How do Mormons reconcile American Indian origins?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

The revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith speaks in God's voice is not a direct word-for-word quotation from God. Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God. The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice. In the D&C, Joseph used the term "Lamanite" to describe all native American inhabitants, including those in Missouri.

So, How do these statements align with the possibility that the Book of Mormon occurred within a limited geographical region?

1.

The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church. Those who accept the LGT, it is simply the only theory that is consistent with the geographic descriptions and distances found in the Book of Mormon. However, the truth of the Book of Mormon does not depend, however, on proving or supporting the LGT.

The LGT only holds that the Book of Mormon was confined to a narrow region and is not employed to explain Amerindian origins.

The story of Hagoth (Alma 63:4-9) speaks of the shipbuilders and movements northward (out of the general area referred to in the Book of Mormon) but also others that migrated to the north. Helaman 3 has references to people migrating to the north:

"And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land." (Hel. 3:3-5)

So, the LG theory does NOT mean that most modern native Americans are not actually descended from Laman. The LGT does not imply this at all. Even the LGT allows for every single native American in the hemisphere to be a descendant of Laman by Joseph Smith's day. This would have been true even if all of Laman's direct descendants inhabited only a small area somewhere in the Americas all the way up until A.D. 400.

It would still not mean that modern native Americans get the majority of their DNA from Laman nor would a genetic marker from Laman be detected anywhere in the America. As I explained.

Again, even under the LGT, every native American could be a literal descendant of Laman to some degree and yet all native Americans would still have predominantly Asian DNA markers.

2.

The term "Lamanite" does not require descent from Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent:

"...I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings." (Jac. 1:14)

Any person who wasn't a Nephite was, by exclusion, a Lamanite. Lamanites were not confined in any geographic sense at all. The Lamanites themselves occupied a region far greater than the LG as described in the Book of Mormon

[mapman]

Oh, I also forgot that the Mulekites intermarried with the Nephites and the Jaredites possibly with them. Who knows what the Jaredites and the Mulekites DNA was like.

[mapman]

5) After converting the locals to Christianity, Nephi somehow manages to exercise enough political influence on the locals that future generations actually refer to them as Nephites. None of this is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

How about the Mulekites? Others in the land are also implied in 2 Ne 5:6, Jacob 7:1, Alma 8:20.

As for your objections to LGT, I would point out that the Book of Mormon no where says that two nations covered two whole continents either. In fact, the internal geography takes place in an area of a few hundred miles, though in their later years they expanded northward. To me, the LGT makes so much more sense based on the text itself.

[Darth J]

Darth J, I think you have probably given one of the best responses yet to this question.

That may or may not be a good thing.

The "testable hypothesis" is simple. If there is a strong influence of Middle-Eastern lineages mixed in with Native Americans, then sooner or later it should pop up in all the genetic data being taken from the populations. It not, then we should expect to find no sign of it.

The underlined words are an assumption. How many people could possibly have gotten into that boat? That's why it's not so simple.

1) The prevailing belief among LDS is that Native Americans are really Jews.

I am very open to the prevailing belief among LDS being wrong. That would disprove a belief about the book, not the book itself.

2) The Book of Mormon does not specifically mention any interaction among locals. Every justification I have seen so far feels more like a giant plug designed to maintain plausibility, but no one has offered any positive evidence from scripture to suggest that Lehi's group intermarried with local natives and converted them all to Christianity.

No, they haven't. But no one is claiming this, anyway.

3) It is mis-leading to suggest that the Book of Mormon is open and frank about any interaction with locals. If anything, the Book of Mormon is hugely suggestive that Lehi's family fell onto a completely empty wilderness, set aside by God specifically for them. So really, I am asking you for some positive evidence in favor of the inter-mingling idea.

No, it doesn't explicitly say that, but that's not really the premise. The premise is that a book that is covering that many years in that number of pages (4th Nephi goes from A.D. 34 to around A.D. 250 in less than 50 verses) could not possibly cover enough detail to give you any really meaningful history. Which The Book of Mormon itself explicitly says:

"Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people."

-Words of Mormon, verse 5. Notice that this is Mormon, the compiler of the record, who is talking.

The Book of Mormon by its own terms is a scripture, not a history book. What little history there is just gives the scripture some backdrop. So it should be kind of self-explanatory that there was a whole lot more going on at the time period--if you accept the premise that The Book of Mormon tells a true story--than the book itself details, or even could detail.

I am interested in your thoughts.

Again, that may or may not be a good thing.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

1) The prevailing belief among LDS is that Native Americans are really Jews. Many of those who do real research do not necessarily hold to this view, but you cannot honestly tell me that such information has been openly disseminated among the members. This alone is not so bad, but the Church should really take a vested interest in quelling mis-information like this. I feel it makes the Church look bad, but what are your thoughts on this?

There are plenty of Ensign articles that discuss it, I expect more in the future. Even with a few facts, these are still theories, so we can't just put full weight on it no matter how much sense it makes. It could cause problems with critics in the future if the theory falls flat.

2) The Book of Mormon does not specifically mention any interaction among locals. Every justification I have seen so far feels more like a giant plug designed to maintain plausibility, but no one has offered any positive evidence from scripture to suggest that Lehi's group intermarried with local natives and converted them all to Christianity. This is a glaring omission when you consider how much the Book of Mormon loves to go into great detail about successes in converting people to Christ. Given that Lehi's family would have literally been aliens in a strange land, this is a conspicuously absent account, especially when you consider how so many other details of Lehi's family are chronicled from the same time-frame.

Within a few years Nephi reports that his people "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land" (2 Nephi 5:13). When about fifteen years had passed, he says that Jacob and Joseph had been made priests and teachers "over the land of my people" (2 Nephi 5:26, 28). After another ten years, they "had already had wars and contentions" with the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34). After the Nephites had existed as an entity for about forty years (see Jacob 1:1), their men began "desiring many wives and concubines" (Jacob 1:15). With such limited numbers, how did they multiply so fast? Why did the group suddenly preference for "many wives and concubines"? The fact that the plural marriage preference for the early Nephites is reported as a cultural fact seems to call for access to a large population of females. I say it could only have come about by incorporating "other" people. At the twenty-five-year mark of their history, Nephi already reported that they had had "wars" with the Lamanites, yet the male descendants of the original Nephites could not reasonably have numbered very many by the time these "wars" are mentioned. Either the expression "war" is being used loosely at this point in the account or else the population springing from the original Lehites had already been augmented by "others".

The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some years had passed away," "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard... that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's sudden appearance and statements are strange. Jacob, was the head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And how far was Jacob going in his preaching travels that Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase.

3) It is mis-leading to suggest that the Book of Mormon is open and frank about any interaction with locals. If anything, the Book of Mormon is hugely suggestive that Lehi's family fell onto a completely empty wilderness, set aside by God specifically for them. So really, I am asking you for some positive evidence in favor of the inter-mingling idea.

It is a bit silent about affairs outside of a limited geography it tells about. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[handys003]

What is the problem AntiCitizen. I already demonstrated in scientific data the haplogroups C and X confirmed in Amerinds in the Americas. This demonstrates a link to the Semitic cultures of N. Africa and Central/West Asia that compromised the people that formed the Hebrew descendants. It's facts sustained by science itself. What more proof do you want?

[AntiCitizen]

I am very open to the prevailing belief among LDS being wrong. That would disprove a belief about the book, not the book itself.

Oh, if only half the LDS were as frank and forthright as you I think these questions are soft-balls for you. Maybe in the next thread I'll come up with some tougher questions. It is refreshing to see someone acknowledge these matters the way you do, and actually provide a reasonable response that is difficult to argue with. Take notes, people!

No, they haven't. But no one is claiming this, anyway.

I guess I should clarify by adding that converting the locals to Christianity is kind of a prerequisite to building a nation of "Nephites." No one claims this directly, but it certainly seems like the only way to create a plausible scenario that fits with the BoM history.

The Book of Mormon by its own terms is a scripture, not a history book. What little history there is just gives the scripture some backdrop. So it should be kind of self-explanatory that there was a whole lot more going on at the time period--if you accept the premise that The Book of Mormon tells a true story--than the book itself details, or even could detail.

I am okay with this answer. I just take issue when people start positing their "plausible" scenarios without any serious indication from the BoM to validate them. Otherwise, we might as well just start inventing space aliens to come in and re-write everyone's genomes, or some other absurd story with no evidence to back it up. But as long as you least acknowledge the gaping hole in our understanding under the pretense that "hopefully we'll figure it out someday," then I immediately lose all power to debate. So kudos

[Darth J]

Otherwise, we might as well just start inventing space aliens to come in and re-write everyone's genomes, or some other absurd story with no evidence to back it up.

And I, for one, am comforted to know that nobody would come up with a religion like that.

[Ron Beron]

Just a random thought here, but might it be possible that the curse mentioned in the Book of Mormon on the Lamanites might be just spiritual in nature, and not physical nor genetic?

I think this is the exact answer.

