Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Kennewick Man Again

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Paal-Eirik Filssunu

unread,
May 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/22/98
to

No one you know wrote:
>
> The recent Kennewick Man controversy looks to me like a possible attempt
> to lend scientific justification to the so-called "Northwest Territorial
> Imperative", which is a proposal for a white separatist "homeland" in the
> Pacific Northwest that originated in the Aryan Nations movement. Whether
> or not that was the actual intent of a certain group's involvement in this
> lawsuit, it certainly had that appearance. Take careful note of how some
> have used Kennewick Man to advance the ludicrous claim that "whites were
> here first".
> ***It doesn't matter that 'Whites were here first'....What bothers you is
that they're here Now <g>***

> Steve McNallen of the AFA even wrote at one point that Caucasians "may
> have preceeded" the Native Americans on this continent based on this one
> finding of bones. That's one hell of a presumptious leap to make, isn't
> it, especially before any positive determination was even made regarding
> the bones in the first place?

***The first major look into 'non-Indian'/ Old World/ Land Bridge origins
of North America's early populace was written by Jeffrey Goodman in his
study called "American Genesis". He sees a primitive racial archetype in
North America from which the Europeans and 'Amerinds' both evolved.
It's interesting reading for those absorbed with the Northern World and
its possible origins...***
>
> The racist mainstream media, of course, loved this story and one newspaper
> in Canada even printed an editorial gloating over the possibility that
> Kennewick Man might be "Caucasian" and the implications this might have
> for deep-sixing Native land rights struggles.

**If he was Caucasian, we must now determine if KM is Georgian, Armenian,
or Ossetian <g>..Might even be Stalin's blood..***
>
> The paranoid style, as might be expected, reigns supreme here. Should
> scientists determine that Kennewick Man is, in fact, Native American,
> expect cries of "coverup" and "political correctness".

***a) there is no evidence that KM is a migrant.
b) there were no airline tickets on the body and
thus KM is most likely a native born North American.
c) because of the time period involved, it can not be
determined that KM was listed with the IRS.
d) KM liked the Northwest environs millenia before Portland
Seattle, and Vancouver were fashionable. These areas should
all host a KM regional 'holiday' crowing about the goodness
of the Pacific Northwest and how even ancient people liked
living there...<g>***

Should the bones
> be reburied without study, expect cries of "coverup" and "political
> correctness". There will be only one acceptable finding in certain eyes
> because these people have already made up their minds that (a) Kennewick
> Man is Caucasian,

**I haven't made up my mind on that..***

(b) Whites were therefore on North America before anyone
> else

**Irrelevant- but we're living here now which is a million times more
important...**

, and (c) Anyone who determines differently is acting as part of a PC
> conspiracy or coverup.

**No- they're just overreacting. That races other than Europeans
constructed the pyramids of Tenochtitlan and the Aztec country, or that
races other than Europeans built the pyramids of Egypt, or the Great Wall
of China, or major cities in India, or Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, or Machu Pichu
does not phase me, or indicate that my Folk is somehow 'lacking'. We live
in our times and places, and all of us live in this era with its own
major constructions and achievements (skyscrapers, dams, airports etc)**
>
> Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.

**The Alchemists (the forerunners to modern Chemistry) would argue
differently on that. So too would the Swiss Herbalists whose knowledge
extends back many centuries in their Holistic ways.

As far as Science 'not eminating' from 'ancient religions' or 'hokey
racial theories', just look at Medicine and Pharmaceuticals.

Hippocrates, the father of Medicine's 'Hippocratic Oath', began a social
religion in ancient Greece based on Health, Caring, and a devotion to
wellness which is today represented by the serpent & staff (aesculapian
snake) and constitutes an 'ancient religion/philosophy/lifestyle' within
Science....Ancient religion, and even the 'hokey racial theories' within
them, are all groundworks of later societies and developments.

Norse, Celtic, Baltic, Latin, Hellenic, Turkic/Asian, Indian, African,
Ancient American and other peoples all had some 'science' invested in
their religions- one which linked them to some understanding of Earth,
men, and nature....
>
> --
> --No one you know--

**Next time you get ill, remember Hippocrates and all those hokey pagans
who began a system which inaugurated Modern Medicine.**

Paal-Eirik Filssunu
AEF/ER
http://members.tripod.com/~aernfolk/index-2.html

S. M. Hewitt

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

On 23 May 1998 00:57:16 -0600, rae...@moc.noissimx (No one you know)
wrote:

>The recent Kennewick Man controversy looks to me like a possible attempt
>to lend scientific justification to the so-called "Northwest Territorial
>Imperative", which is a proposal for a white separatist "homeland" in the
>Pacific Northwest that originated in the Aryan Nations movement.

(snip)


>
>Steve McNallen of the AFA even wrote at one point that Caucasians "may
>have preceeded" the Native Americans on this continent

(snip)


>
>The racist mainstream media, of course, loved this story

(snip)


>
>The paranoid style, as might be expected, reigns supreme here.

(snip)


>
>Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.
>

>--No one you know--

...in general, I heartily agree with you on ol' K-Man. Let him go.

Specifically, you seem to have a talent for picking out *other
people's motives*...in a way that reminds me of a tub-thumping
evalgelist peeling back for the masses the leaves of Satan's unholy
artichoke.

You seem to be as ready to "expose" the folly and hidden agendas of
everyone against whom you have a disagreement...not unlike Mr. Bowery.

Who are you? What do you espouse? Anarchism? Mutual aid? I remind
you that Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman sped out of newly-Soviet
Russia when they saw the "Worker's Paradise" in action.

You seem to have nothing more constructive to offer than Mr. Heimdal
(single "L") who posts his political tracts here.

You have anything positive to say? You don't have to say anything
positive, mind, as this is an unmoderated newsgroup, as you've
observed...but can we have a discussion, not an another exposé.

-- Steve

justanoldman

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

In article <6k5s0c$18n$1...@xmission.xmission.com>, rae...@moc.noissimx (No
one you know) wrote:

<cut>


>
> Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.
>

Right on that score.... science DESCENDS from ancient religions or hokey
racial theories, and has BECOME a hokey religion..

Adam

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

Regardless of Kman's racial identity he was a Native American. And if he
was an ancestor to some modern American Indians, well that alone would
not undermine the soveriegnty of existing Indian nations. As for a white
only neighborhood in the NW sponsored by the Aryan duedes not even the
govt. wants those wacky doodles to band together. Most whites are not
Aryan. Aren't Aryan's Finnish and the like?

Apple10

unread,
May 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/23/98
to

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Kennewick Man Again
>From: n...@inthe.game (justanoldman)
>Date: Sat, May 23, 1998 08:31 EDT
>Message-id: <not-230598...@ott1-56.netrover.com>

I have read many of justanoldman's posts with respect but I have to disagree
with this point--as a Native American and as a professional scientist I see no
contradiction between my respect for the traditions of my ancestors and the use
of the scientific method to study the world around me. I'm sure that many of
the thousands of members of AISES (American Indian Science and Engineering
Society) would also find this definition of science as a "hokey religion"
really questionable. With respect---you missed the target with this jibe.

justanoldman

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

In article <199805232115...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
app...@aol.com (Apple10) wrote:

<cut>

Did I really?

>I see no
> contradiction between my respect for the traditions of my ancestors and
the use
> of the scientific method to study the world around me.

Now about that Bering Land Bridge *->THEORY<-*... and how it touted as,
"the absolute truth"... tell me how that science does not contradict the
traditional knowledge of the ancestors of ALL of the Nations, that says
the Nations have ALWAYS been here...

Nothing wrong with science per se, but taking any of it too seriously is
detrimental to the human spirit, imho, & I know few if any scientists who
don't believe that their vocation is the be-all & end-all of knowledge,
totally discounting the knowledge developed & refined by humanity over the
millions of years humanity survived & grew before the concept of "science"
ever took form. Long before "reason" was (falsely) proclaimed supreme,
creating the illusion that the mind is more important than the heart, the
body or the spirit...

Apple10

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Kennewick Man Again
>From: n...@inthe.game (justanoldman)
>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 01:51 EDT
>Message-id: <not-240598...@ott1-24.netrover.com>
></PRE></HTML>

1. Never confuse anthropology with science ---those of us in the "hard"
sciences and engineering NEVER do. <G> It is interesting that you use the
Bering Straight argument to rebut me.... I wrote a short article published last
month in our inter-tribal newsletter that attacked this false theory and
specifically saying that our traditional histories have much more validity than
the BS theory which is still taught in schools.
2. You need to talk to some Native American scientists to find out that YOUR
assumptions and presumptions are not valid. It is quite possible to hold on to
the traditions and also to use the scientific method to study the world around
you. I took 6 semesters of quantum mechanics in grad school and came away
with the knowledge that the universe is much MORE than we can possibly
understand. I also came away with the deep belief that all things are related
(shades of mitakuye oyasin---boys and girls ;-)
My studies in biochem (which I taught for 10 years) left me with a strong
belief in the inter-relatedness of all life and an awe of the beauty and
complexity of life.
It is true that many scientists develop a very mechanistic view of the
world----but not all. There are a number of us who continue to hold very
traditional NA views (as WE understand and believe them) who are still quite
good scientists.. (It is not appropriate to say more than that).

Don't condemn "science" as such and as a whole---it is the same kind of
sweeping generalization that trivializes any people as a class. NOW---if you
want to attack ANTHROPOLOGY---let me know when and where----I'm not too good
with a bow but I got a really good war club.

Someone

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

I've worked several years as a research assistant with scientists in industry,
government, and in academia. My view of scientists is from personal
experience. There are _many_ scientists who don't view their vocation as "the
be-all & end-all of knowledge." However, as you indicated, the vast majority
probably do.

Science in academia is similar to a person building a house with cards. A
foundation is laid out by a professor based on a hypothesis. The hypothesis
is tested and evaluated. Papers are written and the professor begins to
develop increased "status" in the academic community based on the research.

The professor then continues to develop this house of cards by building layers
of knowledge on top of the foundation they had set out. They recruit
disciples (usually called grad students) to help them build their house of
cards. The professor's disciples become professors and they in turn recruit
their own disciples (more grad students) to continue to build the house.

Eventually, the status and the careers of many individuals are tied to this
house of cards. Others, thousands upon thousands of others, have been taught
this knowledge as being "truth" in their classes since it has become
"accepted" as true knowledge in academia. Most of my textbooks started by
stating such things as the land bridge and evolution are "theories."
However, the textbooks invariably proceded to speak of the subject matter as
though they were "facts."

The problem with some therories is that they are based on a foundation that
may be in error. Pluck out a few cornerstones of the foundation and the whole
house of cards should come tumbling down. But, there are many who built their
careers with this foundational belief. Many others built their understanding
of the world on this belief. So, what happens is that many very educated and
competent people begin to attack the problems presented about the foundation
of their house of cards. They band together to shore the foundation up. The
publications that questioned the foundation are responded to in an intelligent
manner. Individuals that dare to challenge a widely accepted house of cards
are also intensely scrutinized. Nevertheless, if the attack on the foundation
is grounded in truth, the foundation will crumble in time.

So what's the point in all of this rambling of mine? If human life in this
hemisphere predates the time when the land bridge was supposed to exist, then
the foundation of this land bridge migration theory has problems...serious
problems. At the very least it must be determined that even if such a land
bridge migration occurred, it wasn't the origination of human existence on
this continent. My understanding is that there are currently scientists who
are claiming they have definitive evidence that human life here predates the
time the land bridge was supposed to exist.

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

Apple10 wrote:

--I'm not too good
> with a bow but I got a really good war club.

And you're *proud* of that?

Dumbdrum

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

Someone wrote:
[snip]

>
> Science in academia is similar to a person building a house with cards.

[snip]

Pluck out a few cornerstones of the foundation and the whole
> house of cards should come tumbling down.

Similarly, a strong wind could just as easily do the trick. Whoosh!

Dumbdrum

Randy R. Cox

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

On Sun, 24 May 1998 01:51:24 -0400, n...@inthe.game (justanoldman)
wrote:


>
>Nothing wrong with science per se, but taking any of it too seriously is
>detrimental to the human spirit, imho, & I know few if any scientists who
>don't believe that their vocation is the be-all & end-all of knowledge,
>totally discounting the knowledge developed & refined by humanity over the
>millions of years humanity survived & grew before the concept of "science"
>ever took form. Long before "reason" was (falsely) proclaimed supreme,
>creating the illusion that the mind is more important than the heart, the
>body or the spirit...

A philosophy professor at the now defunct super right wing University
of Plano, taught me that Science was an attempt to understand the
world around us in terms of observable phenomena. It seems to be a
good definition. The attempt part is important to remember as also is
the part about observable. Regardless of how sophisticated the
equipment or how highly degreed the scientist, it must be remembered
that all things observed must be so through our senses. People that
think science is an absolute are just sadly foolish.

And how right you are about "reason!" Reason is okay, in fact it is
great, but in the balance of things if that is all we use, we become
very shallow and ignorant. There are other ways of thinking that go
beyond the surface and would serve us as well as it did our ancestors,
but it is difficult to use this as the current world attatches so
little value to them.

The state of science is so primative that it can not know, as those of
us who have developed other parts of our mind and other minds of our
body, that the appendix is really not just a useless organ but can be
used to shape-shift. So they miss for themselves and deny for others
who listen to them all the joys of the fullfilled human experience.

Well, I added the last paragraph only because Kurgan had reminded me
how "serious" I can get. I mustn't take myself too seriously :-). If
I really could shape-shift, I'd be out on the lake this weekend.

Randy

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
May 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/24/98
to

Apple10 wrote:

> I would have responded directly to justanoldman but he doesn't appear to do
> email---hence the post to the group. This was an attempt to get him to look at
> another side of this issue and was done with respect.

This may have been done with respect, but if it isn't clear from
Justanoldman's public posts that this person *has already* thoroughly
examined at *least* one other side of the issue, well I'd suggest you go
back to grad school or, at the very least, take another look at the old
man's posts.

