DNA and Indigenous Peoples

[Ariarates]

These 19^th and early 20^th Century non-LDS authors would likely scoff today at the claims of some modern geneticists that there was no migration to the Americas from the Middle East.

Yes, but 21st century non-LDS authors would likely scoff at the idea that there was a migration to the America's from the Middle East. It would seem science has moved on a bit in the mean time...

[Calm]

If we paid attention to those people, we'd still think the earth is flat, wouldn't we?

Unlikely. Those who see things this way are simply saying something along the lines of "no thanks, we are satisfied with our answers even if you aren't". It is certainly not preventing investigations in other areas or with other peoples.

[Calm]

Your premise seems to be that scientific investigation in itself constitutes an attack on traditional beliefs. I don't see it that way. However, if scientific knowledge trumps traditional beliefs, I see no harm in the traditional beliefs disappearing.

And what of the often ethical and moral standards that are tied into those beliefs?

[Mark Beesley]

Yes, but 21st century non-LDS authors would likely scoff at the idea that there was a migration to the America's from the Middle East. It would seem science has moved on a bit in the mean time...

Based on what? DNA? Have you read any of the books cited in my post? Heck, did you even bother to read the excepts?

If I understand you correctly, modern science trumps the oral traditions of the native Americans regarding their origins, even though the only plausible way those oral traditions could have evolved would have been if there actually was a migration from the Middle East. Seems anyone who would rely on science to scoff at such traditions would be a good candidate for membership in the Flat Earth Society.

[Mark Beesley]

Your premise seems to be that scientific investigation in itself constitutes an attack on traditional beliefs. I don't see it that way. However, if scientific knowledge trumps traditional beliefs, I see no harm in the traditional beliefs disappearing.

Because science is, of course, infallible.

[nicolasconnault]

Your premise seems to be that scientific investigation in itself constitutes an attack on traditional beliefs. I don't see it that way. However, if scientific knowledge trumps traditional beliefs, I see no harm in the traditional beliefs disappearing.

When I'm ill, I'm glad I can go see a doctor and not a medicine man. I would not want to deny "indigenous peoples" the same privilige just because I think their quaint little traditional beliefs should be preserved just because ... , mmm, well, why actually?

Yes, why? That's a good question! A good, provincial question! An excellent head-in-a-hole type of question!

Calling a culture's traditions "quaint little traditional beliefs" is disrespectful and shows great ignorance. You should travel more, my friend And leave your cynical spectacles behind when you do.

[ERayR]

Care to elaborate what you think is elitist and arrogant about my attitude, before I pay you my respects?

You show a disrespect for the beliefs of others. You act as if the science is settled so you dismiss the beliefs of others without even looking for the kernal of truth imbedded in the legends. It has been my experience that if you wait a little while the science is going to move the boundries.

[handys003]

Drop them a note and ask. Are native Hawaiians included in the genome project?

Do they have their own story of their origins? Is it important to them?

Bernard

Okay, I talked to some of my friends at Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The governing body overseeing the Hawaiians and their administration of rights and properties. There is nothing , nada, zip or should I say ?ole wale. They never heard of them or such notification. Gee they were shocked to hear indigenous Hawaiians are not endangered after all! (insert face palm here)

BTW and yes Hawaiians do have their own version or origination and it is important to them. Apparently you missed some of my many long winded hula chants... er ...ahem.. discussions on Polynesian voyaging and origins.

[Ariarates]

Unlikely. Those who see things this way are simply saying something along the lines of "no thanks, we are satisfied with our answers even if you aren't". It is certainly not preventing investigations in other areas or with other peoples.

I agree. To stick with my doctor/medicine man example: there will be a few people who will want to continue to visit the medicine man, but most will see that the doctor gets better results. In time, the medicine man will become marginalized and his healing practices obsolete.

Some posters may find this grossly insensitive to the medicine man and the traditional beliefs and morals attached to his traditional world view but inless these posters themselves rather visit a medicine man instead of a doctor next time they're ill, they're being rather paternalistic. Not sure if this is the correct English term, but what I mean is this: while vigourously defending traditional culture for "them", opting for modern culture for "us". It's this kind of paternalistic cultural relativism that one is warned about in every first year non-western sociology class (at least at my university).

There's nothing wrong with calling a backward superstition a backward superstition. I don't see why I should respect traditional north-Nigerian culture for claiming that polio vaccinations are a western conspiracy to make their women infertile, while hundreds of children are maimed for life due to a disease that can be easily prevented using modern medicine (for example).

[Ariarates]

Based on what? DNA? Have you read any of the books cited in my post? Heck, did you even bother to read the excepts?

Yes, I read the excerpts. Based on the near-universal phenomena (such as worshipping to the east, cleansing rites, burning incense in four directions, etc.) that are presented as evidence for Hebrew origins of the American indigenous peoples in these excerpts, I remain unconvinced. 19th century writers saw Hebrews everywhere; in fact, the argument is often used in connection with attacks of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Again, time to move on to the 21st century.

[Ariarates]

Because science is, of course, infallible.

I didn't say that.

[Ariarates]

YCalling a culture's traditions "quaint little traditional beliefs" is disrespectful and shows great ignorance. You should travel more, my friend And leave your cynical spectacles behind when you do.

When I used the phrase "quaint little traditional beliefs" I was emulating the language of "certain elements of our culture and government" as alluded to inDroopy's reply #15 above. I should have placed the phrase in parentheses.

By the way, do you have any good travel suggestions for me? Vulcan maybe, or Kronos?

