Hello friends, I just got finished reading this attached article from National Geographic, titled First Americans. I recommend anyone to take the time to read it. I find it valuable to an extent, but also take issue with some of its content. For starters, showing a Native skull that was unearthed is a sacrilege. The only reason this skull is shown in the article is because it was taken from a site in Mexico, which unfortunately does not have a NAGPRA equivalent. It reminds me of a museum I went to in Central Puerto Rico, where there was a full-on display of a small Taino childs skeleton. Although Puerto Rico remains a colony of the US, somehow NAGPRA does not apply to its territory...I digress....Another thing that strikes me immediately is the statement First Americans. Labeling pre-US and pre-European peoples as Americans is a way to incorporate all people into the umbrella of foreigners or newcomers. Native people across the Western hemisphere continue to call themselves by their own traditional autonyms, which pre-date European colonization and have nothing to do with the modern political boundaries created mostly by European invasion and wars. Trying to find the first American is insulting to people who defended their homelands for hundreds of years from aggressive European colonization, and who lost well over 90% of their population while doing so. The article purports that ancient Native people were North Hemisphere wild-types, and that the remains of Native women show signs of malnourishment and domestic abuse. No follow-up is given. I would think that after leveling a generalization of this magnitude, that National Geographic would back it up. I have never heard of this theory until now, and wonder how archaeologists can accurately make a claim that Native women were domestically abused 15,000 years after the fact....hmmmm. A Mr. Nava is quoted as saying that his theory for why Native people do not resemble their supposed Asian ancestors is because the tough ancient Native mens robust traits and features were being selected over the softer and more domestic ones evident in later, more settled populations.....huh?? Sounds like nonsense to me. The article asks How did people get all the way to Chile before the ice sheets in Canada retreated enough to allow an overland passage? I find it amazing that not ONE Native from anywhere in this Hemisphere was interviewed, so that they could have responded ,Because we were created here, and didnt come from anywhere else. This is the opinion and traditional narrative of the great majority of Tribes. Archaeologists tend to create this idea that Native people were always traveling (going south seems to predominate their stories). As in other theories I have read, this article has a general theme of Bering Straiters heading south, always south, moving, moving, following herds and sea patterns, traveling along coasts and island channels.....yet the article cites several reasons why these concepts might be flawed. Finally, at least, they are admitting that boat travel was possible around 15,000 years ago, but it is always talked about in the context of leaving one place and heading to a new one. In summation, there is little to no linguistic tie to any East Asian area, physical traits are vastly distinct from Asian people, and discovered sites are constantly being pushed back as older and older, while South American sites pre-date North American ones. So why are Native Creation Stories and Native opinions left out of the mainstream conversation?? My own theory: non-Native scholars are always on the prowl for how to undermine the Native connection and cultural memory to our homelands, because it threatens their sense of identity and their out-of-Africa narrative. I guess I couldnt expect better from a magazine that published a map detailing the Navajo reservation after the Navajo Nation asked them not to. ngm.nationalgeographic/2015/01/first-americans/hodges-text
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 04:28:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015