardin]

Obviously they didn't think Kennewick Man might have been a judge.

[dhex]

while i think they're wrong about this particular case (nobody can lay claim to something that old, written/oral/dvd tradition or not) there's certainly a case to be made for tribal ownership of tribal artifacts.

[White Male]

" even though there is no apparent connection between it and modern tribes in America."

Meaning that the "Native" Americans are guilty of GENOCIDE and IMPERIALISM!!!! Free Kennowick Man instead of Mumia!

As a white male it is nice to throw guilt at other people for once.

[dhex]

only an idiot would feel guilty about things like that in the first place.

[nobody]

The tribes involved simply wish to preserve one of their myths that they have been on this continent "forever." With that myth goes certain priveleges and rights that "pale face" doesn't have (gambling casinos, tax exemptions, etc.).

dhex -
As far as "tribal ownership of tribal artifacts" goes, does that mean I have a claim to bones dug up in Scotland? Or does that right extend only to non-white "natives"?

[Madog]

The whole grave-protection thing goes back to the odd process by which we conquered the independent peoples of N. America but had to create some legal fictions to make it look good. So we end up with all sorts of wierd situations like this.

[dhex]

nobody: i don't think anyone in a million years would trade their life as a "paleface" for life on a reservation. unless they were a moron.

there's plenty to make fun of and otherwise despise in the sort of reflexive left-wing simpleton view of history. feeling guilt for having been born a certain color is retarded - equally the actions of the u.s. government and its citizens, or europeans in general somehow having moral weight on those citizens today (through an act of divine providence perhaps?) is beyond stupid. boiling down a complex set of cultures and religious attitudes into a new age, earth-lovin', eternally peaceful band of defenseless puppies is a heinous act of cultural necrophilia.

but there's plenty to despise in the reverse attitude - since we're talking about a conflict which only ended 150 years ago...three generations or so...and has had a painfully obvious negative impact to this day, with continued mismanagement and legal abuse by the BIA and u.s. government since.

to somehow shake this off as solely a form of manipulation is rootin-tootin retarded.

do you really begrudge them tax exemption and gambling? (what their leaders end up doing with that revenue aside for the moment)

[nobody]

Mr. Hex,
The Injuns in my neck of the woods live far better than I. Shared gambling revenues have made many of them very wealthy indeed. I would happily join their "reservation" for a piece of that pie. But I am prohibited, because I cannot prove I have 1/64 Indian ancestry.

By the way, no American Indian is forced to remain on a reservation. My ancestors were still in Europe when the west was closed (1890). They chose to come here. American Indians have the same choices. Many choose to remain ignorant and destitute, finding some solace in blaming whitey for their problems. It's the tragedy of tribalism.

[joe]

'As far as "tribal ownership of tribal artifacts" goes, does that mean I have a claim to bones dug up in Scotland? Or does that right extend only to non-white "natives"?'

I don't think you know the backstory here. Anthropologists were literally digging up the gravesites of living people's grandfathers, without permission from their descendants. There is absolutely zero possibility that Scottish graves from 1900 would be disturbed like that. Not because of any law, but because of a broad understanding of decency and common sense (the type of social arrangements libertarians prefer, btw). The remains of American Indians were being treated like the bones of animals or like rocks, in marked contrast to the way the gravesites of white people are treated. The decency and common sense didn't extend to people who weren't white, so a formal legal solution had to be created.

Now, the application of that law to Kenniwick Man raises all sorts of questions, because 9000 year old European sites are dug up all the time. The decency/common sense prohibition lapses as you approach a millenium, but the formal law contains no such - er - grandfathering.

[dhex]

so basically you're just jealous?

interesting.

i think you heavily discount the effect such a history has on populations - for example, i would pay good money to watch more than a few conservatives, rush limbaugh coming to mind right away, tell a jew to "just get over it."

regardless of that jew's actual relationship to the holocaust, that sort of behavior is not condoned nor acceptable in our culture, due to many factors. but it would be entertaining nonetheless.

again, i think a lot of this stems from some sort of misunderstood sense of identity and weird judeo-christian guilt hangovers, perhaps, an overwhelming sense of responsibilty for things we're not responsible for.

[nobody]

Mr D,
I certainly don't condone digging up cemetaries.
But a 9000-year-old bone found in a lake bed or stream bank can hardly be said to "belong" to anyone. But then, I'm not a tribalist. I'm quite happy to think for myself. I don't require a tribal elder (or priest or rabbi or witch doctor) to tell me what to believe.

[nobody]

And no, I'm not jealous. I've earned what I have, and it's not due to any tribal membership.

[fyodor]

Nobody,

I would think that American Indians' having been here first is sufficient for their claims on limited sovereignty as opposed to their having been here "forever." And you don't dispute they were here first, do you?

That said, and Joe's valuable background info notwithstanding, this strikes me as a classic case of symbolic power struggle, which is unfortunately the arena in which American Indian activists are most active in.

[Dan]

since we're talking about a conflict which only ended 150 years ago...three generations or so

Women typically give birth at the age of 50 where you live? As the term is typically used, 150 years would be between five and seven generations, not three.

In contrast, the Holocaust happened two generations ago, and there are still people alive today who lived through it. Which is why you don't see the kind of thing you'd apparently "pay good money to see":

i would pay good money to watch more than a few conservatives, rush limbaugh coming to mind right away, tell a jew to "just get over it."

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever heard a Jew complain that the Holocaust is to blame for the fact that he's poor, uneducated, and/or addicted to drugs or alcohol.

[Don]

"The whole grave-protection thing goes back to the odd process by which we conquered the independent peoples of N. America but had to create some legal fictions to make it look good. So we end up with all sorts of wierd situations like this."

What was odd about this?

We were doing this . . . and having this done to us, throughout recorded history in the Old World. And the same was going on in the New World.

Nothing particularly odd, except that the conqest in North America was spread out over a longer period, because the English colonies and later the United States didn't finish the buisness up front like the Spanish and most other invaders do.

[dhex]

nobody, i agree with you on the older stuff. but i think much younger remains being under the control of the people who descended from them is reasonable as well.

dan: 150 years isn't a very long period of time in my mind. five to seven generations then. while repercussions don't excuse current events, they do have an effect on the situation. and continue to do...the sorry state of the BIA is the most obvious example.

the politics of the activists involved piss people off, but they have a strong case in spite of it.

what people complain about doesn't have anything to do with who should have control over what artifacts. it's not about the BIA either...i'd just rather see local determination in these cases where a clear connection between the population and the items exists.

[joe]

I agree, dhex. That said, the testimony I've seen from Native Americans on K. Man makes me think it is less about "that's my pappy" and more about not wanting scientific evidence to screw up literal understandings of their creation myths.

They should just look at the tenacity of anti-evolutionists and chill.

[Dan]

dan: 150 years isn't a very long period of time in my mind.

It's a long *enough* time, whether or not you think it's "a long time". More than long enough for people to get over what happened -- particularly considering that "what happened" not only didn't happen to them, but didn't happen to anyone they ever knew, or to anyone who everyone they ever knew, knew.

[linsee]

fyodor asked, "And you don't dispute they were here first, do you?" but that is precisely what is in dispute. Kennewick man appears anatomically distinct from any modern Indian populations and if closer study bears out that first impression then no, contemporary tribes were NOT here first. Why do you think there are such desperate attempts to prevent the study being done?

Who was here is a different question (at first the people who looked at the skeleton thought he was Caucasian, but began to doubt that after the age of the bones was determined).

[dhex]

dan, i see yer point. but i disagree.

there are plenty of american jews who were born in the last 20 years. none of their relatives died in the holocaust, but nobody in their right mind is going to go up to them in public and tell them to get over it, regardless of the lack of merit of their complaint or the inanity of comparing one situation to another.

the native americans need better PR - and a few dozen more museums - than they've gotten, that's for sure. maybe the casino revenue will help jumpstart that.

maybe it makes me a dick - or even a communist! - but some tax exemption is probably the least the u.s. government could do.

[joe]

Dan, while the crimes committed against their forebearers are certainly in the past, the structural inequities resulting from those crimes remain a part of many American Indians' contemporary existance.

I know it's heresy to say so around here, but the situation you're born into plays a large role in defining the opportunities you will have in life, and the situation your children will be born into.

[Dan]

there are plenty of american jews who were born in the last 20 years. none of their relatives died in the holocaust, but nobody in their right mind is going to go up to them in public and tell them to get over it, regardless of the lack of merit of their complaint or the inanity of comparing one situation to another.

I would have no hesitation telling a 20-year-old Jewish guy to stop ranting about the Holocaust -- should they ever do so. None of the Jewish friends I've had have been inclined to rant about something they have no more experience with than I do. This is not to say that they think the Holocaust is no big deal; only that they don't act like *they* are owed something because of it.

Sharing a race with someone, or with a group, that had horrible atrocities committed on them, doesn't give you a claim on sympathy with regard to those atrocities. Jews who lived through the Holocaust suffered; Jews born *after* the Holocaust *heard* about suffering. The same holds true with Indians and the various atrocities committed upon them in North, Central, and South America.

maybe it makes me a dick - or even a communist! - but some tax exemption is probably the least the u.s. government could do.

Why should the US Government take money from me -- a person who did NOTHING wrong, and whose ancestors did not participate in any of the acts of oppression visited upon the Indians -- and give it to some schmuck simply because that schmuck's great-great-great-great-grandfather got run off his land by the US Cavalry? Here's a better suggestion: he can work for a fuckin' living like the rest of us. He can have his check when Germany, France, and England send me MY checks for the land MY ancestors, at various points, had stolen from THEM. :p

The notion that what happened to the Indians is uniquely bad and deserving of repayment is laughable. Every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth is descended from people who were massacred, robbed, and driven off their land countless times. Grow up, people! Live in the now.

the structural inequities resulting from those crimes remain a part of many American Indians' contemporary existance

On average, American Indians who live on reservations are dramatically poorer and less-educated than the average American. This is true. They are, however, dramatically richer, longer-lived, and better educated than they would have been, had Europeans not taken over North America. They enjoy greater quality of life, a more peaceful existance, and greater equality between men and women. As a society, we owe them nothing.