[nicolasconnault]

When I used the phrase "quaint little traditional beliefs" I was emulating the language of "certain elements of our culture and government" as alluded to inDroopy's reply #15 above. I should have placed the phrase in parentheses.

By the way, do you have any good travel suggestions for me? Vulcan maybe, or Kronos?

India, Burma, Madagascar, Haiti, Australia, the Phillipines... Take your pick.

[Ariarates]

You show a disrespect for the beliefs of others. You act as if the science is settled so you dismiss the beliefs of others without even looking for the kernal of truth imbedded in the legends. It has been my experience that if you wait a little while the science is going to move the boundries.

Mmm, I still don't see it. Let me elaborate on what I said:

1. Strong traditional beliefs are not the same as "knowledge" in the scientific sense. This is merely an observation that scientific knowledge and traditional beliefs go by different definitions. It is neither a disqualification of traditional beliefs, nor a glorification of science.

2. Some people in the HGD project will be insulted when their traditional beliefs are challenged by science. The article in the OP stated that scientific inquiry into the origins of populations who already hold strong beliefs about their origin is insulting. I merely disagree that it is insulting by definition but I acknowledge that some people will undoubtedly be insulted by it.

3. If you heed people who are insulted when science challenges traditional beliefs, you would still be clinging to traditional, yet false beliefs such as that the earth is flat. When I wrote this, I was thinking of Luther's opposition to Copernicus' heliocentric view of the solar system. Luther's opposition was based on strong traditional beliefs, in this case his interpretation of the Bible. If people had listened to Luther, we would still believe that the sun was orbiting the earth. So, the "flat earth" terminology was a bit confusing there, but I hope the jest of it was clear.

Now, how does this show disrespect for the beliefs of others? Where did I say that science was settled? Where do I dismiss the beliefs of others?

Can't a man just disagree without being accused of various social deficiencies?

[nicolasconnault]

Can't a man just disagree without being accused of various social deficiencies?

Maybe the inference of social deficiencies comes from the form, rather than the content, of the disagreement?

[Ariarates]

Maybe the inference of social deficiencies comes from the form, rather than the content, of the disagreement?

As it happens, I think the form in which I expressed myself doesn't warrant these inferences any more than the content of my remarks. So far, I think I was polite and to the point and have refrained from personal attacks and derisive comments.

[nicolasconnault]

As it happens, I think the form in which I expressed myself doesn't warrant these inferences any more than the content of my remarks. So far, I think I was polite and to the point and have refrained from personal attacks and derisive comments.

I didn't say the inference was justified You just came across to me a little bit arrogant, but I may have read between the lines. I apologise if I did.

[Ariarates]

No worries, mate. What can I do to come across less arrogant?

[katherine the great]

Your premise seems to be that scientific investigation in itself constitutes an attack on traditional beliefs. I don't see it that way. However, if scientific knowledge trumps traditional beliefs, I see no harm in the traditional beliefs disappearing.

Traditional beliefs have disappeared throughout history. I think the longest tradition with the least variation is the Jewish tradition, and many of them were assimilated along the way. Most of our distant ancestors were pagan or polytheistic and we don't seem to object to the Christianization of their beliefs--even though much of it was done by the sword. I think many Americans now are especially sensitive to Native American culture because our colonial ancestors cruelly destroyed pretty much everything they had. Their beliefs and language (and genes) are basically all that is left for them. I think there has already been enough testing to show that whatever their beliefs (and I think most of their traditions state that they have always been in this part of the globe and didn't migrate from distant lands), biology is going to show that we all originated in Africa and migrated over time to wherever we find ourselves today. That would be in opposition to their traditions and if they have the power to fight against science, some of them will do it. That is their right and I can't blame them, but I do think it is a big loss for science.

[ERayR]

No worries, mate. What can I do to come across less arrogant?

I believe that you did not mean to come accross as arrogant. To answer your question refrain from deriding peoples cultural beliefs as in this post.

"I find this a silly statement, although I am sure that there will be people with "strong cultural beliefs" in this project who will be insulted when these beliefs are challenged by science and reason. What else is new.

If we paid attention to those people, we'd still think the earth is flat, wouldn't we?"

Cultural beleifs could be contributions from minority factions of the larger group and be very valid for the minority group while not holding for the entire group.

Also science in these areas are constantly in a flux and change with new discoveries.

In a word don't be dismissive of cultural beliefs.

Peace

[handys003]

Your premise seems to be that scientific investigation in itself constitutes an attack on traditional beliefs. I don't see it that way.

I don't see science as any attack on traditional beliefs either.

However, if scientific knowledge trumps traditional beliefs, I see no harm in the traditional beliefs disappearing.

There are some things in traditional beliefs that cannot be validated by science.

[Bernard Gui]

I don't see science as any attack on traditional beliefs either.

There are some things in traditional beliefs that cannot be validated by science.

The OP pointed out the reaction of those who are on the receiving end of DNA

studies. Native Americans defend their traditional knowledge and do not

agree that Western science has all the answers. I would recommend looking at

Vine Deloria's writing..."Power and Place," "God is Red," and "Spirit and

Reason," if you have any inclinations to understand their point of view, especially

in the areas of origins, migration, education, and conflict with science.

Bernard

[handys003]

The OP pointed out the reaction of those who are on the receiving end of DNA

studies. Native Americans defend their traditional knowledge and do not

agree that Western science has all the answers. I would recommend looking at

Vine Deloria's writing..."Power and Place," "God is Red," and "Spirit and

Reason," if you have any inclinations to understand their point of view, especially

in the areas of origins, migration, education, and conflict with science.

Bernard

I understand the Native Americans view. You apparently have not read my views on Polynesians particularly Native Hawaiians.