[Ron Beron]

Hi Ron,

What about the possibility that the "curse" that came upon the descendents of Lamen and Lemuel WAS that the intermarried with the locals who were from Asia?

Richard

I wouldn't call that a curse. If so, it would certainly cast some aspersions on those who marry Japanese or other Asian folk. By using race as a factor in cursing we condemn entire races to inferior status...imagine that.

[Darth J]

I wouldn't call that a curse. If so, it would certainly cast some aspersions on those who marry Japanese or other Asian folk. By using race as a factor in cursing we condemn entire races to inferior status...imagine that.

What about the possibility that it is called a "curse" because some (not all) Nephites were racist, and they were the ones writing the story?

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father -- that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Jacob 3:5

[handys003]

What about the possibility that it is called a "curse" because some (not all) Nephites were racist, and they were the ones writing the story?

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father -- that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Jacob 3:5

Well I agree that more than likely many Nephites eventually became racists due to color of skin. However I would not cite the writer as being such. If he was racists. More than likely the author would have not put this chastisement in. or perhaps reworded it toward being more racist friendly.

[Darth J]

Well I agree that more than likely many Nephites eventually became racists due to color of skin. However I would not cite the writer as being such. If he was racists. More than likely the author would have not put this chastisement in. or perhaps reworded it toward being more racist friendly.

Well, right, I don't mean that Jacob was necessarily a racist, but it is possible that other Nephites were, some of whom were involved in actually writing the records that got compiled into The Book of Mormon.

Some modern apostles and presidents of the Church have said things that seem pretty racist to me and to most people who have heard or read those things. This has usually been in the context of trying to explain why blacks were not being ordained to the priesthood. David O. McKay, however, said that he was not aware of any doctrine that precluded blacks from being ordained. That would suggest that Brigham Young, Mark E. Petersen, and others were speculating to come up with a reason to explain a practice within the Church.

Similarly, it may be that Nephi and others did not like the "Lamanites" rejecting the gospel (and Nephi's political authority!), and if the theory is true that the "Lamanties'" skin color was because of breeding with native peoples who were already here, some Nephites may have equated the intermarrying/reproducing, and the effects on the skin color of their offspring, as part of the "curse" of rejecting the gospel.

But, then again, I have this bizarre way of seeing personal, editorial comments of Nephite prophets as being consistent with the book being what Joseph Smith said it was. Church leaders give personal opinions and occasionally speculate today; why couldn't any of the Nephite prophets as well?

[handys003]

Some modern apostles and presidents of the Church have said things that seem pretty racist to me and to most people who have heard or read those things. This has usually been in the context of trying to explain why blacks were not being ordained to the priesthood. David O. McKay, however, said that he was not aware of any doctrine that precluded blacks from being ordained. That would suggest that Brigham Young, Mark E. Petersen, and others were speculating to come up with a reason to explain a practice within the Church.

Yes I ask this of my wife who hears these kind of remarks at times as I roll my eyes. She said it doesn't bother her. She's here for her relationship with HF. It's for them to learn. She just inundates them with her love, kindness, and smile which usually makes them feel like little foolish children after she meets them.

[pcarthew]

Before I delve into this next series of questions, I would first like to thank everyone who took part in my evolution post. I think we had some very interesting dialogue, and I learned a great deal from some of your comments about reconciliations between science and faith. So with this same spirit in mind, I would like to ask another series of questions:

1) How do Mormons reconcile the alledged Jewish origins of Native Americans with the recent developments in mtDNA studies? For example,this article here is a great summary of modern research on American Indian lineages, and unequivocally links them to Mongoloid migrations. How do you reconcile this with the traditional doctrine that Native Americans are primarily Lamanite/Jewish remnants?

2) This question is specifically for those of you who are about to give me the whole "limited geography" hypothesis. That is, if you believe that Lehi's family merely inter-mixed with the locals, how do you reconcile this with claims like the following made by Spencer W. Kimball:

"With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea."

3) Or better yet, how do you reconcile "Limited Geography" with the Doctrine and Covenents, which very strongly suggests that Lamanites, Jews, and American Indians are all one and the same? See, for example,

D&C 10:48

D&C 28:8

D&C 54:8

D&C 19:27

I simply fail to see how you can accept the fruits of science with regards American Indian origins without openly contradicting the very plain language of the D&C. Or in the opposite sense, how do you accept the revelations of D&C without openly disregarding a huge body of conflicting genetic evidence?

I look forward to reading your responses!

I don't think you really care whether or not we can reconcile the origins of the Amerindian or not. This has been answered in many places on this board already and here with in this post. It is now up to you whether or not you accept the various opinions of the people and scholars alike. The claim of the book of Mormon still stands and always will, it can be analyzed to death. However ultimately is stands as a witness and testament of Jesus Christ. The scholarly arguments you ignore are very good. I note here that there are many valid points that well explain (in my opinion) you questions, which you ignore. That is your right. I wonder about the veracity of your questions, or whether you are another person who feels like you have all the big missiles to blow the Book of Mormon and it origins apart. To this point in time that has not happened. To be blunt, moving forward I doubt it will happen. I think people such as yourself will never be effective in your arguments against, until you acknowledge, that even if it wasn't true there is a lot in this volume of book that is truly remarkable. The intent of the Book is to bring people unto Christ, and careful reading of its pages will clearly illustrate this. The debate will always continue, but while people like you wheel out these type of "I have got you now" questions, millions will "come unto to Christ" through this book. No science can explain that. As with all scripture old world and new, faith is required to understand and see its value. God Bless.

[Jeff K.]

I am okay with this answer. I just take issue when people start positing their "plausible" scenarios without any serious indication from the BoM to validate them. Otherwise, we might as well just start inventing space aliens to come in and re-write everyone's genomes, or some other absurd story with no evidence to back it up. But as long as you least acknowledge the gaping hole in our understanding under the pretense that "hopefully we'll figure it out someday," then I immediately lose all power to debate. So kudos

No one has stated the Book of Mormon is anything beyond the scripture written by prophets of that day. Like many scriptures, among the Old and New Testaments, man whose history of the period and people is incomplete, some historical speculation is involved. No one has ever denied otherwise. So the so-called reconciliation you seem to hope trips up Mormons is a fantasy of your own making, less astute than even the thought of space aliens. By the way, I'm clear in case you don't know it.

[AntiCitizen]

What is the problem AntiCitizen. I already demonstrated in scientific data the haplogroups C and X confirmed in Amerinds in the Americas. This demonstrates a link to the Semitic cultures of N. Africa and Central/West Asia that compromised the people that formed the Hebrew descendants. It's facts sustained by science itself. What more proof do you want?

Think long and hard about what you are suggesting. Then look at the age given for haplogroup X. Then look me in the eye and tell me how a 12,000 year-old genetic divergence could possibly correspond to Lehi's group.

[AntiCitizen]

I wonder about the veracity of your questions, or whether you are another person who feels like you have all the big missiles to blow the Book of Mormon and it origins apart. To this point in time that has not happened.

If you really want me to shoot missiles at you guys, I can; because really, I've been holding back. These questions of mine are just soft-balls designed to get a feel for the water and understand how you guys think about these things. I really have no intention of shattering anyone's faith with these.

But if you really want to go down this road, I can certainly accommodate you. For example, I would love to hear your thoughts on the following questions:

PCARTHEW:

If I were able to demonstrate the complete falsehood of the BoM, what difference would it make in your life? Say, for example, I dug up a written confession in the hand of Joseph Smith himself wherein he openly refers to the members as "chumps" and "suckers." How would you react to such a piece of information? Would you still go to Church and pay your tithing? Would you share such information with the other members? What would this mean about your current testimony? Would it negate any confirmation you may have received through prayer? What if others did not believe you when you shared the information?

Be advised that the point of this question is to gauge your integrity. Would you continue on in support of a faith that was demonstrably false, even though it still brings happiness to others? Or would you take it upon yourself to correct the erroneous belief in others? In other words, how much is truth worth to you, and how strongly are you willing to stand up for it? Because I can tell you right now, if you were capable of demonstrating the veracity of your faith to me in a truly compelling manor, I would convert immediately and retract all my objections.

[Darth J]

Say, for example, I dug up a written confession in the hand of Joseph Smith himself wherein he openly refers to the members as "chumps" and "suckers." How would you react to such a piece of information? Would you still go to Church and pay your tithing? Would you share such information with the other members? What would this mean about your current testimony? Would it negate any confirmation you may have received through prayer? What if others did not believe you when you shared the information?

I would say that this hypothetical confession would have surfaced a long time before now.

And I would say that it would be very interesting to see an authentic document from the early 19th century that uses the terms "chumps" and "suckers."

And I would say that going from concrete facts (DNA tests done on American Indians) to a made-up hypothetical is not exactly going from softballs to missiles.

And I would say that it is the confession that is a lie, not The Book of Mormon, even if Joseph Smith had written this non-existent confession, because my belief in The Book of Mormon is not derived from a human being--including Joseph Smith.

And I would say that Joseph Smith had some times in his life, like Liberty Jail or Carthage Jail, where it would have been much, much more expedient to admit that he faked The Book of Mormon than in some hidden secret confession.

[Obiwan]

No offense Obiwan, but there are plenty of other scriptures that speak just the opposite, that this land was preserved and kept from all other nations as an inheritance for Lehi's seed. The "there were others here" works well for those believing in a limited geography model, either Meso or Great Lakes... but not for everyone... including myself.

I'm also not aware of any teachings that say, either scripturally, or in official talks or otherwise, that there were other peoples here, outside the Mulekites and the lone survivor from Ramah.

No offense Sevenbak.... but then you don't know the scriptures very well.

Are you aware that the BIBLE has such statements as well??? Are you going to tell me that "know-one" was living in THOSE LANDS or around those lands also???

A land being "preserved" from "nations" does not mean no living person lived there, it simply means that no dominate cultures had claim to the land, or if they did it didn't matter to God because God was giving it to them.

[handys003]

Think long and hard about what you are suggesting. Then look at the age given for haplogroup X. Then look me in the eye and tell me how a 12,000 year-old genetic divergence could possibly correspond to Lehi's group.

Actually the supposition maintained is 20,000 years old from France and Spain. However that is inferred from Caucasoid remains found in America. However Haplogrop X is still European, and North African in lineage. You cannot measure the age based on current groups only theorize and more than likely it hypothetical. it's all based on very thin evidence. Its mt DNA also Haplogroup X diverged from African descent of Haplogroup N. It is based on the fact that it came from the similar groups of that region. Example I took modern Egyptians and based on X being found in such means that their ancestry came from people 20,000 years ago, yet they still live in the region today. It would require breaking down X into markers indicating years of wave migration. it would have to take an Amerind measured then shows sub markers of X with a sub marker of migration from Europe 12,000 years ago. Then he also has markers showing migration 7000 years ago and then etc, etc.... You can only show with mt DNA place of origin.

It's like in the Austronesian theory. It's considered that Polynesians came from East to West based on Lipati culture found from shards in a Melanesian atoll. Taking mt DNA of Fijians you will find Asian, but you will find African mt DNA. Which came first the Africans or the SE Asians. You cannot tell based on DNA only places of origin.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

He is out of missiles, these questions are not based on actual fact or scientific reality (heredity=/=heritage) but rather is made upon the basis of dated or pseudo scientific gotcha and subjective interpretations. All his issues have been addressed by me, but he seems to not like my answers. But they've been answered, but in typical Anti-mormon style, they go about, not even saying that the answers they are given aren't any good, but they go about seemly unaware that answer have even been attempted.

[handys003]

He is out of missiles, these questions are not based on actual fact (both meaning and source of the words used) or scientific reality (heredity=/=heritage) but rather is made upon the basis of dated or pseudo scientific gotcha and subjective interpretations. All his issues have been addressed by me, but he seems to not like my answers. But they've been answered, but in typical Anti-mormon style, they go about, not even saying that the answers they are given aren't any good, but they go about seemly unaware that answer have even been attempted.

It's apparent he still grasps onto European colonialist thinking that trans-oceanic voyaging was not possible in the Ancient world before Columbus. Forget the Egyptians, Incas, Polynesians, Indians of India, SE Asians, Chinese, Phoenicians, Romans, Greeks, and other various ancient Europeans centuries before Columbus sailing. They were just primitive simpletons who had no concept of such.

[cinepro]

An interesting wrinkle in the whole LDS/Native American saga is this month's edition of the "New Era" magazine (the LDS magazine for teenagers).

Here's the cover:

Yet, the article for the cover story doesn't mention "Lamanites" once!

We've come a long way from the 1970's and 80's, when Native Americans were frequently addressed as "Lamanites".

For example, here, here and here.

[handys003]

An interesting wrinkle in the whole LDS/Native American saga is this month's edition of the "New Era" magazine (the LDS magazine for teenagers).

Here's the cover:

Yet, the article for the cover story doesn't mention "Lamanites" once!

We've come a long way from the 1970's and 80's, when Native Americans were frequently addressed as "Lamanites".

For example, here, here and here.

That's fine. I don't go around calling Hawaiians, Tongans, Samoans, and Fijians as Polynesian either. However they are referred in mass as such toward as a Pacific culture. Even they themselves self -described.

We just don't call the Native Americans Laminites as they don't like the designation. As they also don't like being called Indian as well. Which btw many in the science field still do. Example Amerind which is American Indian. It's so un- politically correct