Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (84952)	8/7/2000 12:10:48 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I agree with you that the stifling of inquiry into Kennewick man's origin is shocking and unsupportable. However, I think the real blame lies with the American Indians, or at least the politically active ones, who find Kennewick man to be inconvenient. I actually have a dog in this fight, as I am part American Indian, albeit a lot smaller part than I thought. It's fashionable now, you see, so my family built it up more than they really should have. But I don't see what is to be gained by denying that Kennewick man shares a common ancestry with the majority of American Indians. As the much-maligned Reagan once malapropped, facts are stupid things. Yes, they are, but they are also ineluctable. If a different strain of humanity came here thousands of years ago, whether across the Bering Straight, or by another route, it doesn't damage anyone in any way to recognize it. Well, maybe I don't have enough American Indian blood to have the right to have a say in this matter, but I can tell you that I want to know the answer.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (84952)	8/7/2000 12:41:44 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Sure part of growing up is probably moving to the political center. I sure did. I was a little too young to be part of that movement. Maybe it wasn't your people's voice, but a large voice undeniably. And in a democracy, that's supposed to count for something. I'm merely pointing out that "free inquiry" and "strong values" are polar opposites. People that bolster one, are doing so by denying the other. You can't have it both ways - either you're open or you're closed. The positions are antithetical. Yet we expect them to coexist in some precarious balance. Hardy, har, har. What was shocking was that was one weird era there on all sides. Polarization galore. This is the same polarization that exists in many Creationist-Darwinist and Choice/Pro-Life discussions. In our discussions up to now, your rhetoric has generally been even and temperate. Yet, just reading your words now: So he told a bunch of grunting rutting hippies to shut the hell up. Who cares? They were spoiled brats anyway. rings terribly in my ears and evokes many conflicted memories. This suggest even now people are fundamentally polarized on this period. Those "hippies" were not all dirtbags - my sister was in the UC system at the time so I got first hand reports. Remember Angela Davis. UCLA. Sis' was there. 7 years. From 69 - 76. There was no reason to expect fundamentally pre-WWII values to exist in people asked to fight in Viet Nam. Can you image a more stark contrast in combat objectives? Saving the world from jackbooted warriors vs. dropping napalm on indigenous people. Hmm, I can't imagine why. The establishment group (money, position, power) was comparing their emotional frame of reference to the latter who had decided that the TV War was ugly and pointless (poor, weak, young). And the latter felt powerless. I would argue that their feelings were justified since they couldn't vote. Certainly, as much as black people were in the 50's. There was no vote, only conscription to a rich man's war, or so the songs went. I believe they were absolutely sincere in their beliefs. Thanks for the links.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (84952)	8/7/2000 3:09:32 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't see anything there that suggests the intervention of Clinton or any other elected executives. The person quoted is "associate director at the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service". That's a career bureaucracy position: a "member of the administration" to the extent that the Park Service is a part of the executive branch, but the working bureaucracy of the Park Service doesn't change with administrations, and I doubt that a change of administration would change that opinion. If the bill was vetoed, I would call that interference by the administration, but the opinion of a mid-level administrator in the Park Service hardly qualifies. What I see is a quarrel between Native American groups and scientists, which is gradually being thrashed out through judicial and legislative processes. I don't see anything sinister about that.