Katherine Reece Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This came in my email on an archaeology update I
> get ...... I'll have to go searching and see
> exactly what these changes are.........
>
>
>
>
> This note about the potentially very important
> change to be made in the language of NAGPRA was
> sent to me today by the Friends of America's Past.
> If I were a suspicious sort, I'd say it was very
> interesting that the Senate chose this week, when
> a major portion of the American archaeological
> community is at the Society for American
> Archaeology meetings. While I'm unconvinced that
> the definition doesn't need rewriting, it seems
> that public discussion of such an influential
> piece of legislation should be called for.
> >From FOAP: S.536 Section 108 As early as next
> week (April 4-8, 2005) the US Senate will vote on
> S.536. In Section 108 of this bill, the Senate
> Indian Affairs committee quietly and unanimously
> voted to amend NAGPRA's definition of Native
> American. No public hearings were held on this
> sweeping change.
1) "Unanimously"..... which makes it unlikely that the change is as bad as FOAP suggests (for those unfamiliar, "Friends of America's Past" is a rabid anti-NAGPRA organization that is devoted to removing ANY Native American control over ancient human remains from the Americas).
2) Uh, public input (hearings & otherwise) *HAS* been sought on this issue for several years now (National NAGPRA Committee solicited both lay public & academic imput). Matter of fact, this was all considered in detail back when NAGPRA was initially written AND when the DOI regulations for enforcing NAGPRA were written (search google for the National NAGPRA website, & the NAGPRA module). Then, when the Kennewick Man lawsuits (variously filed by a racist White neo-pagan group seeking free publicity, by scientists trying to derail NAGPRA, and by a Samoan author seeking free publicity) came up, it became obvious that the text of NAGPRA contained wording that could concievably be misinterpreted contrary to the entire documented history of NAGPRA's intended purpose.... AND the National NAGPRA Committee & various members of Congress began considering the best way to close the potential loopholes. They first waited to see if the courts would take the logical course, when the court didn't, they started considering legislative correction.
> This expansive definition of Native American
..... Which "expands" the definition MERELY by ensuring that "if" a Native American people or culture goes extinct or change beyond (current) archaeological recognition, they are STILL considered Native American.....
> sets the stage to overturn the
> Kennewick Man decisions rendered by the Federal
> District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit
> Court of Appeals. More than Kennewick Man is at
> stake. Unless Section 108 is deleted, public
> access to the factual understanding of the
> nation's prehistory shifts to the exclusive
> control of American Indians.
Pardon the language Kat, but this is (FOAP) BULLSHIT.
1) NAGPRA *ONLY* applies to human remains found on FEDERAL LANDS. So right off the bat, something like 75% of remains are NOT covered by NAGPRA. (Hmmm, Indians would control 25%, White scientists would control 75%...... how is this "exclusive control by American Indians"?)
2) Yes, it would reverse the Kennewick Man decision.... and rightly so. That case was VERY poorly handled..... there was considerable evidence that was NOT submitted, the Plaintiffs in my opinion (as determined by comparison with their published opinions in academic venues) perjured themselves in their testimony, the judge had trouble grasping basic scientific concepts (and spent over a year before making a decision based on a tortured interpretation of grammar). See [
www.bauuinstitute.com] (Eh, there is also a devastating legal review of the Jelderks decision that I've posted previously on Maat, but I don't have the URL handy).
> FAX your concerns to
> your state's Senators and Senate Majority Leader
> Frist. Ask them to delete Section 108 from S.536.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to fax my SUPPORT for the changes.
> (US Mail will not reach these offices in time).
> Every FAX counts. Voice your concerns - NOW -----
> Subject: S.536 - DELETE Section 108 Delete Section
> 108 of S. 536. NAGPRA's definition of Native
> American should not be amended. The Ninth Circuit
> Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that the language
> now used in Section 108 yields an absurd result.
Uh, they ruled that the current language could be interpreted to mean that NAGPRA was an "empty law" that didn't do what it's authors had intended to do..... this change would REMOVE that "absurd result" by removing a grammatical loophole from NAGPRA & making it what it was originally intended to be.
> The Senate must not pass a law that yields an
> absurd result.
Right.... nor should they leave unchanged a law that "yielded an absurd result". Instead, MAKE THE CHANGES!
> The Senate Committee on Indian
> Affairs did not hold public hearings on this
> matter, nor did it consider the broad implications
> of this change nor interests of the greater
> public.
Wrong. They've considered the implications of this matter LONG AND HARD!
Sincerely,
Kenuchelover.
