GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-07 > 1059555687


From: dfeedspm <>
Subject: [DNA] Re: GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest V03 #496
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 05:01:27 -0400 (EDT)


"However, then your enter into a long diatribe
> as to your opinions about "enrolled" Native Americans -"


David,
This has nothing to do with enrolement, and everything to do with "Indian" self classification and self determination, there are many historical attempts at eurocentric classification of who is a "Indian", utilizing classification methdologies that are
not "NA" . DNA Geneology, has potential as one of those methods, in my opinion.

I don't know personally, many "NA's" that are lining up at the ole DNA Geneology well of knowledge, to take tests that allow them to determing their percentages of "NA".

That smacks of "blood quantum" genocide parameters and governmental classification reduction methdologies.

What troubles me most is that you on one hand appear to agree
> the the rights of indigenous people is not a topic suitable for
> this list - amen. However, then your enter into a long diatribe
> as to your opinions about "enrolled" Native Americans -
> basically entering into precisely the sort of dialogue you
> complain bitterly about - I don't get it, do you?

I am not the one that complained to Ann about this, I agree that rights of indigenious people should not be a topic on this list.
My former posts on this topic were not related to "the rights of indigenious people", they were related to factors that would allow inferals into why individuals with no documented 'NA" are showing DNA test results of "NA".

I do think that since "NA" percentage, realted to DNA Geneology is a topic that comes up over and over, then it is a valid topic for discussion on this list.

As a scope statement I offer the following:
"Individuals that are DNA genetic scientists, should realise that there are moral implications to their work, in respect to indigenious people". These implications should be debated within the realm of DNA geneology.


Another statement:
Individuals should have the intestinal fortitude to directly address issues on the open list, instead of using passive agressive manipulation techniques behind the scenes, in attempts to shut people up.
If anyone has any problems with what I post, then state it in the open.

David

From: David Faux
To:
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: GENEALOGY-DNA-D Digest V03 #495

> To one David from another David:
>
> First I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with much of
> what you say - I was about to "unsubscribe" if I saw another DAR
> posting.
>
> In my opinion, however, you are quite wrong about the DNAPrint
> test and everyone "dissing" it. Last night I included
> information that indicated cross - validation between the
> DNAPrint test and genealogy. There is much to be learned about
> this particular measure - its just that some people seem to
> disconect their mouth from their brain in discussing the test.
>
> What troubles me most is that you on one hand appear to agree
> the the rights of indigenous people is not a topic suitable for
> this list - amen. However, then your enter into a long diatribe
> as to your opinions about "enrolled" Native Americans -
> basically entering into precisely the sort of dialogue you
> complain bitterly about - I don't get it, do you?


This thread: