Don't be generalized and if you have no idea what I'm talking about please respond stupidly I've got no problem with that. Serious answers would be best though.
2007-01-30 08:58:04 · 2 answers · asked by 29 characters to work with...... 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
This is a politically dangerous question to ask. The reason is that Kennewick man is obviously not an "Indian" or "native American" in the sense that "Sioux" or "Iriquois" are/were. His features are obviously not "native American."
The reason that it is a dangerous question to ask is that there is a certain politically correct story about the population of the Americas. That story is that the people who were going to become native Americans migrated across the land bridge uniting Siberia with Alaska, thousands of years ago. These people populated the Americas, north to south. They became the "Indians," "native Americans."
Later, in this story, Europeans came and conquered the Indians, killing them and destroying them with infectious diseases. The Indians were innocent in all of this.
But the existence of Kennewick man indicates that two peoples populated the Americas at different times. Maybe Kennewick man came first. Maybe "Indians," whoever you want to call them, came second and exterminated Kennewick man. Of course that would be unacceptable to modern "Indians." This is why "Indians" want to reclaim the bones of Kennewick man and "bury" them as a tribe member. Should one say LOL, or "Muwha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
2007-01-30 09:59:33 · answer #1 · answered by steve_geo1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This website here talks in detail about it and says (towards the bottom) that we really can't tell.
2007-01-30 18:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by Monique K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