RE: Kennewick Man and other subjects

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

After this response, Craven goes in my killfile. His
repeated ignorance, hypocrisy, and repition of insults
are below even APST's level.

> (p.xxxii) Preliminary "analysis" "shows" [that]
> "skeletal features" (which
> would those be?)are not "characeristic" of the local
> natives? Really? Have
> you read Chatters papers? Have you read about what
> was also found with those
> remains? Which "skeletal features" are you refering
> to exactly? Skull
> measurements? Nazis and 19th-century racist anthros
> were into skull shapes
> and measurements, are you assuming some kind of
> science there?

Yeah, they used electricity and rockets, too.

In any case, their "skull measurements" (along with
eye color/size, hair color/texture, and a range of
other things) were pretty much made up on the spot to
justify their philosophy. Unless you're willing to
claim that Native Americans (especially pre-Columbian)
*don't* sport such features as higher cheekbones, your
ignorance of basic physical anthropology is your own
damn problem. Read a book.

> Response (Jim C)How do the anthros "know" how far
> back Europeans go in north
> america given the problems with a) carbon-14 dating;

Carbon-14 dating is actually fairly accurate back to
about 30,000 bp, and no amount of blustering insults
will change that. It's thrown off by dates in the past
several hundred years (thanks to the development of
industrial capitalism), but by calibrating it with
other radiometric methods you can get a pretty clear
picture. In any case, it's irrelevant. The evidence in
question are Viking colonies in various parts of
Canada.

But I notice your hypocrisy; carbon-14 dating has
"problems" when applied to European colonies, but is
A-ok when dating KM or other Native remains.

> Response (Jim C) You are so pathetically ignorant it
> is difficult to know
> where to start. And you have a degree in Anthro?
> Families are parts of
> Clans; Clans are parts of Tribes; Tribes are parts
> of Nations.

Not universally true, but so what? Do you have a
point, other than calling me ignorant?

> For example,
> Among the Blackfoot we have the following major
> Tribes: Akainaa; Siksika;
> Apatohsipiikani; Amskaapipiikani. We would be
> hardpressed to "show" through
> DNA, beyond family or perhaps Clan (with unique DNA
> markers): a) Tribal
> Affiliation or b) Nation affiliation due to a whole
> lot of intermarriage
> across Tribes and Nations and due to the fact that
> only whites measure
> National affinity through blood-quantum. Then there
> is the whole concept of
> race itself? As Roland Chrisjohn once put it so
> eloquently: Since Chimps
> have approximately 98% of the same DNA as humans, do
> we count Chimps 98%
> human or perhaps 98% white or Blackfoot? How does
> DNA [ a biological
> construct] "show" or establish "cultural" [a social
> construct] affinity?

If anything here is evident, it's your ignorance of
genetics. Native Americans share some very similar
genetic characteristics, primarily in the
mitochondrial DNA (though this may be self-serving,
because mDNA is easiest to analyze). When I worked in
the genetics lab at PSU, I was working on a project
studying intermarriage on the east coast. There is
actually a segment of mDNA (the designation escapes me
at the moment) that is virtually unique to Native
Americans.

> Response (Jim C) What you really mean is that
> further e-mails that more
> conclusively show your patent ignorance and racism
> you will summarily
> ignore. You use (in parentheses as if that makes it
> alright) the term
> "Injuns" a patently racist and offensive term. If I
> talk about "the kikes"
> using parentheses to somehow suggest that is not
> really me talking, does
> that make the term any less offensive or any less
> inappropriate in the
> context in which it is being used?

Grasp at those straws! Keep it up!

> No, you are
> clearly a racist IMHO and a
> pathetically uninformed and ignorant one at that.

Clearly a racist? Because I think DNA analysis will
figure out who KM is? Whoa, the depth of your thinking
is way too extensive for mere mortals to perceive.

> You cite not one source
> for anything you have suggested or summarily
> asserted. My sources are there
> to be examined and countered/debated any time.

Nor have you actually denied any facts I've pointed
out. You've merely decided to take aim at me,
personally.

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/