"Land Bridge" theory?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Exactly, Clubs.
That would open a Pandora's box of questions. Like, who was that guy? What happened to him and his kin? And, literally, the 100 billion dollar question: who owns the casinos on what moral grounds?

[Cognito]

who owns the casinos on what moral grounds?

Well, R/S, you got to the issue. Political economics is attempting to rule this debate and these discoveries. Welcome to reality; if the tribes discover that a group of Caucasians were here before them, it would be their worst nightmare.

[Minimalist]

Welcome to reality; if the tribes discover that a group of Caucasians were here before them, it would be their worst nightmare.

Why?

[Cognito]

Welcome to reality; if the tribes discover that a group of Caucasians were here before them, it would be their worst nightmare.

Having Caucasians here first takes away the Native American argument that "these are our our ancestral lands and it is our right to exercise political influence over them", at least for a tax free casino. It would really be difficult to keep granting native americans separate nation status in compensation for taking their ancestral lands when, in fact, THEY ALSO took the lands from someone else.

[clubs_stink]

Welcome to reality; if the tribes discover that a group of Caucasians were here before them, it would be their worst nightmare.

Why?

AH..well because the Native Americans base their claims (moral and otherwise) to certain lands and sort of self-determination and rule on the claim that they were here first, the land originally belonged to them first and therefore they are entitled...to reap millions each year in profits from the casinos??

Don't get me wrong..I am a Native American Melungeon Hebrew Scottish piece of American Pie..I cannot watch any depiction of the "removal" it rips my heart out (in the same way I holler outloud at ROB ROY).*with that confession I think we can just come out of the closet and admit I must be a Metrosexual*

Emotional issues aside I take a more practical view of the way things change over time. I understand intellectually that bad things happen during times of change. Things change....as Thomas Carlyle once wrote,
"Change, indeed, is painful; yet ever needful; and if Memory have its force and worth, so also has Hope."

I have emotional reactions to change, however I feel that my intellect is far stronger and certainly more willful and inquisitive. No matter what theory I may be ruminating on I don't look at too many ideas (with the exception of for instance the 6 day creation and man riding on dinosaurs and Noah taking Dino eggs into the ark) and say THAT NEVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY.

Speaking of which the only time we can say "that never happened that way" is when the evidence goes against the theory (such as a 6 day creation). I don't mean the INTERPRETATION of the evidence because you are always going to have some nutso out there saying he's got scientific proof that there was a 6 day creation.but the PREPONDERANCE of the physical evidence fairly evaluated and analyzed based on scientific principles not "feelings" and egos and FAITH..egads.

If you sat in court and listened to a DNA expert say "I have faith that the DNA matches" you would laugh his ass out of court. If you had a DNA expert say "the DNA matches because it always matches when I take the blood out a certain way" you would laugh his ass out of court...or..The DNA MATCHES because that is what I was taught in school" No charts, no 99.99 percent of the population are excluded..nothing scientific..but old stories and personal myths that seem to be the driving force behind..so much so that the faithful will stop at nothing..sort of like the DNA expert who made a match...look much better in court than it did in the microscope.

[clubs_stink]

Welcome to reality; if the tribes discover that a group of Caucasians were here before them, it would be their worst nightmare.

Having Caucasians here first takes away the Native American argument that "these are our our ancestral lands and it is our right to exercise political influence over them", at least for a tax free casino. It would really be difficult to keep granting native americans separate nation status in compensation for taking their ancestral lands when, in fact, THEY ALSO took the lands from someone else.

I don't look at is as a TAKE issue (although my native american left foot is twitching as I type this)...I think of it as MOVING. The folks got tired of where they were for one reason or another and they packed their bags and moved...without working out what they would do if they got there and someone else was already there. Thinking on how the euro settlers worked this issue out (bang bang you're dead) and humans being humans I really don't see any NA settlers as solving the issue much differently do you? If they couldnt get along with the people already THERE and they were "stronger" they just whacked the others and moved in. (HEH, Mayflower van lines..the big movers).

[Minimalist]

AH..well because the Native Americans base their claims (moral and otherwise) to certain lands and sort of self-determination and rule on the claim that they were here first, the land originally belonged to them first and therefore they are entitled...to reap millions each year in profits from the casinos??

Let me phrase the question another way, guys.


Let's say that an archaeological find is made in Israel. A chest is opened and in it is a deed giving the city of Jerusalem to Mohammad.

Do you think the Israelis would say to the Arabs "you're right" and withdraw their tanks?

The position of the Indians is based on the fact that they have treaties with the government giving them those reservations. Kennewick Man could be wearing a "Kiss Me- I'm Irish" t-shirt and it would not make the slightest bit of difference.

