Re: Oral History: Natives, Treaties, Courts, Kennewick

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Hunter Gray <hunterbadbear@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In doing a quick review of the battle dispatches of
> yesterday, I note that a
> sharp objection was raised to the concept and
> practice of Native oral
> history in the matter of Kennewick Man. Native
> tribal oral history is an
> always intricate complex, maintained by elders, and
> very carefully and
> painstakingly passed down from generation to
> generation in extremely
> accurate fashion.

And you know it's accurate exactly how? Archaeological
data has rarely backed it up. Certainly written
sources are few and far between north of the Rio
Grande. So how do you know how accurate it is?

Exactly in what way is "oral history" any different
from "legend" or "myth?"

The fact of the matter is, "oral history" is just one
big, long game of "telephone."

And whether the bourgeois courts find favor in it or
not means little to nothing to me. They also find
favor, depending on the jurisdiction, of polygraphs as
"lie detectors," which is another highly questionable
practice.

Adam


=====
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

And now, for something completely different.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/