Dumbdrum

Jason Joy

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

Apple10, so it took you "6 semesters of quantum mechanics in grad
school" to learn "that the universe is much MORE than we can possibly
understand". Really? I learnt that in one evening.


Apple10

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

ra...@worldnet.att.net wrote

> Science was an attempt to understand the
>world around us in terms of observable phenomena. It seems to be a
>good definition. The attempt part is important to remember as also is
>the part about observable. Regardless of how sophisticated the
>equipment or how highly degreed the scientist, it must be remembered
>that all things observed must be so through our senses. People that
>think science is an absolute are just sadly foolish.
>
>And how right you are about "reason!" Reason is okay, in fact it is
>great, but in the balance of things if that is all we use, we become
>very shallow and ignorant. There are other ways of thinking that go
>beyond the surface and would serve us as well as it did our ancestors,
>but it is difficult to use this as the current world attatches so
>little value to them.

I think this is well put....My own opinion is that those who disparage the
legitimate use of the scientific method are cutting themselves off from another
way to seek truth. I seek truth both from the world of science and also from my
traditions and have never found any contradictions between the truths I find in
both places.


I would have responded directly to justanoldman but he doesn't appear to do
email---hence the post to the group. This was an attempt to get him to look at

another side of this issue and was done with respect. To those who chose (or
will continue to choose) to use this as an opportunity for flames or cutesy
remarks---go ahead---- you show your culture (or lack or it) by your words.


Paal-Eirik Filssunu

unread,
May 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/25/98
to

Susan Granquist wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 1998, Paal-Eirik Filssunu wrote:

>
> > No one you know wrote:
> > >
> > > The recent Kennewick Man controversy looks to me like a possible attempt
> > > to lend scientific justification to the so-called "Northwest Territorial
> > > Imperative", which is a proposal for a white separatist "homeland" in the
> > > Pacific Northwest that originated in the Aryan Nations movement. Whether
> > > or not that was the actual intent of a certain group's involvement in this
> > > lawsuit, it certainly had that appearance. Take careful note of how some
> > > have used Kennewick Man to advance the ludicrous claim that "whites were
> > > here first".

> > > ***It doesn't matter that 'Whites were here first'....What bothers you is
> > that they're here Now <g>***
> >

> > > Steve McNallen of the AFA even wrote at one point that Caucasians "may

> > > have preceeded" the Native Americans on this continent based on this one
> > > finding of bones. That's one hell of a presumptious leap to make, isn't
> > > it, especially before any positive determination was even made regarding
> > > the bones in the first place?

***It would appear for the moment that the wrangle over 'rights' has
tossed KM's remains away, and now we may not have a clearer view of the
remains for certainty's sake...***

------------------------------------------------------------------------> >


> > ***The first major look into 'non-Indian'/ Old World/ Land Bridge origins
> > of North America's early populace was written by Jeffrey Goodman in his
> > study called "American Genesis". He sees a primitive racial archetype in
> > North America from which the Europeans and 'Amerinds' both evolved.
> > It's interesting reading for those absorbed with the Northern World and
> > its possible origins...***
>

> The problem with this is that McNallen, in his suit, claimed the Bering
> Straight theory as part of his justification, while the scientists were
> stating that the find brought that entire theory into question.

**The Lenni Lennapi Nation, now with remnants in New Jersey, possesses an
illustrious documentation, 'Ollum Wallum', that in pictographs describes
a great trek from Asia to North America's east coast...It is but one
example of possibilities, and since 500 Nations have lived here, many may
have varied origins ..***

Mr
> McNallen also claimed kinship as a reason for filing his suit, which is
> likewise ridiculous from a scientific point of view, as the suit flatly
> states that they would be more closely related and were seeking proof.
> They likewise confused cacusoid with Caucasian, instead of realizing that
> Northern Europeans were europoid.

**Then Science and Anthropology really need to be less 'generic' in
terminology....The accepted Western identity [of which I remain aloof
from personally] is 'Caucasian' - Happy. It's in our census and all over
the place. Furthermore, to ignorant Americans and some Canadians the
very name 'Europoid' would be a stumbling block- after all, wouldn't we
be Ameripoid and Canadoid instead?? (Just piling on the BS here
Susan!!)**

The legal questions hinged on whether
> or not the NAGARP could be extended backwards thousands of years as it was
> meant to cover known relatives, or ones that could be reasonably
> identified. The Kennewick Man was found at the edge of a burial ground
> where Native Americans were buried. It was, and is, sacred ground.

***So is the place in North America where Thorstein Eiriksson fell after
being slain by Skraellings**
>
> Leaving hta aside, he also overlooked in the writings that Asatruar
> recognize as being spiritual in nature and relating to the customs and
> ways of the ethnic group (noting the difference between a racial group and
> an ethnic group) the advice that the dead, regardless of who they are, be
> buried where they are found, as well as a section that was read over those
> who died, not only in heathen/pagan times, but which is still used as part
> of burial ceremonies by both Christians and Heathens in Iceland. It is an
> oversight that is inexplicable in "ethnic" terms. The dead were to be
> buried, some were worshipped afterwards, but with sacrifices and offerings
> were made to the place of their burial with the belief that it continued
> the peace and plenty that had followed such men in life.
>
> Also overlooked in the furor that followed the press conference by
> Chatters was the statement that the skeleton resembled *EAST COAST* Native
> Americans or Europeans more than the Umatilla. While a "treking" Viking
> (the New York Times not withstanding) is far fetched, Native Americans
> from the east coast migrating or traveling that far would not be.

***It is only an uncertain possibility [because I don't have KM locked in
my private Lab..] that the story could be in reverse, and that these
remains are from an eastward trek of ancient human stock from the Pacific
to the Atlantic..***
>
> Not long after the Kennewick man claims were made a group of skeletons
> were found in Spain which scientists identified as being ancestral to both
> the Neandrathal and modern man. So far the Asatru Folk Assembly has not
> applied their expounded theology to in asking to see them buried. There
> is at least a supportable claim there.

***It would appear, from faintest reason, that since the AFA is
California-based, that KM in its western U.S. proximity is a bit more
accessable than Iberian/Spaniwh remains. The Europeans are never queasy
about 'Necropsies' [Studies of the Dead], and their museums have hoards
of ancient European remains. I think the real trouble relates to the
U.S., the Indian Tribes/Nations, and some remote or deep fears about the
AFA and what it could have done if KM were impartially studied and the
truth was drawn from its remains...It doesn't have to go as far as to
conclusively support the AFA. But the Umatillas and Army Corps seemingly
have tried to 'sweep' KM under the mat here..***
------------------------------------------------------------------------>
> > **If he was Caucasian, we must now determine if KM is Georgian, Armenian,********************
>
> He wasn't Caucasian. Georgtian, Armenian, Europe were all concepts that
> came long after the man died.

**Well, that's who Caucasians are....I freaked out when I discovered I
wasn;t Caucasian, and all my old census records and school records were
wrong....Bummer..***
-------------------------------------------------------------------


>
> > > The paranoid style, as might be expected, reigns supreme here. Should
> > > scientists determine that Kennewick Man is, in fact, Native American,
> > > expect cries of "coverup" and "political correctness".

> >
> > ***a) there is no evidence that KM is a migrant.
> > b) there were no airline tickets on the body and
> > thus KM is most likely a native born North American.
> > c) because of the time period involved, it can not be
> > determined that KM was listed with the IRS.
> > d) KM liked the Northwest environs millenia before Portland
> > Seattle, and Vancouver were fashionable. These areas should
> > all host a KM regional 'holiday' crowing about the goodness
> > of the Pacific Northwest and how even ancient people liked
> > living there...<g>***
>

> You do realize that all of those points argue for the absurdity of the
> AFA's claim?

***They're not absurd. They're humorous.***
-----------


>
> > Should the bones
> > > be reburied without study, expect cries of "coverup" and "political
> > > correctness". There will be only one acceptable finding in certain eyes
> > > because these people have already made up their minds that (a) Kennewick
> > > Man is Caucasian,
> >

> > **I haven't made up my mind on that..***-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How about the idea of the threat of "cover up" charges? Since that was
> presented as an excuse for filing it seems likely. Certainly the
> statements over the covering of the burial site to prevent eroding was
> rather contradictory with the original statements.

***I look at the KM Fiasco as one of federal, legal, and tribal agencies
doing their thing to keep history 'on the acceptable path'.

Whether or not the AFA is absolutely correct, or has at least initiated
something akin to 'true curiosity' as regards Ancient Americans and the
possibilties of EurAsian origins, etc., the modern-day Papacy here is
trying to steer a new Galileo from too much 'star gazing'...***
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Burial rites were performed at teh Kennweick Park, and the raising of a
> "howe" appeared. I'm impressed. :>


>
> > (b) Whites were therefore on North America before anyone
> > > else
> >
> > **Irrelevant- but we're living here now which is a million times more
> > important...**
>

> I agree. it is irrelevant, so why is it being presented as a reason for
> justifying the suit?

***It, like so many other legal challenges, is based on PRINCIPLE.
It is also anchored by BELIEF, and an attempt at the Right-to-Know.
IF KM proved NOT to be Caucasoid/Europoid, but was arguably and
verifiably 'Other', it would either clear up the mystery, or add
something new to knowledge...**
---------------------------------------------------------------


>
> > , and (c) Anyone who determines differently is acting as part of a PC
> > > conspiracy or coverup.
> >
> > **No- they're just overreacting. That races other than Europeans
> > constructed the pyramids of Tenochtitlan and the Aztec country, or that
> > races other than Europeans built the pyramids of Egypt, or the Great Wall
> > of China, or major cities in India, or Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, or Machu Pichu
> > does not phase me, or indicate that my Folk is somehow 'lacking'. We live
> > in our times and places, and all of us live in this era with its own
> > major constructions and achievements (skyscrapers, dams, airports etc)**
>

> Check the suit filed in Federal court. It is definitely an
> over-reaction, which is what I have held since seeing it. It is
> coutner-culturalism, which is what I was told when Mr. Fox told me of
> filing it.

**Very well.........***
-----------------------------------------------------------


>
> > > Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.
> >

> > **The Alchemists (the forerunners to modern Chemistry) would argue
> > differently on that. So too would the Swiss Herbalists whose knowledge
> > extends back many centuries in their Holistic ways.
>

> Actually I'd have to agree with you and disagree with the above statement-

**GODS!!!! Now I don't really know.....<g>*****

> as science did emerge from the philosophers and religious world views.
> However, science and religion do not need to be at odds, and isn't except
> for the fundamnetalist creationism which those who use religion (any
> religion) to justify their social agendas and Ideologies.

***I am a Scientific Creationist! I think Woden did a good job slaying
Ymir and laying the foundations for Earda/Jord, and the Vanir powers
harnessed on Earth/Midgard.......What Science thinks of Creation is
procedure, and what Creation produces through Science is Human Wisdom.**
*******


>
> > Norse, Celtic, Baltic, Latin, Hellenic, Turkic/Asian, Indian, African,
> > Ancient American and other peoples all had some 'science' invested in
> > their religions- one which linked them to some understanding of Earth,

> > men, and nature....***
>
> They also had cultural concepts that related to burials and the way the
> dead were treated.

***You're right...If it was a Europoid, given the poor track record of
Etruscan graves in Italy, KM would have been 'vandalized'...***
>
> Regards,
> Susan Granquist
> http://irminsul.org

..and Regards...

Karen McFarlin

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to

In article <3566b527...@news.demon.co.uk>, em...@email.co.uk (S. M.
Hewitt) wrote:

> On 23 May 1998 00:57:16 -0600, rae...@moc.noissimx (No one you know)


> wrote:
>
> >The recent Kennewick Man controversy looks to me like a possible attempt
> >to lend scientific justification to the so-called "Northwest Territorial
> >Imperative", which is a proposal for a white separatist "homeland" in the
> >Pacific Northwest that originated in the Aryan Nations movement.

> (snip)


> >
> >Steve McNallen of the AFA even wrote at one point that Caucasians "may
> >have preceeded" the Native Americans on this continent

> (snip)
> >
> >The racist mainstream media, of course, loved this story
> (snip)
> >

> >The paranoid style, as might be expected, reigns supreme here.

> (snip)


> >
> >Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.
> >

> >--No one you know--

The solution is simple; scientists should have the right to study
Kennewick man and learn everything they can. Only when there is a
completely public evaluation of the evidence can we come to a reasonable
conclusion about who this fellow was.

Cairns

Susan Granquist

unread,
May 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/26/98
to


On Fri, 22 May 1998, Paal-Eirik Filssunu wrote:

> No one you know wrote:
> >
> > The recent Kennewick Man controversy looks to me like a possible attempt
> > to lend scientific justification to the so-called "Northwest Territorial
> > Imperative", which is a proposal for a white separatist "homeland" in the

> > Pacific Northwest that originated in the Aryan Nations movement. Whether
> > or not that was the actual intent of a certain group's involvement in this
> > lawsuit, it certainly had that appearance. Take careful note of how some
> > have used Kennewick Man to advance the ludicrous claim that "whites were
> > here first".
> > ***It doesn't matter that 'Whites were here first'....What bothers you is
> that they're here Now <g>***
>

> > Steve McNallen of the AFA even wrote at one point that Caucasians "may

> > have preceeded" the Native Americans on this continent based on this one
> > finding of bones. That's one hell of a presumptious leap to make, isn't
> > it, especially before any positive determination was even made regarding
> > the bones in the first place?
>

> ***The first major look into 'non-Indian'/ Old World/ Land Bridge origins
> of North America's early populace was written by Jeffrey Goodman in his
> study called "American Genesis". He sees a primitive racial archetype in
> North America from which the Europeans and 'Amerinds' both evolved.
> It's interesting reading for those absorbed with the Northern World and
> its possible origins...***

The problem with this is that McNallen, in his suit, claimed the Berjinga


Straight theory as part of his justification, while the scientists were

stating that the find brought that entire theory into question. Mr


McNallen also claimed kinship as a reason for filing his suit, which is
likewise ridiculous from a scientific point of view, as the suit flatly
states that they would be more closely related and were seeking proof.
They likewise confused cacusoid with Caucasian, instead of realizing that

Northern Europeans were europoid. The legal questions hinged on whether


or not the NAGARP could be extended backwards thousands of years as it was
meant to cover known relatives, or ones that could be reasonably
identified. The Kennewick Man was found at the edge of a burial ground
where Native Americans were buried. It was, and is, sacred ground.