[clubs_stink]

AH..well because the Native Americans base their claims (moral and otherwise) to certain lands and sort of self-determination and rule on the claim that they were here first, the land originally belonged to them first and therefore they are entitled...to reap millions each year in profits from the casinos??

Let me phrase the question another way, guys.


Let's say that an archaeological find is made in Israel. A chest is opened and in it is a deed giving the city of Jerusalem to Mohammad.

Do you think the Israelis would say to the Arabs "you're right" and withdraw their tanks?

The position of the Indians is based on the fact that they have treaties with the government giving them those reservations. Kennewick Man could be wearing a "Kiss Me- I'm Irish" t-shirt and it would not make the slightest bit of difference.

Let me answer it this way...some people are still moving in other people refuse to acknowlege that Uncle Honus is also Brother Abraham. They wll fight until there isn't anything left to fight over...then the Muslims will suddenly realize that they've been praying to a pedophile and the Hebs are going to realize that Moses was Egytian and Abraham was jsut cheating on his wife...

What SHOULD happen versus what IS happening are two different issues. It SHOULD NOT matter whether or not the NAs were here FIRST, fact is, they were here when the Mayflower moving van got here and they were not given fair value for their property when the Gman kicked them out. THAT is what they should complain about...broken treaties (I think it would be hard to put a fair value in that time frame and mindset of a NA who simply said no one owns the land you cannot own it you belong to it..(like the Shosone belonges to the land in one area and the Apache in another) and the way the current residents in power belong to it (for a little while longer anyway*Illegal immigration just gets my goat.)

I like legal pat issues. Things you can learn watching Boston Legal or CTV

Kennewick man missed the moving van and plain and simple the NA population needs to focus solely on BROKEN DEALS and CHEATERY which is a legal issue versus "guess who's coming to dinner...or moving in next door" issue.

[Minimalist]

Translation of the above:


Not a single casino will close.


No one gives a shit about the Indians....we're talking money, here.

[Digit]

Man has always moved. The out of Africa idea is based on the belief that population pressure caused us to keep moving. Why?
Give people the time, money and opportunity they will still want to see what is on the other side of the hill.
It's just more difficult than it used to be.
The only aboriginal peoples still in their home lands that I'm aware of are the Andaman Islanders, the Australians and the Ainu.
All the rest of us are migrants.
On the subject of Israel, technically neither Israeli nor Arab has precedent, they are both migrants.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Thinking on how the euro settlers worked this issue out (bang bang you're dead) and humans being humans I really don't see any NA settlers as solving the issue much differently do you? If they couldnt get along with the people already THERE and they were "stronger" they just whacked the others and moved in.

Precisely! A genuine holocaust! Proving that white, Caucasian people are NOT the only ones capable of such atrocities. That, in fact, other races did it first! And that white, Caucasian people were the victims. Not the perpetrators!

That would be a shocker. America's own Da Vinci Code.

Add the casino aspect, and you have the makings of ginormous social unrest.
(No, of course casinos won't close. You don't kill the goose with the golden eggs. The big issue will become who receives the golden eggs. The indians won't give 'm up voluntarily: big trouble!).

Governments fear ginormous social unrest. And take steps to prevent it. Like burying troubling evidence that could cause it: Kennewick Man.
Ironically, the government and the 'NA' people have the same goal: bury Kennewick Man!
So I'm not holding my breath for those scientific analyses of him. Too many parties, with a lot of power, have a vested interest in concealing it.

And the longer this 'silence' about Kennewick Man lasts, the stronger the holocaust scenario becomes!

[Minimalist]

I think you give Americans way too much credit.

If Kennewick Man turns out to be German most people will say.."Huh? Did he win American Idol?"


The potential for this to cause "unrest" is basically zilch.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Too many parties, with a lot of power, have a vested interest in concealing it.

Sound familiar?
"JFK" ring a bell?
Among many, many similar instances all through history.
L'histoire se répète.
It's a recurring pattern.

[Minimalist]

If it turns out that Kennedy was shot by the Republican National Committee I don't think there would be civil unrest.

Hell...Republicans shoot each other in the face. Nothing new there.


I'm not sure what it would take to get Americans excited anymore. The apathy over here is palpable.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I'm not sure what it would take to get Americans excited anymore. The apathy over here is palpable.

No lo contendere.
And that's a fragile status quo.
One the puppeteers are permanently tweaking to balance.
Manipulating Kennewick Man is one such tweak.
"WMD" is another recent one you may recall?
More of an unplanned 'overtweak', if you ask me. Whoops! So some frantic mopping up is required. Seen the national debt figures?
But hey, the jury's still out...