Talk:NAGPRA

	This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Agenda

Godot repeatedly takes the text below out and gives no reason. When we assess her value to RationalWiki we should consider that she sometimes takes good material out to suit her nebulous agenda.

The Native American tribes are usually split into two camps regarding the NAGPRA. The first camp wants the bones back right away or as soon as possible, before scientists can study them. Since it is their belief that their tribes have been in North America since the beginning of time, any study about which groups the skeletons are related to in order to piece together migratory patterns into the New World are irrelevant to them. The other camp understands the need for these studies, and will allow analysis before re-burying the skeletons. This caused a lot of issues upon the discovery of the Kennewick Man, since the skeleton was so old it didn't have any of the features that are commonly associated with Native American skeletons.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 1. Put in some citations? Very few people who work on mainspace are inclined to take you at your word because you've made so many poor edits there. Try to make those citations not come from the atheist equivalent of User:Conservative's blog. Also, shut up about "Godot's nebulous agenda." Her agenda has mostly been to protect your reputation from the careless edits that you tend to make. You should than her. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write it, it's been there since the start of the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"When we assess her value to RationalWiki . . ." Prox, is that a first stone you really want to cast? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The tone of this article seriously needs to change

What this article says, at the moment (17/12/12) is that those pesky redskins are getting upity over a few old bones and relics. That guff about how it makes archaeology more difficult - and so it damn well should. It started as a way to stop systematic grave robbing and looting of sacred sites. It also fails to note the radically different ways that 'white' remains and 'indian' remains have been treated.

Furthermore, it makes no mention of Maria Pearson - which is quite ludicrous. A simple mention of the civil engineering project in Glenwood Iowa would be a start.

OK, so I should do this myself but, quite frankly, at the moment, I haven't got the time. Innocent Bystander (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

^Good post. I have no knowledge on this issue whatsoever, but it would certainly be useful to know more about the background & a less one-sided account of the issues raised. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This reads to me as an obvious attempt to advance shadowy Christian-Indian agenda. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I added, "Allowing religion to get in the way of science is not restricted to any one racial group. Efforts by white Christian fundamentalist to get Young Earth Creationism taught in schools arguably damage science more." to try and prevent the article being racist. I hope it stays though it may need modification. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's completely irrelevant & quite an insulting comparison. NAGPRA is not all about religion. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, that might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on the wiki. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Poxie - When you revert my edits, and say "I didn't write this", do you even look at what was removed and why? The crap about archeologits was just that - crap. Yet you put it back in, just because I took it out. If you give a shit, i got my job in the legal industry working for NARF, writing expert opinions for NAGPRA cases. that is not in an of itself, a reason to care what I took out or added, but actually READING what i took out would be of some help, rather than just reverting.

That said, What the fuck are you on about, in your comments here about science and religion. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE OR RELIGION. It's got everything to do with people saying "stop objectifying us", "we are real, we are here, and those museum boxes are our ancestors.".Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Godot - Bones of Contention looks like a reliable source to me. Incidentally are you an academic in a religious studies department or do you have a career in the law industry?

In reality it's to do with science AND religion. Some archaeological material is lost because Native Americans insist on respecting their ancestors' remains more than archaeological science. Other times Native Americans have been objectified and recent remains with little archaeological value where there were surviving relatives were treated with disrespect. It's not black or white, it's shades of grey. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some archaeological material is lost because Native Americans insist on respecting their ancestors' remains more than archaeological science." Too fucking bad for Archeological Science. Cry me a fucking river, Archeological Science. You built your entire career on treating people commonly regarded as "primitive" and often regarded as "less than fully human" as objects of study, Archeological Science, instead of treating them as fully-formed human subjects with their own traditions, mores and cosmologies. This is what it costs now. Deal with it. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I did't say it wasn't science. i said it's not RELIGION. at all. it's identity. it's people saying "we are not tv figures". as for my background - if you care, why you care? I have my phd in Lakota Religion and Linguistics. my thesis was on the effect of the change of actual belief in Lakota views of god and the god head, after Christian contact. I did this primarily by tracing how four words (God, Wakan Tanka, Tunkashila and taku skan skan) were used in earliest writings (mostly those of self proclaimed holy man and US indian guide, G. Sword), in late 1800 and early 1900 writings like black Elk speaks, and Ella Deloria's works, and then how they are used contemporarily. To do this, i had to have a strong background in christian theology and lakota theology. After I graduated, i did case work writing amicus for NARF, usually related to NAGPRA issues. when i decided eating something more than ramen for dinner was important to me, i left academics and was hired to do legal research when not writing. happy now? sighs. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we're sharing, what is your background Proxima? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

racist?

I'm curious why the section on repatration of artifacts was "cleaned up" because it was "too racist". I get that everyoe thinks "oh those poor little indian people" around here, but if you have ever listened to tribes arguingn over artifacts, you will see cold hard greed. In changing the section, you've also removed one of the primary reasons they can legitamtely fight - they have moved over time, and the US law as written, talks about "closest indian tribe", rather than "most likely tribe" to have been there at the time of the remains or artifacts. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you say anything about the weirdness involved in the fact that it's the imperialist government, and not the people themselves who seem to get the final word in these cases as to who really "is" a First Nations/Native/Indian person? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I can say all kinds of things about that. ;-) Wanna talk the fact that the US govt tells each tribe how they are allowed to define their own people? some have to have a set blood quanta, some have to be enrolled for a certain time, course when it comes to health care, only the best and the brightest can be indian. I have no spell checker on my mobile, so i'll add more when i get back to Denver.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)