Leaving hta aside, he also overlooked in the writings that Asatruar


recognize as being spiritual in nature and relating to the customs and
ways of the ethnic group (noting the difference between a racial group and
an ethnic group) the advice that the dead, regardless of who they are, be
buried where they are found, as well as a section that was read over those
who died, not only in heathen/pagan times, but which is still used as part
of burial ceremonies by both Christians and Heathens in Iceland. It is an
oversight that is inexplicable in "ethnic" terms. The dead were to be
buried, some were worshipped afterwards, but with sacrifices and offerings
were made to the place of their burial with the belief that it continued
the peace and plenty that had followed such men in life.

Also overlooked in the furor that followed the press conference by
Chatters was the statement that the skeleton resembled *EAST COAST* Native
Americans or Europeans more than the Umatilla. While a "treking" Viking
(the New York Times not withstanding) is far fetched, Native Americans
from the east coast migrating or traveling that far would not be.

Not long after the Kennewick man claims were made a group of skeletons


were found in Spain which scientists identified as being ancestral to both
the Neandrathal and modern man. So far the Asatru Folk Assembly has not
applied their expounded theology to in asking to see them buried. There
is at least a supportable claim there.

> **If he was Caucasian, we must now determine if KM is Georgian, Armenian,

He wasn't Caucasian. Georgtian, Armenian, Europe were all concepts that


came long after the man died.

> > The paranoid style, as might be expected, reigns supreme here. Should


> > scientists determine that Kennewick Man is, in fact, Native American,
> > expect cries of "coverup" and "political correctness".
>
> ***a) there is no evidence that KM is a migrant.
> b) there were no airline tickets on the body and
> thus KM is most likely a native born North American.
> c) because of the time period involved, it can not be
> determined that KM was listed with the IRS.
> d) KM liked the Northwest environs millenia before Portland
> Seattle, and Vancouver were fashionable. These areas should
> all host a KM regional 'holiday' crowing about the goodness
> of the Pacific Northwest and how even ancient people liked
> living there...<g>***

You do realize that all of those points argue for the absurdity of the
AFA's claim?

> Should the bones
> > be reburied without study, expect cries of "coverup" and "political
> > correctness". There will be only one acceptable finding in certain eyes
> > because these people have already made up their minds that (a) Kennewick
> > Man is Caucasian,
>
> **I haven't made up my mind on that..***

How about the idea of the threat of "cover up" charges? Since that was


presented as an excuse for filing it seems likely. Certainly the
statements over the covering of the burial site to prevent eroding was
rather contradictory with the original statements.

Burial rites were performed at teh Kennweick Park, and the raising of a


"howe" appeared. I'm impressed. :>

> (b) Whites were therefore on North America before anyone
> > else
>
> **Irrelevant- but we're living here now which is a million times more
> important...**

I agree. it is irrelevant, so why is it being presented as a reason for
justifying the suit?

> , and (c) Anyone who determines differently is acting as part of a PC


> > conspiracy or coverup.
>
> **No- they're just overreacting. That races other than Europeans
> constructed the pyramids of Tenochtitlan and the Aztec country, or that
> races other than Europeans built the pyramids of Egypt, or the Great Wall
> of China, or major cities in India, or Zimbabwe, Timbuktu, or Machu Pichu
> does not phase me, or indicate that my Folk is somehow 'lacking'. We live
> in our times and places, and all of us live in this era with its own
> major constructions and achievements (skyscrapers, dams, airports etc)**

Check the suit filed in Federal court. It is definitely an
over-reaction, which is what I have held since seeing it. It is
coutner-culturalism, which is what I was told when Mr. Fox told me of
filing it.

> > Science does not emerge from ancient religions or hokey racial theories.
>

> **The Alchemists (the forerunners to modern Chemistry) would argue
> differently on that. So too would the Swiss Herbalists whose knowledge
> extends back many centuries in their Holistic ways.

Actually I'd have to agree with you and disagree with the above statement

as science did emerge from the philosophers and religious world views.
However, science and religion do not need to be at odds, and isn't except
for the fundamnetalist creationism which those who use religion (any
religion) to justify their social agendas and Ideologies.

> Norse, Celtic, Baltic, Latin, Hellenic, Turkic/Asian, Indian, African,

> Ancient American and other peoples all had some 'science' invested in
> their religions- one which linked them to some understanding of Earth,
> men, and nature....

They also had cultural concepts that related to burials and the way the
dead were treated.

Regards,
Susan Granquist
http://irminsul.org


Oliver Loveday

unread,
May 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/27/98
to

Karen McFarlin wrote:
> The solution is simple; scientists should have the right to study
> Kennewick man and learn everything they can. Only when there is a
> completely public evaluation of the evidence can we come to a reasonable
> conclusion about who this fellow was.
>
> Cairns
Those bone pickers you refer to as scientist have trouble accepting that
maybe the person was human, and therefore have trouble respecting the
dead. I suppose you would have no trouble with them "examining" your
bones in a few thousand years. For me, put him back in the ground where
he belongs. They can learn just as much from his feces if there is any
of that left around, and that is what they should be digging through
anyway. Too bad the smell isn't there for them to enjoy as well.

Oliver!

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

In article <356BB0...@nxs.net>,

Why would it matter? Won't we be dead? Long dead? Kennewick Man is the center
of a hot debate. Why not study him in detail? Is it that our paradigms about
humans in the New World might have to shift? Since when is less knowledge
better than more knowledge?

RS

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
Since when is less knowledge
> better than more knowledge?
>
> RS
>

Less knowledge became worth more when the quality of the knowledge got
so poor that it wasn't worth a dime. So, today, one ounce of quality
knowledge is worth much more than two tons of crock.

Dumbdrum

Jason Joy

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Lol. . . Do you mind if I memorise that one dumbdrum? ! :-)

Randy R. Cox

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 19:32:01 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
wrote:

>In article <356BB0...@nxs.net>,
> oli...@nxs.net wrote:
>>
>> Karen McFarlin wrote:
>> > The solution is simple; scientists should have the right to study
>> > Kennewick man and learn everything they can. Only when there is a
>> > completely public evaluation of the evidence can we come to a reasonable
>> > conclusion about who this fellow was.
>> >
>> > Cairns
>> Those bone pickers you refer to as scientist have trouble accepting that
>> maybe the person was human, and therefore have trouble respecting the
>> dead. I suppose you would have no trouble with them "examining" your
>> bones in a few thousand years. For me, put him back in the ground where
>> he belongs. They can learn just as much from his feces if there is any
>> of that left around, and that is what they should be digging through
>> anyway. Too bad the smell isn't there for them to enjoy as well.
>>
>> Oliver!
>
>Why would it matter? Won't we be dead? Long dead? Kennewick Man is the center
>of a hot debate. Why not study him in detail? Is it that our paradigms about

>humans in the New World might have to shift? Since when is less knowledge


>better than more knowledge?
>
>RS
>

>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

With respect to your thoughts I must point out that the Third Reich
thought knowledge was so important as to overshadow the means by which
it was gained. Knowledge gained in dishonorable ways is evil and
contains more untruth that truth!

Won't we be dead? Well, there are those of us who "know" that dead is
not as "dead" as others might think. In a world inhabited by people
of various degrees of knowledge, those who do not know the importance
of respect for "dead" must yield to the knowledge (or at least belief)
of others.

To best understand the insult of one culture out of the ignorance of
another, perhaps it would help to see things in a different light.
Consider two cultures, one who thirsts for knowledge about the living
sexual organs of another culture. The first culture "knows" that
there is nothing sacred about the privacy of one's sexual parts and
having this knowledge demands to investigate fully the parts of the
other.

Since it is of no matter, the first culture will just laugh off the
demands of the second and through strength of power will just ignore
the protest and examine as they will. In their superior arrogance
they know that no harm will be done by this simple and thorough
examination.

Some who do not understand the necessity for respect for the dead, may
out of respect for the living, draw the parallel of the different
cultures and yield to the proper ways. Those who are so arrogant as
to know that no such parallel exist will deserve the curses and
prayers of revenge by the living relatives of those whose remains are
desecrated. Those are the ones whose pets and children will be stolen
and tested in the most cruel ways by professionals from other
disciplines but sharing the same arrogance of disrespect. By the
sword that you live shall you die.

Randy

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Just as long as it don't show up someday on a website or something
called "Puddlewaterme Wisdoms and Prophecies" from the Puddlewaterme
Tribe of Wisconsin, I suppose it would be ok. You could even take it to
Hyde Park and or the Vatican and repeat it 20 times aloud and call it a
Pale Marys as a way of repenting the sins of the foundering fathers.

All I ask in return is a bag of tea -- Earl Grey

Lol,

Dumbdrum

Oh, but do the English version...say it wasn't worth a pittance or
something instead of dime. You don't have dimes over there do you?

Jason Joy

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

That was the best yet!! You never fail to make me laugh - consistent or
what?! So where should I send the earl grey ? - email me. :-) :-)

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Jason Joy wrote:
>
> That was the best yet!! You never fail to make me laugh - consistent or
> what?! So where should I send the earl grey ? - email me. :-) :-)
>
Could you put it in a hermetically sealed bottle and throw it in the
ocean? Whatever you do, please don't let it come over through the Bering
Strait.

Lol

Dumbdrum ^*^

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <357453...@fishnet.com>,
dumb...@fishnet.com wrote:

>
> rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
> Since when is less knowledge
> > better than more knowledge?
> >
> > RS
> >
>
> Less knowledge became worth more when the quality of the knowledge got
> so poor that it wasn't worth a dime. So, today, one ounce of quality
> knowledge is worth much more than two tons of crock.
>
> Dumbdrum

Did I miss something? The only way to know anything about Kennewick man is to
study him. How can the knowledge gained be a crook? (Unless of course it
bursts someone's silly preconceived notions?) Besides, who says native
americans have some claim on all the bones found on this continent? That's
like saying we shouldn't dig up the past and study it - like me claiming that
the bones found in an ancient burial site in the Scottish Borders belongs to
me! What utter rubbish!

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l6be3$7t3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>
> In article <357453...@fishnet.com>,
> dumb...@fishnet.com wrote:
> >
> > rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
> > Since when is less knowledge
> > > better than more knowledge?
> > >
> > > RS
> > >
> >
> > Less knowledge became worth more when the quality of the knowledge got
> > so poor that it wasn't worth a dime. So, today, one ounce of quality
> > knowledge is worth much more than two tons of crock.
> >
> > Dumbdrum
>
> Did I miss something? The only way to know anything about Kennewick man is to
> study him. How can the knowledge gained be a crook? (Unless of course it
> bursts someone's silly preconceived notions?) Besides, who says native
> americans have some claim on all the bones found on this continent? That's
> like saying we shouldn't dig up the past and study it - like me claiming that
> the bones found in an ancient burial site in the Scottish Borders belongs to
> me! What utter rubbish!
>
> RS

Yes, RS, you missed something: it's called the punchline. We were talking
about "crocks", not "crooks" -- and, as anyone who knows anything about
anything knows -- both are equally susceptible to cracking! About the bones,
though, you really crack me up, I tell you. Who's going to lay claim to your
bones when you're dead? Scotland yard?
If you feel like you missed something, RS, you didn't get the joke. Just goes
to show you're not all cut from the same cloth. Jason's yucking it up over
there. He got it. Maybe you should ask him what you missed. I bet it's that
damn Earl Grey making him laugh.

Dumbdrum

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l1qn5$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,

ra...@worldnet.att.net (Randy R. Cox) wrote:
> With respect to your thoughts I must point out that the Third Reich
> thought knowledge was so important as to overshadow the means by which
> it was gained. Knowledge gained in dishonorable ways is evil and
> contains more untruth that truth!

Could you give an example of this? It doesn't really make sense as it stands.

> Won't we be dead? Well, there are those of us who "know" that dead is
> not as "dead" as others might think. In a world inhabited by people
> of various degrees of knowledge, those who do not know the importance
> of respect for "dead" must yield to the knowledge (or at least belief)
> of others.

I think it is very respectful of the dead to study them. Your statement about
"knowledge" is metaphysical and thus not factual in a literal sense. It can
only be taken as a claim to superior knowledge without having to demonstrate
the rigourous methodology by which this knowledge was attained. It is a claim
to special knowledge, apparently only available to an ethnic "elect". The
claim thus contains hints of racial superiority: "I know because I'm a Native
American - and you're not!" (As a matter of fact I have both Mohawk and
Alconquin ancestors.)

> To best understand the insult of one culture out of the ignorance of
> another,

This anology refers to "a" culture. Native Americans had many different
cultures. Which one are scientists insulting? Yours, just some of them, all of
them? Besides, the chance that Kennewick man is one of *your* direct ancestors
is astronomical. It is like me claiming that the body of a 10,000 year old
man found in Fifeshire, Scotland, is "my" ancestor, just because I'm part
Scottish.

Please, try to look at this with some perspicuity. Your argument is based on
emotionalism and an inflated sense of personal entitlement, nothing more.

> Some who do not understand the necessity for respect for the dead, may
> out of respect for the living, draw the parallel of the different
> cultures and yield to the proper ways. Those who are so arrogant as
> to know that no such parallel exist will deserve the curses and
> prayers of revenge by the living relatives of those whose remains are
> desecrated. Those are the ones whose pets and children will be stolen
> and tested in the most cruel ways by professionals from other
> disciplines but sharing the same arrogance of disrespect. By the
> sword that you live shall you die.
>
> Randy

What makes you think you are the direct ancestor of this dead guy? What
presupposition of the intellect makes you believe that to study is to
desecrate? How do you come off with this threat against people who don't agree
with you? Don't you believe that *you* are being a little arrogant?

What you say betrays a fear of what might be found, and not much more.

RS

Floyd Davidson

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

<rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us> wrote:
> dumb...@fishnet.com wrote:
>> rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>> Since when is less knowledge better than more knowledge?

>> Less knowledge became worth more when the quality of the knowledge got


>> so poor that it wasn't worth a dime. So, today, one ounce of quality
>> knowledge is worth much more than two tons of crock.
>>
>> Dumbdrum
>
>Did I miss something? The only way to know anything about Kennewick man is to
>study him. How can the knowledge gained be a crook? (Unless of course it
>bursts someone's silly preconceived notions?) Besides, who says native
>americans have some claim on all the bones found on this continent? That's
>like saying we shouldn't dig up the past and study it - like me claiming that
>the bones found in an ancient burial site in the Scottish Borders belongs to
>me! What utter rubbish!

Yes, you do seem to have missed something...

The only way to know anything about Kennewick man is to respect
him first. Without that, whatever you think you've learned is
nothing but a crock.

I can feel absolutely no respect in the paragraph above.

Floyd

--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@ptialaska.net
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:

>
> What makes you think you are the direct ancestor of this dead guy?

This is not something we "think" -- it's something we "know."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein.

Arrogantly, I would add to this oft-cited statement of genius:

But the one does not preclude the other.

If you think about *that* long enough, RS, you won't need to study half
as much in order to know what we're talking about here.

Dumbdrum

Floyd Davidson

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

>... Besides, the chance that Kennewick man is one of *your* direct ancestors


>is astronomical. It is like me claiming that the body of a 10,000 year old
>man found in Fifeshire, Scotland, is "my" ancestor, just because I'm part
>Scottish.
>
>Please, try to look at this with some perspicuity. Your argument is based on
>emotionalism and an inflated sense of personal entitlement, nothing more.

You have that backwards. If Kennewick Man is _your_ ancestor,
then perhaps you have the right to cut up and do whatever you
like to "study" his remains. The chance that you have that
right are indeed astronomical.

>> Some who do not understand the necessity for respect for the dead, may
>> out of respect for the living, draw the parallel of the different
>> cultures and yield to the proper ways. Those who are so arrogant as
>> to know that no such parallel exist will deserve the curses and
>> prayers of revenge by the living relatives of those whose remains are
>> desecrated. Those are the ones whose pets and children will be stolen
>> and tested in the most cruel ways by professionals from other
>> disciplines but sharing the same arrogance of disrespect. By the
>> sword that you live shall you die.
>>
>> Randy
>
>What makes you think you are the direct ancestor of this dead guy? What
>presupposition of the intellect makes you believe that to study is to
>desecrate? How do you come off with this threat against people who don't agree
>with you? Don't you believe that *you* are being a little arrogant?

What arrogance says that if none of the grave robbers are direct
decendants then it is OK to dig up and disturb a grave?

wed...@worldnet.att.net

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

1) All indigenous remains must be returned to their people.
2) This MUST be done immediately if not sooner. Yesterday, if possible.

In the early 50's as a child I was diagnosed with polio. Later the diagnosis
was changed to hepatitis (bad enough, but a relief to all considering the
alternative). So you can see my family's joy when Dr. Salk came up with his
vaccine. I was in the first cohort vaccinated. Dr. Salk has always been a
hero to me.

I'm mentioning this so that you know where I am speaking to you from (i.e.
"medical materialism"). I am not a spiritual person, nor a moralist.
Untainted, so to speak by obscurantism or deconstructionism . In the case of
Galileo v. Holy Inquisition, there has never been any doubt where I stand. So
it is from that standpoint that I repeat:

1) All indigenous remains must be returned to their people.
2) This MUST be done immediately if not sooner. Yesterday, if possible.

You see I've always viewed science as a kind of *public* knowledge with
practical justification , not a domain of occult studies of some cloistered
priesthood . One of its justifications as a public activity is the abatement
of pain and suffering (qua Dr. Salk, Louis Pasteur, Dr. Lister.). So when,
instead of being reduced, pain is actually induced, any justification for the
activity is missing.

Your common sense will tell you there will be no great breakthroughs with
these studies on remains. None that are worth speaking of. Certainly none to
justify the pain. This is just "paper production" science, leading to no
practical end and, quite frankly resolving nothing. These macabre studies
never do go anywhere[I'm thinking of the Moscow Brain Institute with its
corridors of pickled brains].

It is manifest that the failure to return these remains to their people is a
cause of great suffering. The remedy is obvious. Q.E.D.

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <3576C...@fishnet.com>,
dumb...@fishnet.com wrote:

>
> rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>
> >
> > What makes you think you are the direct ancestor of this dead guy?
>
> This is not something we "think" -- it's something we "know."

Yawn...this is ridiculous. How do you know? You don't, that's the bottom line.
And you have no way of knowing - this is just an exercise in blather. I hope
the courts see through this pretentious nonsense and allow the scientists to
take a look at the fellow. But political correctness may win the day, and it's
everybody's loss.

> "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein.

It is rather unfitting for people who fear and hate science to quote a
scientist, don't you think?


>
> If you think about *that* long enough, RS, you won't need to study half
> as much in order to know what we're talking about here.
>
> Dumbdrum

Don't flatter yourself. All I see here is people pretending.

RS

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l6ljg$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,

fl...@ptialaska.net wrote:
> What arrogance says that if none of the grave robbers are direct
> decendants then it is OK to dig up and disturb a grave?
>
> Floyd
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson fl...@ptialaska.net
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Kennewick man wasn't found in a grave site! He was washed out in a flood.
Nature moved his bones, no scientist did. No graves were robbed! He wasn't
"dug up", he was right out in the open! No grave site was desecrated!

(Before we proceed here, I'd like to ask; are you and this other fellow REAL
Native Americans, or guilt-ridden white wannabees? The reason I ask is that
the "white wannabees" are usually the most vociferous about this kind of thing
and are good at working up a lather of self-righteous indignation. I don't
have much respect for cultural transvestites.)

Randy R. Cox

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:06:28 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
wrote:


>
>I think it is very respectful of the dead to study them.

Actually, I agree with you that it could be very respectful--depends
on how it is done.
>

>
>Please, try to look at this with some perspicuity. Your argument is based on
>emotionalism and an inflated sense of personal entitlement, nothing more.
>

Yes, agreed, especially the part about inflated sense of personal
entitlement--I'm working on that. Also, emotionalism and one
additional basis--experience. Will explain later.


>
>What makes you think you are the direct ancestor of this dead guy?

Well, I really didn't think of that possibility, but now that you
mention it, since I believe that all men came from one original
genetic parent, I don't know how he could be any less than
cousin--some great degree removed.

What
>presupposition of the intellect makes you believe that to study is to
>desecrate?

The presupposition is that the integrity of man is highly
questionable. Comes from turning over a lot of rocks and not finding
many with much integrity under them

How do you come off with this threat against people who don't agree
>with you?

Meant no threat, just pointing out the danger from possible sources:

1) That many cultures sent their dead away with curses to protect
their bones; this guy may come with old curses attached.

2) People from cultures close to the land from which his bones come
may well use the silent curse to haunt those who disrespect these
things which are important to them. Notice that not many people pay
much attention to what they think or wish. That itself could be
called disrespect.

3) Irony of poetic justice.


Don't you believe that *you* are being a little arrogant?

No, not a little---a lot! Spent several hours thinking about how
arrogant I waxed at the end of my earlier post. That examination
helped me understand some things I will share in next post.

Randy


Randy R. Cox

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

When I was twenty two years old, I knew a lot more than I know today.
I had it all figured out.

One day I learned that my mother who was 36 years old at the time had
been shot twice in the brain.

The police said it was attempted suicide. She lived for six months in
a coma, then died. As the oldest of five children, it was my
responsibility to care for her remains. Having six months to think
about it and consult with my siblings and older family members, I was
ready when the time came.

My grandfather and my uncle (assimilated Cherokee), my father
(recently divorced), and all my brothers and sisters concurred. My
mother had from time to time said that she might donate her body to
science. Ceremonies of any type seemed pompus and just a waste of
time. I was an idealist and had seen enough of the world to know how
wonderful were doctors and scientists who worked every day in selfless
effort for the betterment of the world.

So very quietly, I turned her body over to science! We had no
funeral, no memorial services, no pointless ceremony whatsoever. The
only thing that mattered was that good was being done with her body.
She was not there, it was only a body!

Without the ceremony of passing, I began to have dreams in which I
would spot my mother on the street alive, but in some mental
impairment from the gunshots. I would try to catch up to her, but she
did not know me. These dreams were many and very dark. They haunted
me for many years! Thus I learned the importance of ceremony.

Shortly after her death, my uncle, her brother, underwent massive
shock treatment. Our family assumed it was necessary because of the
guilt he felt at talking us out of committing her for an alcohol and
depression problem she had. He lost almost all memory during this
process.

As I grew older, I learned of the darker sides of the medical world
and those who work in it. I learned of the jokes that students and
sometimes even professors played with the body parts of those who had
given their "empty" remains to their study. I learned that surgical
procedures they developed were used to cut parts out of living bodies
so that their own bank accounts might grow fatter and that these
people often ignored cheaper and better methods to heal just because
they didn't deliver the proper revenue.

So between the dark dreams of my "undead" mother at night, I had
waking dreams of male students chasing the female students around the
room with parts of my mother dangling from their hands. I had waking
visions of her body contorted in awkward poses to the demented
pleasure of these people we call doctors.

Many years later, my grandfather cried as he told me that he was
afraid that his advice to me to donate her body might have been based
more on shame and fear that people would know his daughter had took
her own life than out of any concern he had for science. He did not
want to face the many people a funeral would bring.

My brothers and sisters, all older now, have each confessed an
uneasiness about having given our mother's body to those who did not
know her.

My grandfather, my grandmother, and my uncle have all joined my mother
in their own time.

I no longer know as much as I knew then, but I do know that no one
knows for sure what happens to spirit after death and its connection
to the body it leaves behind. I know that everyone pretends to give
respect where respect is due, but hardly anyone actually even knows
what respect means much less give it. Few can be trusted.

Randy

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>

>
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein.


BUT THE ONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OTHER


>
> It is rather unfitting for people who fear and hate science to quote a
> scientist, don't you think?

You seem to be making assumptions and generalizations that don't apply,
RS. In the first place, Einstein was not only a physicist, he was also a
philosopher, and I might add, an accomplished violinist. I have read
Albert Einstein's philosophical writings in the German original, have
you? If you had, you might then be able to conclude, as I have done,
that the English and the German versions "don't match up." Funny, when I
informed Oxford university of the fact that the scientists who
translated Einstein's philosophy didn't get the joke anymore than you
did, they sent me a letter addressed to Dr. D. Dumbdrum and that was how
I got my "honorary Phd" from Oxford which is now displayed prominently
on my bathroom wall. Every time I take a dump, I know what that piece of
paper is worth. I have since re-translated much of Einstein's work in a
limited edition, unpublished volume called "The Intelligible English
Einstein." I pass it out, free of charge, to deserving people who love
knowledge. Most of them are not employed by the Academy.

I do not "fear" or "hate" science. I am critical of it. There is a
difference. And if you haven't yet figured out yet that there are some
very well-educated people on this ng, you ain't seen nothin' yet. We do
have the intellectual capacity and background to make judgments based on
something other than "fear" and "hate."

> >
> > If you think about *that* long enough, RS, you won't need to study half
> > as much in order to know what we're talking about here.
> >
> > Dumbdrum
>
> Don't flatter yourself. All I see here is people pretending.
>
> RS

When was the last time you saw an optometrist?

Dumbdrum

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
> I don't
> have much respect for cultural transvestites.)
>
> RS

But the culture vultures are ok in your book?

Dumbdrum

Yvsa G.

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to
Wado equa.Yvsa-G We are here for we never left,Hayv.

dumb...@fishnet.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

justanoldman wrote:> <cut>

> >
> > When was the last time you saw an optometrist?
> >
> > Dumbdrum
>
> WOW!! You had that one down, gutted, skinned & his rump in the oven before
> he even knew what hit him! ... Nice kill, Dr D. Whoooee!!


Well, since I came over here to alt.native, I've had some pretty good
teachers ... as far as Innernet posts are concerned. Yeah, justanoldman,
let me take this opp. to tell you and everyone else what I've been
thinking for a long time: You folks over here have taught me how to be a
little more "civil" in my internet posts. Many megwetch.

But, hey, don't expect me to take *this* one out of the oven and serve
it up for dinner! I'd prefer, in this case, commodity cheese.

Dumbdrum

justanoldman

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

son...@jaguarsystems.com

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

OK, this post is an example of the type of posts that frequently come out
from web-tv users. There is absolutely NO message available for me to read.
Now I know you can read it, and other webTV users can read it, but most of us
computer folks can't. It's just a blank to us. I think you failed to use
plain text here. If you want most of us to follow you, you have to ALWAYS
use plain text.

Sondra
http://www.jaguarsystems.com/sondra

In article <6l7lpk$b68$1...@newsd-103.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Yvs...@webtv.net (Yvsa G.) wrote:
>
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1048891630-3036
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> Thanks for sharing that with us Randy.
> That must have been very painful for you.
> You have my admiration!!!
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1048891630-3036
> Content-Description: signature
> Content-Disposition: INLINE
> Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> <html><body:
> background="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv25/star1.gif"><img
> src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv40/zazbear2.gif"><bgsound
> src="http://members.tripod.com/~webtv12/rollover_beethoven.mid"><META:
> HTTP-EQUIV="refresh"
> content="19;URL=http://members.tripod.com/~webtv18/rocknroll.mid"></html>


>
> Wado equa.Yvsa-G
> We are here for we never left,Hayv.
>

> --WebTV-Mail-1048891630-3036--

Rube Lloyd

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

In article <6l9d2o$ejs$1...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,