Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119701853

From: John Conley <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:17:33 -0400
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Too bad my anthropoligist son couldn't wade into this. He feels this whole
area is 'weird science', and structures his work around communities rather
than genetics.

However, we did have a 4 hour discussion on 'native peoples', with my point
being that I am native somewhere, and that the bulk of our family were
involuntarily displaced from Scotland in favour of sheep.

Being a English/French bilingual family a discussion arose about the calling
of North American Amerindians "Les Sauvages". Note that the general
conclusion of linguists is that the word 'sauvage' is not translatable
directly to English, but denotes 'wild' or inhabitant of an inhospitable

Words mean different things to different people. In Canada we refer to the
First Nation Cree, or the Iriquois First Nation People. They are the ones
pushing this type of title.

Of course, they too have a settlement pattern, and as much as the Celts
ebbed and flowed through Europe, so did the North American first peoples,
fighting other tribes, taking their land, and moving from place to place.

The end result is that we are all descendants of some 'first nation' people,
somewhere, at some point.

It appears to me that what DNA studies will do is identify rough numbers of
groups that migrated from place to place in early years.

And perhaps, more importantly, it can eventually become a quick tool to
speed up the current research process, for the family histories that many of
us have contributed have become nothing but a cash cow for those who hold
our records in their vaults and sell volumes of data which may or may not be
totally meaningless to those who pay for it.

Once a person can find their family by using a quick internet search rather
than a subscription service we will all be better served.

________________________________end of that soapbox.

On 6/25/05, Peter A. Kincaid <> wrote:
> Well this subject is drifting to a rapid end. As noted
> below I said "most North Americans" not "all North
> Americans" nor not "all North Americans of aboriginal/
> native/indigenous ancestry." I also said "the terms that
> represent the first settlers" which was not limited to the
> terms aboriginal/native/indigenous. I was stating that
> for the most part Indian is now seen as a derogatory
> term. These people never did have a connection to India
> and the focus now is to change this. In my neck of the
> woods the preferred terms appear to be "First nations" and
> "First people.". I do appreciate your comment that some
> still do like being called Indian.
> Best wishes!
> Peter
> At 01:12 AM 25/06/2005, you wrote:
> >Peter:
> >
> >I'll spare everyone a response to your last desparate post. However,
> >amid the obfuscation, you wrote:
> >
> >"Most North Americans are just getting around to the terms that
> >represent the first settlers here instead of using the now derogatory
> >term Indian."
> >
> >I have several American Indian friends and know many others. ALL of
> >them call themselves "Indians," by preference, and pretty much dislike
> >the term, "Native American." So, you might want to re-think this one,
> >too.
> >
> >Ray Whritenour
> >
> >
> >==============================
> >New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your
> ancestors
> >at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:
> >
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

John Conley Sr.

This thread: