Hundreds of
Native American Indian Links in 98 categories!!
Will the Real Native American Please Stand
Up?
by Charles
Kesler
September 4, 1997
All across the country students are heading back
to school, where in their history courses (especially in grade school and
high school) they will learn something, though seldom much, about Columbus'
discovery of America and the subsequent European colonization of the New
World. For the past two or three decades, textbooks (and the historians,
like Kirkpatrick Sale, who write or influence them) have often reduced this
complex story to a bloody tragedy -- a vast act of imperialism or, worse
still, of slow-motion genocide against Native Americans and their indigenous
culture.
Columbus didn't "discover" America, the politically correct line goes; Native
Americans (don't call them Indians) knew about it all along.
But now this revisionist history may itself be in need of revision. And therein
lies an interesting tale of politics, in and out of school, that every student
and parent should note.
Who came first?
The tale begins in Kennewick, Washington, where a couple of college students
stumbled upon a human skull on the muddy bank of the Columbia River. Subsequent
digging turned up most of a human skeleton. James Chatters, a local forensic
anthropologist under contract with the county government, examined the remains
and sent them out for radiocarbon dating, which showed them to be 9,200 years
old, give or take a century. This made them one of the few and, incidentally,
one of the best preserved "Paleo-American" skeletons in existence.
Trouble was, just enough of these skeletons had been found to begin to cast
doubt on the prevailing scientific view of the first American. For the common
denominator of Kennewick Man and the other ancient skeletons, to quote the
Los Angeles Times, was that "the oldest of the skeletons appear to
have Eurasian features, as opposed to the northern Asian features, common
to modern Native Americans, that are characteristic of later-date remains.
Now, the conventional scientific wisdom is that American Indians, if I may
use that term, descend from northern Asians who crossed over a land bridge
that stretched from Siberia to Alaska more than 11,500 years ago. But Kennewick
Man and his contemporaries appear to be of different ethnic origins than
these putative first immigrants; and so there is a real possibility that
there were multiple migrations (by different peoples at different times)
to the American continent.
What's more, no remains of these supposedly pioneering northern Asian immigrants
have been discovered. So actually the earliest human skeletal remains seem
to be of different stock from today's Indians or their purported northern
Asian forebears, which means that modern Native Americans may not be descended
from the original Americans, after all.
Once again, a nation of
immigrants
The point is academic, in a way, because whoever the original Americans were,
they were not native. If the archaeologists are right, the first Americans
were immmigrants from the other side of the world. The only question is whether
they hailed from northern or southern Asia. Or then again, maybe from Europe
or Eurasia? For in fact, respected researchers claim that Kennewick Man's
and other ancient Americans' skulls have features that resemble contemporary
Caucasians, archaic Norsemen, or the Ainu, the mysterious early inhabitants
of the Japanese islands who had, to quote the Los Angeles Times again,
"European faces, wavy hair, and thick beards." So the first "native" Americans
may have been Europeans!
Today's Indians don't like this possiblity. A spokesman for the Umatilla
tribe, who claim Kennewick Man (they call him Oid-pa-ma-na-ti-thayt, or Ancient
One) as an ancestor, disparages the archaeologists' conclusions and suggests
instead that Native American tribes were created here, as their traditions
insist. Of course, this is how the ancient Athenians thought about themselves
too, that they were "autochthonous," literally born from the land of the
city, with no human parents. Many ancient peoples and tribes traced their
origins in this way to "Mother Earth," as it were.
Though the Indians' claim is as unlikely as the Athenians', it has led to
a lawsuit, pitting the Umatilla, who wish to bury their dead ancestor (so
they believe), against the scientists, who wish to study Kennewick Man further.
But the larger political issue here concerns modern American liberalism,
which has an insatiable urge to identify or invent historical victims, preferably
ethnic or cultural minorities, against whom the majority of Americans allegedly
have sinned.
Revising revisionist
history
No one can doubt that sins, grievous sins, were committed against the Indian
tribes by the restless European settlers on this continent. Far from denying
orminimizing this fact, our contemporary history textbooks dwell on it. Somewhat
lost in their analysis is that there was plenty of sinning against the British
and white American settlers, too; and withal, that the Indian tribes did
not exactly eschew violence against each other. There were many broken alliances,
raids, thefts, wars, rapes, human sacrifices, and other atrocities among
them, even as there were pride, honor, friendship, independence and eloquence.
But the former facts detract from the Indians' victimhood, and so are hardly
mentioned.
Violence and war are endemic to the human condition, but wars can be fought
in more or less civilized ways, and above all, wars can be fought for more
or less civilized ends. The ultimate justification for the European colonization
of the New World, and particularly for the British settling of North America,
was that they culminated in the establishment of better, more just forms
of government here than those that had existed before or had any prospect
of developing. For similar reasons, the British might themselves be thankful
today for having been conquered by the Romans, who brought with them, in
addition to lamentable crimes and follies, the enduring and happy gifts of
law, philosophy, and human religion, to name only a few.
Theses broader considerations will probably not be raised in many textbooks
and classrooms, but they should be. Perhaps an enterprising student will
be inspired to raise his hand and ask, Teacher, what happened to Kennewick
Man's tribe -- to the peoples who may have come over to North America alongside
the migrating tribes of northern Asia? An honest answer is that we're not
sure. His tribe may have died out naturally, or may have evolved very different
characteristics over time, or may have been conquered and massacred by the
forebears of modern Native Americans.
All that we know for sure is that he had a spearpoint lodged in his pelvic
bone. So all was not in Matthew Arnold's phrase, "sweetness and light" in
his world, any more than it is in our own. Despite the millions separating
us, there is thus poignancy to Kennewick Man's life and death. But that there
is more sweetness and light in our world than in his, is a fact for which
we should be profoundly grateful -- a happy fact that today's students, and
especially teachers, should regard as an awesome development to be explained,
even if they cannot quite bring themselves to celebrate it.
Charles Kesler is associate
professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a regular contributor
to IntellectualCapital.com.
Photo: 1996, Jamie Chatters. All rights reserved.
9/4/97 Andrew
abrecher@erols.com
Nice straw man here. Would Dr. Kesler care to tell us what small fraction
of textbooks actually used in classrooms really describe Columbus's discovery
of America anything like a "bloody tragedy"? Would anyone care to discuss
the real problems in American education instead of blowing completely out
of proportion a few isolated instances of "revisionism" or "political
correctness"? Something more than anecdotal evidence would be nice.
9/4/97 Bill Jackson
So some early immigrants to North America may have hailed from Europe. Who
cares? This theory is a faulty justification for taking back the continent
from later immigrants of Asian descent. I think the United States is a great
country, an experiment in government like the world had never seen, the envy
of so many other societies. But I don't think our collective pride should
distract us from the darker aspects of our history, including the genocide
of so-called Native Americans. Of course the various tribes were no strangers
to violence, but that doesn't mean that a government policy of dislocation
and slaughter based on supposed racial and cultural superiority is beyond
reproach. Today's history books give students plenty of reasons to appreciate
the nation's past, and the spectre of "revisionist history" is blown way
out of proportion here and in similar rants. Assuming that modern ends justify
historical means is the true revisionism, rendering history little more than
an exercise in statist propaganda.
9/4/97 Andrew Walsh
walsh@whqvax.picker.com
Hmm, so it's really OK to commit genocide against a race because members
of that race also have committed violence? Deep thought, that. And invasion
and colonization is OK since it brings the law, philosophy and religion?
So the pre-Roman Britons and American Indians had no law, philosophy and
religion of their own worth considering? Incredible arrogance. Oh, and religion
is really an "enduring and happy gift?" Well, it's enduring, that's for sure.
9/4/97 SteveX
"Is the teaching of American history too politically correct?" What the hell
does that mean? The right wing bugbear of "political correctness" is an outmoded
rhetorical device. Clearly, any presentation of alleged facts that bows to
a particular ideology (for instance the notion that wiping out American Indians
was justifiable and necessary to install a superior culture) promotes its
own version of correct politics. It's a lie to suggest that only left wingers
promote their philosophy through historical discourse. It's also disturbing
to see the term "politically correct" only invoked in discussions of race,
gender, etc., as a means of dismissing any claim of discrimination.
9/4/97 A Voice
SteveX is right. I am sick and tire of rightwing wackos invoking "PC" every
time they want to say anything offensive or racists. Racist fiends: have
some guts and don't give this "PC" excuse.
9/4/97 Matsu
I'm confused. The main contention of the above article seems to be that the
TRUE "Native Americans" did not come from Asia. Yet the author himself notes
the resemblance of Kennewick man to the Ainu -- "the mysterious early inhabitants
of the Japanese islands who had, to quote the LosAngelesTimes again, 'European
faces, wavy hair, and thick beards.'" To begin with, by speaking in an eerie
past tense, the above quote seems to imply that these "mysterious" people
are no longer with us. Quite the contrary. Ainu communities in Hokkaido and
northern Honshu are as large, ethnically pure and as dedicated to preserving
their traditions as any indi. . . oops, Native American group in North America.
Secondly, it is certainly not news to the Ainu that their ancestors inhabited
the NorthAmerican continent. Ainu legend and even some Japanese history books
state that the original area inhabited by Ainu included Honshu, Hokkaido,
Sahkalin, Kamchatka, the Kuriles and Aleutians, and perhaps even Alaska.
So in other words, Kennewick man probably DID come from Asia. Oh, And while
we're at it, let's not forget that the word "Caucasian" stems from belief
that "white" races originated in the Caucusus region -- which is also in
Asia. This whole discussion seems to be based on a lot of shoddy speculation
and very little contemplation of the facts. What is my point?? Who knows!!!
What was the point of the original article ????????????
9/4/97 Nathaniel Hellerstein
paradoctor@aol.com
Concerning who 'discovered' America: Both forms of political correctness
(left-wing and "mainstream' - i.e. rightwing) miss the point. Columbus certainly
was not the first to 'discover' America. He wasn't even the first European
to discover America. In fact he was the *last* European to discover America;
and the first to *publicize* America. After him, all Europe knew about America;
and soon after, the whole world knew. Columbus's entire fame was about publicity.
For proof of this, note that these continents are called the "American"
continents, not the "Columbian" continents; and why? Because Amerigo Vespucci
was a better publicist! Let's face it: hype and PR define America all the
way back!
9/5/97
I'm glad to see that there are still some things people won't fall for. The
responses here give me hope for the future. You know, there's one big religious
issue here - I thought Christianity (which by implication is a gift to the
Native Americans) had outgrown the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing with the
New Testament. But the whole article seems to be saying that since people
who may have been European may have been killed by people who may have been
Native American, now Native Americans bear guilt and deserve what they get.
Maybe guys like this should actually try reading some of the cultural heritage
of the civilization they so profess to love and cherish...
9/5/97 Patrick
patrickmar@mindspring.com
Sorry, forgot to leave my name on the message above...
9/5/97 M Schulze
The author has mentioned in his article that grievous sins were in fact committed
against native Americans during the colonization of this land. He never said
that the native Americans deserved it (as some people have suggested) but
is merely pointing out that the behavior the European colonists participated
in was no different then that of the native Americans. In fact many tribes
allied themselves with the major powers (Spanish, French and British) with
the express purpose of destroying tribes hostile to them. The truth of the
matter is that the world at that time was a brutal place where the strong
prayed upon the weak. Native Americans, Asians, Africans and Europeans of
that time frame all have blood on their hands from wars of conquest (whether
regional or global) and all had a history of enslaving or killing those they
captured.
9/5/97 mikemaher mmaher@erols.com
The violence PC does to the English langauge, for the most part, goes uncommented
on. It seems Charles Kesler is aware that language frequently controls thoughts.
"Native American", what is this? I and everyone else born in the US is a
native American. The American Indians actually claim they are original Americans
and, of course, Dr. Kesler is correct. We are ALL imigrants or descended
from imigrants. Next let's work on the senseless substitution of "persons"
for "people".
9/5/97 Tom
tsabert@cheshire.net
I fear that the bulk of the responses above miss the point. It's not a question
of who was more evil in conquering the other, or who came first (every human
on the planet came from sub-saharan African originally), the issue is the
modern religion of secular victimhood. When telling the story of the history
of our continent/ hemisphere, don't offer a philosophical or political
interpretation of it. It is insulting to both American Indians and to European
settlers to make them into cartoon characters. All that has happened lately
is the good guys and bad guys have switched places. Either way they're still
one-dimensional. If we're really interested in all the dimensions of history,
we study the good and the bad about everyone. Allow students to think critically
and draw their own conclusions. Remember, the policitally correct present
is a reaction to past presentations of history. But natural law still holds
true, a strong action in one direction makes an equal reaction in the other.
The further the pendulum is pushed now, the more it will swing in the opposite
direction later.
9/5/97 A Hines ehines@zianet.com
A point that's sliding by unnoticed here is that this is all based on group
identity being more "true" somehow than the individual. Whatever the person's
ethnic origin, he/she/it is an individual human being, with gifts and foibles
like the rest of us. Perhaps he/she/it should be "judged not by the color
of her skin, but by the content of her character."
9/5/97 SteveX
MSchulze: You're right. The world was a brutal place back then, and not much
has changed. In the study of American history, there is a vital difference
between violence committed by Indian tribes and that perpetuated through
U.S. government policy. After all, our focus is the history of that government
-- including its accomplishments, ideals, and hypocrisies -- not of the various
tribes. While relations between the tribes and European settlers surely motivated
Indian policy, it is the policy itself and the violence it spawned that is
rightly the subject of scruitiny in American history. If we want to understand
American values and ideals, we must examine tragically gray areas that remind
us of our completely human imperfection.
9/5/97 SteveX
mikemaher: Language is mutable and subject to manipulation for ideological
ends, but this is hardly a new development, nor one confined to "PC" (the
term itself is a thoroughly political manipulation -- what ever does it mean?).
My favorite devices tend to be used by right-leaning propagandists: "family
values" and "pro-family." What are these values, anyway? Who the heck is
"anti-family?"
9/5/97 SteveX
Tom: What are you talking about? Like Dr. Kesler, you conveniently neglect
any examples of this nasty revisionist history. It's easy to claim that modern
historians hate America and emphasize violence done to Indians over the
accomplishments of Western expansion, but it's a little more difficult to
prove it. By including accounts of killing and forced relocation of the tribes,
modern history strives to present both the "good" and the "bad" rather than
a whitewash (ouch). A Hines: Unfortunately, history inevitably involves the
study of group relations -- from cro magnons v. neandertals to modern rivalries
between nations. Also, much as we may not like it, group identity does shape
our lives to some degree. Those individuals who have experienced discrimination
based on group identity (which they did not choose) are often quite aware
of this fact.
9/5/97 Sunil Bhargava
sunil@intechweb.com
During the 1930's, the modern day era by most standards, our government committed
a crime against the Native Americans of the South, in what the Native Americans
document as the Trial of Tears. I don't mind forgetting the "ancient" history
of a few thousands years ago or even of a few hundred years ago. But our
school kids need to know that even in the modern day era government sactioned
crimes haave been perpetrated against minorities and not just african americans.
Not for the kids today to develop guilt but to understand the unfairness
of the past. And to understand that the recent (last few hundred years) of
migration that has resulted in this great country has cost us many a
civilizations of the Native Americans. Every school kids understand what
Hitler did but do not hate Germany for it. Our kids should understand what
has transpired on their soil but not feel guilt for it. Ancient history be
damned.
9/5/97 rkreman
Excuse me....why should I care???? I don't see that this discovery alters
history significantly. Does this mean I no longer need to apologize for my
antecedents behavior??? Or do I still need to mouth politically correct rhetoric.
Someone clear this matter up for me...please!
9/5/97 Alan P.
The real question at hand is whether or not we are going to let revisionist
history continue to sow division and harm educational standards in the United
States. History is an imperfect science (yes, it is a science). We will never
know with full certainty who was here first. What we do know is that we are
all here now and we are all American for better or worse. Once Americans
start looking at themselves as "hyphenated Americans" we are on the road
to political and social division. Like it or not, there is only one American
history. In that single history there are many threads such as African-American
history, women's history, etc., but the overall picture that should be focused
on by historians and citizens alike is what in our past makes us American.
It may make some angry, but most of American development was brought forth
by old white men. Therefore, this is what we study for the most part. Does
this mean there is no room for the study of other threads in history. Of
course not. But by forcing out history teachers to focus so narrowly on
"hyphenated history" (i.e. Asian-American history, Irish-American history,
Latino history) we, and our children, are prevented from seeing the big and
more important picture. The PC crusade (while somewhat worthwhile in highlighting
some long neglected parts of our history) is no excuse for setting up a false
past in order to push a shortsighted political agenda.
9/6/97 Bill Ledford
bledford@asbank.com
Indians can't continue to have it both ways; tax free reservations with
government support, tax free casinos and the tax free use of public schools,
highways and utilities and then still be sovereign nations.
9/6/97 K Klapper
One of the values of education should not just be the injection of historical
facts into our children which then necessitates debate over what facts or
stories they should be told. There's also a much more valuable lesson for
youth than developing guilt. Namely, learning from the past in order to avoid
injustices in the present and future. The danger of a comment to the effect
that the conquered are better off because superior societies succeeded them
is that it justifies the unjust means to that questionable end. That is not
a lesson I would want our kids to learn. It almost wouldn't matter to me
which of the competing histories children were told about the roots of modern
American society as long as they were taught a fairly balanced view and teachers
took the time to discuss just and unjust episodes with a view toward developing
humanitarianism in our youth.
9/7/97 Dandy
dandy@innocence.com
Any Latter-day Saint child can tell these where these peoples and the Ainu
came from.
9/7/97 Peter McDevitt
pmcd@sprintmail.com
Hey! What gives? How can we call the "Native Americans" that, or "Indians"?
The label "Indian" is a misnomer from the get-go. The expedition headed by
Columbus was actually looking for the best route to India (the real place)!
And, they thought that they had found it, and so termed the indigineous peoples,
"Indians" when in fact they were not, nor even close to it. Just who or what
are they? This discovery, and ones in that vein, need to be answered so that
the natives of this continent, whatever they may be, can be clearly identified.
Further, to call them "Native Americans" is also unjust. They certainly pre-dated
Americus Vespucci, whom the continent (hemisphere) was named for, and he
came after Columbus and his gang! Why should the natives have to carry a
label of some Italian, who they had no knowledge of anyhow? Let's hope that
someone set the record straight.
9/8/97 Peter d'Errico
derrico@legal.umass.edu
Not much "intellectual capital" in the original article, but a pretty good
bunch of responses. One more example that the "experts" and "commentators"
don't have much to offer us. Kesler's comments are a rehash of some leftover
intellectual baggage, mixed with a few stale stereotypes and salted with
the now-trite reference to PC. If you look at the legal history of "discovery
doctrine," you'll see it originates with a 15th century Pope who gave title
to lands discovered in the name of any "Christian prince." Don't have to
be too swift to see the problems created when the US adopted this as the
basis for its control of lands after the revolution (see Johnson v. McIntosh,
1823, US Supreme Court). The absurdities are still with us, still being worked
out.
9/8/97 George Wesley Joyner
mantalks@net-magic.net
Perhaps those interested in calling us,Yes I am American Indian, by the right
name should read Russel Means statement regarding this I'm sure he speaks
for all of us. What I get from this guy's publication is that he is someone
needing to correspond with someone and his charector keeps driving people
away. I see nothing of real truth in this article whatsoever.As to Tribes
getting handouts from the gov. Those handouts are payments agreed to by the
white christian gov. in treety and normanly the gov is behind on thier
payments.Mabe we should start forcloser. Mantalks
9/8/97 Sonja Keohane
sonjakeo@pond.com
I am continually amazed at the amount of discussion generated by the discovery
of one skeleton. One of anything is hardly a foundation for conclusion, even
when associated with other previously recorded information. What is classified
as human habitation has by some accounts been shown to have occurred in this
country as long as 40,000 years ago. These remains, of Kennewick, date to
less than half of that age, so all it does is add some tiny bit of information
to a very sparse body of data. Interesting how opposed idealogies can seize
on the same piece of information and make it supportive of themselves. Humans
are territorial creatures, not unlike many kinds of animals. These "discoveries"
seems always to generate arguement and discussion that ultimately degenerates
into the "I was here first" contention. Actually, the people who were here
first, were just here first, and that happened 40,000 years ago, it is beyond
me how this frenzy to prove who is "related" anthropologically to who makes
any difference to the history of this country with regard to Indian Nations
and the genocidal behavior of this government , past and present, with regard
to them.
9/8/97 Bri Farenell
fj634@cleveland.freenet.edu
It's always bemused, and sometimes annoyed me, how it can happen that: The
victors tell only one side of the story for centuries and centuries and then,
suddenly, someone says, "Hey wait, let's get the other side of the story
out there." All of a sudden, one is denounced as a "revisionist" for telling
both sides of the story. It seems to me that he was told only one side of
the story for centuries is the real revisionist.
9/8/97 Mom Biliejax@aol.com
I have read a lot of your answers-not all --so I may be repeating someone!
What is most important is not who was here first****We had better shape up,
or we will be here last! For myself--I have been told that my Mohawk and
Onondaga ancestors were always here on Mother Earth. We are to live in harmony
here with all other things**The Wind-The Thunder-The Trees-The Plants-The
Water-The Spirit Beings-The Fish-The Animals-The Insects (All of the
creations!!)Not too long ago, this continent Turtle island that you call
America--was clean and healthy--It is not anymore. We must all work towards
saving Mother Earth. I heard a wise man say that the astronauts are the ones
who have gained some wisdom about this place we call home. When they were
in outer space--and looked down at the tiny planet that is their home, they
realized just how fragile and sacred it is. They realized the reality of
the damage man is doing to her. THINK ABOUT IT!
9/8/97 Mom Biliejax@aol.com
I have read a lot of your answers-not all --so I may be repeating someone!
What is most important is not who was here first****We had better shape up,
or we will be here last! For myself--I have been told that my Mohawk and
Onondaga ancestors were always here on Mother Earth. We are to live in harmony
here with all other things**The Wind-The Thunder-The Trees-The Plants-The
Water-The Spirit Beings-The Fish-The Animals-The Insects (All of the
creations!!)Not too long ago, this continent Turtle island that you call
America--was clean and healthy--It is not anymore. We must all work towards
saving Mother Earth. I heard a wise man say that the astronauts are the ones
who have gained some wisdom about this place we call home. When they were
in outer space--and looked down at the tiny planet that is their home, they
realized just how fragile and sacred it is. They realized the reality of
the damage man is doing to her. THINK ABOUT IT!
9/8/97 Dave Denomie
denomie@mpm.edu
Mr. Kesler attempts to provide the politico-moral salve of the "we're all
immigrants" argument to the wounded (and apparently small) consciences of
those in this United States who seek to cover the shame of the knowing
destruction of many nations on a continent far away from that of their own
peoples. He calls up the rhetorically useful specter of "political correctness"
in order to inflame the issue and appeal to those who find Rush Limbaugh
a little, just a little, too non-academic for their taste. Yet, the underlying
tactics and the agenda he promotes is virtually identical, but more palatable
to those who like to consider themselves "intellectual" or "enlightened."
What they really seek to do instead of shedding light on the truth, is to
darken and shroud it beneath cloaks of uncertainty, which they hope will
give them the underpinnings to justify the largest mass genocide in the known
history of mankind. If he believes what he writes, he is naive; if not, then
he is a charlatan no better than Limbaugh and other bombasts who appeal to
the worst kind of social and historical denial in the hopes that it will
allow them to face themselves in the mirror each morning thinking that this
was all inevitable and really no one's fault.
9/8/97 Richard C. Eckert
rceckert@umich.edu
I think that the motives of any scholar wishes to ressurect psuedo scientific
concepts of race should be questioned. At the most fundamental level Kesler
uses biological constructions of race to challenge who owned America as a
means to mask the issue of whether Indian tribes were Nations prior to Columbus
or whether Indian Nations are a modern phenomenon. Hell - to paraphrase Immanuel
Kant - all one has to do to know that the earth is a sphere is to look at
the stars with the naked eye. So even if some other people may have landed
before Columbus, that does not mean they established nations which fit the
criteria of nations, much less "civilization."
9/8/97 Ilze Choi IlzeC@aol.com
I am struck by how Mr. Kesler labors to retrieve the earlier version of American
history (was this not the real case of political correctness?) in which the
Euoropean conquerors brought “sweetness and light” to a savage
world which, he implies, had no prospect of improving were it not for the
Brittish bringing civilization. Are we going into the 21st century or back
to the 19th? Mr. Kesler does not realize how much he, himself, is the product
of a “politically correct” version of history. Due to the traditional
version of American history, he has the NEED to feel this is his country
(and not the Native Americans’) and that it is the best country in the
world (having done nothing out of the ordinary in terms of man’s inhumanity
to man). Consequently, he and others of like mind, contrive arguments that
will debunk any views or facts favorable to Native Americans which have been
added to history books over the past 20-30 years. To such individuals, Kennewick
Man is like manna from heaven: ”So the first ‘native Americans’
may have been Europeans!”, he exults. Concluding that the ancestors
of today’s Native Americans came from northern Asia (read Mongolian
race), they are nothing more than the advance column of the yellow peril
coming to these shores. The racist psychology behind this is something to
be alarmed about especially when coming from one in position to manipulate
uninformed young minds.
9/8/97 Ted Burton (Wolf Who Talks Fast)
tedbrtn@cyberhighway.net
Fine for us to go kill 90% of the Europeans, move in 60,000,000 Americans,
and if the Europeans object, dismiss it on the grounds they really immigrated
from Africa? In forms of violence and betrayal Indians proved good students
of the English, who polished these techniques in the conquest of Scotland
and Ireland. "The ultimate justification ... was ...the establishment of
better ... government ... than those that ... existed ... or had any prospect
of developing." Thus would Hitler describe himself. Is it just war, to impose
on people a 'better' form of government than they would choose themselves?
Better? Says who? "the British might themselves be thankful today for ...
the Romans". The Romans did not say the only good Celt was a dead Celt. The
Romans did not evict Celts from 95% of England in exchange for promised
annuities, and replace them with Romans, and then threaten to default.
Next:"Indians can't continue to have it both ways; tax free reservations
..., tax free casinos ... schools, highways utilities and then still be sovereign
nations." Indians have independent programs and businesses (exactly what
the US ha been telling them to do for a hundred years). Indians yielded up
North America for an annuity. Now you don't want to pay it? Next: "Hey! ...
How can we call the "Native Americans" that, or "Indians"? The label "Indian"
is a misnomer from the get-go." Yeah, but "n'eneskeetop" usually draws a
blank stare.
9/8/97 J. Anderson andersjw@ou.edu
While it is possible that the first people on this land were of more than
one race, it does not change what the europeans have done. Using the Doctrine
of Discovery, (mentioned previously), any title that the Native Americans
(for lack of a better term) had to the land was reduced to a mere right of
occupancy. The fee simple title to the land was held by the British Crown,
and subsequently by the United States federal government. See M'Intosh v.
Johnson, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia. Kind of
interesting, to have your land taken, your rights reduced, on the basis of
pronouncement of a Pope several centuries before you were born, at a place
several thousand miles away.
9/9/97 vbadinage
vbadinage@POBoxes.com
One can only hope that Mr. Kesler is suitably embarassed by the fact that
so many of these responses (probably typed out in a single draft) are vastly
superior to his smug and dopey racial categorizing. Mr. Kesler, I realize
that higher education is moribund, but have you never heard of the concept
of citations? Would you give us some examples from the textbooks that you
claim exist?
9/9/97 Bob Megginson
meggin@math.lsa.umich.edu
First of all, Professor Kesler should be careful about making broad claims
about what all Native Americans believe or like (e.g. "Today's Indians don't
like this possibility"), since such stereotyping of belief patterns is not
helpful in any discussion. (It is often the first step in setting up straw
men to be knocked down.) Second, he should investigate more thoroughly the
governmental systems of Europe and the Americas before claiming that, as
unfortunate as British colonization was, it led to "better, more just forms
of government that had existed [in the Americas] before or had any prospect
of developing." There is evidence in Benjamin Franklin's writings that our
representative form of government was patterned after that of the Iroquois
Nations rather than on the autocratic British system.
9/10/97 MBenklifa
Michael.Benklifa@Solvay.com
Despite the veiled attempt to clothe this opinion with something resembling
reasoned thought, this article is patently racist. First, demean the people
and then say they deserved what they got. To disagree on a political level
is one thing but to mock a people in the face of the ligitimate grievances
to what happened to their culture (remember they never asked the Europeans
to come and take over) is really something else. If this is the best
intellectualcapital.com can offer I should invest somewhere else.
9/10/97 Spiritdove
imburgia@whidbey.com
Nice Try! Sorry, don't buy it! You need to check-out your history again.
The "Straight" theory is only one theroy. Do you think the discovery of one
skeleton who may or may not indeed by anglo will void all the evidence throughout
history of the occupation of american Indians on this continent?? I think
not! Even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.....whats so
surprising about an anglo drifter on the continent? One skeleton does not
a fact make. Do I detect a bit of racism in your piece? Heaven Forbid!
.......Spiritdove.
9/10/97 Amazed
I think that what the author meant to say is that had the Native Americans
had the chance they probably would have killed all the Europeans, because
it is the nature of man. And that making the Europeans out to devils and
the natives angels detracts us learning the lessons from history and from
the task creating systems that prevent us (humans not just European humans
but all humans) from killing and enslaving one another.
9/11/97 Linda Knighton
simahoyo@blarg.net
This article is missing the main problem with the conflict between European
Land Grabbing and Native disinhertance. There were colonists who were given
500,000 acres of land as an INDIVIDUAL. These were little fiefdoms that they
were invited to rule in a non-democratic way after they had either driven
off the Native people--who were not hunter gatherers, by they way, but farmers.
Then, after tricking White people into a seven year indenture (read slavery),
they announced that the 50 acres of land they had earned by doing this was
theirs, if they could get it from the Indians. Any democracy was not learned
from the Romans, but the Native Americans
![[Image]](pict43.jpg)
