GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-02 > 1012625960


From: "Allan S. Gleason" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT: Native American Indian testing
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:59:20 -0700
References: <3C5A531F.D335E335@route66web.com> <129.bbb24d6.298ad9f5@aol.com> <4.1.20020131191212.046189c0@wells.org> <4.1.20020131202229.046a4100@wells.org> <3.0.6.32.20020201104332.00919b40@ishipress.com> <000701c1ab41$146323b0$85257041@luthermcg> <4.1.20020201105144.03ec4440@wells.org> <4.1.20020201190605.047f83c0@wells.org>




"Orin R. Wells" wrote:

> today I happened to notice that she has two different colored eyes. One is light
> blue. But the other is the kind of thing that throws all the neat gene theory
> that predicts the eye color out the window. Her right eye is about 70% brown with
> an almost pie shaped insert that matches the blue eye. Having each eye a
> different color give the theory enough trouble. But having one eye that is partly
> brown and partly blue - someone want to explain that to me in terms of the limited
> selections available in Terry's explanation?

I'm a cat person myself so don't know much about dogs, but there is a very popular
breed of white, wolf-like dog which routinely had one blue eye and one brown eye.
Hey! DNA is DNA.

> In my travels I have seen some startling traits reflective of other parts of the
> world. But, let me ask you this. What does an Englishman look like? Do you
> REALLY think anyone can be stereotyped based on their appearance?

I don't have to travel, they are us! I live in California, remember? I can tell
the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Phillipino . . .or even an
Englishman - (more by the way he speaks that strange version of English! :>) )

> Features don't cut it for tracing relationships.

What was it I said regarding my granddaughters? Anybody want to bet on their DNA?


> It seems to me that only DNA can sort out the variances and migrations of our
> Indian population. I don't think that we need to dig up old bones to determine
> who was where when. Let our tribes keep their treasures and bones.<<
>
> We will probably have no choice in the matter with the prevailing laws. But I
> think it is in the interest of science to be able examine these remains when they
> are found.

Of course it is in the interest of science to cross every t and dot every i, but
ONLY if permitted by those who legally own the remains and have jurisdiction. Being
of a liberal bent, especially upon people's rights - even lowly Indians - I think,
should have jurisdiction over both Government or science in these matters!

> It is quite likely that what is often found has nothing to do with the tribe
> claiming the area. By not examining the remains we miss an opportuntiy to
> understand more about how own history and theirs. It is unfortunate for science
> that the Native Americans have traditions that prevent fooling with ancient
> skeletons. But since they do, we really need to honor the traditions.

You're right Orin. Yes, we miss opportunities because we have pushed around and
bullied our indigenous people, many of whom by now are only 1/8th indigenous - or
even less, until they use any pretext to mess us up. I think when we get off of our
high horses and treat people like they should be treated we won't have any problems
with bones, burial grounds or anything else. We get what we deserve.

I love science, but it doesn't have any inalienable rights - not one!

Allan


This thread: