Gene testing and lawsuits - Native America waging battles
(Once again, please excuse the lack of a spellcheck - I'm doing this on the fly these days)
Blood Feud
by Brendan L. Koerner
Wired
09/2005
Accounting Coup
by Julia Whitty
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005
One of the reasons I subscribe to a variety of magazines is best illustrated by these two articles. The popular science take on the issues faced by Native Americans greatly differs from that of the liberal-activists-unionists perspective.
Koerner's focus is the genetic testing being used to define the racial history of any given person. Rick Kittles founded African Ancestry, and developed techniques have been helping African Americans find out where their roots are - which areas of the world and (at times) specific tribes.
The Native American aspect is the satus of freemen (people who were declared black by the US gov't in the 1800s) within the tribes. According to this article, the tribes are becoming rich off of the casinos and a lot of people are trying to declare themselves of native Heritage to get a peice of the financial pie. Due to politics and financial interest, tribal leaders decided to decare freemen non-native, and thre them out of their respective tribes.
The article lists many tribes affected by this issue, so the sense is that all Native American tribes are throwing out the blacks in their ranks.
To the resuce of this situation is genetic science and the man offering the define-your-bloodline service to the freemen trying to get, or get back, tribal membership.
Whitty's focus is on Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation and her fight with the US Gov't (the Bureau of Indian Affiars, specifically) to get complete documentation of monies due to the Native Americans whose lands have been 'managed' by the gov't (read: taken over, leased out to ranchers and oil tycoons, and profits taken in - yet seldom, if ever, doled back out). Elouise is an accountant and banker, she set up Native American banks (which are thriving and helping to create and support native American businesses), and is in a long-term court case to get the control over the funds into Native Hands (and away from the BIA) as well as the back money due (dateing back to the 1800s).
This article's focus is on the actions of an activist who is taking charge and making change. It's presentation of Native America is one that portrays the nations as extremly poor and very supportive of one another. One of banding together to fight poverty, lack of education, and unacceptable treatment at the hands of the gov't formed by the people who invaded and took over their land (by force).
So, which is right?
Why the drastic difference?
Science shows unacceptable splits caused by a recent flood of incoming cash that can be cured by genetics capable of proving the absolute percentage of every possible bloodline that person happens to carry. Socially-focused activism shows amazing feats of collaberation and change among people facing desperation and absolute poverty.
For absolutely no logical reason, when I read the Wired article, I had this gut response of wrongness. For some reason, I found myself thinking that their was a strong possibility that either the author greatly exageratted the situation, or he was taken for a fool. I have no proof or counter evidence to base this on, just a general sense of something not being right.
However, those interested in science are concered with genetics and their possible application.
Interesting thing - the article never goes into the potential ethical issues, of problems that might arise, from people being able to define race via a blood test. Rick Kittles is quoted as saying that massive genetic testing would prove that no one was as pure as he or she thinks they are, but that's as far as that part of the issue goes.
Whitty's article, never touches on Native American tribe's that are dealing with increases in income due to casino business, or the affect their experiences are having on the court case, native American banking, or financial issues Native Amricans, overall, are facing. Accirding to her, all native Americans are living in tiny shacks with $30 BIA checks covering their expense.
Granted, every author must make a point in a limited amount of words, but sometimes the differences in opinion are fascinating...and disturbing.
I suppose one must always keep in mind that the extremes sell, and the truth lies somewhere in between.
Blood Feud
by Brendan L. Koerner
Wired
09/2005
Accounting Coup
by Julia Whitty
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005
One of the reasons I subscribe to a variety of magazines is best illustrated by these two articles. The popular science take on the issues faced by Native Americans greatly differs from that of the liberal-activists-unionists perspective.
Koerner's focus is the genetic testing being used to define the racial history of any given person. Rick Kittles founded African Ancestry, and developed techniques have been helping African Americans find out where their roots are - which areas of the world and (at times) specific tribes.
The Native American aspect is the satus of freemen (people who were declared black by the US gov't in the 1800s) within the tribes. According to this article, the tribes are becoming rich off of the casinos and a lot of people are trying to declare themselves of native Heritage to get a peice of the financial pie. Due to politics and financial interest, tribal leaders decided to decare freemen non-native, and thre them out of their respective tribes.
The article lists many tribes affected by this issue, so the sense is that all Native American tribes are throwing out the blacks in their ranks.
To the resuce of this situation is genetic science and the man offering the define-your-bloodline service to the freemen trying to get, or get back, tribal membership.
Whitty's focus is on Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation and her fight with the US Gov't (the Bureau of Indian Affiars, specifically) to get complete documentation of monies due to the Native Americans whose lands have been 'managed' by the gov't (read: taken over, leased out to ranchers and oil tycoons, and profits taken in - yet seldom, if ever, doled back out). Elouise is an accountant and banker, she set up Native American banks (which are thriving and helping to create and support native American businesses), and is in a long-term court case to get the control over the funds into Native Hands (and away from the BIA) as well as the back money due (dateing back to the 1800s).
This article's focus is on the actions of an activist who is taking charge and making change. It's presentation of Native America is one that portrays the nations as extremly poor and very supportive of one another. One of banding together to fight poverty, lack of education, and unacceptable treatment at the hands of the gov't formed by the people who invaded and took over their land (by force).
So, which is right?
Why the drastic difference?
Science shows unacceptable splits caused by a recent flood of incoming cash that can be cured by genetics capable of proving the absolute percentage of every possible bloodline that person happens to carry. Socially-focused activism shows amazing feats of collaberation and change among people facing desperation and absolute poverty.
For absolutely no logical reason, when I read the Wired article, I had this gut response of wrongness. For some reason, I found myself thinking that their was a strong possibility that either the author greatly exageratted the situation, or he was taken for a fool. I have no proof or counter evidence to base this on, just a general sense of something not being right.
However, those interested in science are concered with genetics and their possible application.
Interesting thing - the article never goes into the potential ethical issues, of problems that might arise, from people being able to define race via a blood test. Rick Kittles is quoted as saying that massive genetic testing would prove that no one was as pure as he or she thinks they are, but that's as far as that part of the issue goes.
Whitty's article, never touches on Native American tribe's that are dealing with increases in income due to casino business, or the affect their experiences are having on the court case, native American banking, or financial issues Native Amricans, overall, are facing. Accirding to her, all native Americans are living in tiny shacks with $30 BIA checks covering their expense.
Granted, every author must make a point in a limited amount of words, but sometimes the differences in opinion are fascinating...and disturbing.
I suppose one must always keep in mind that the extremes sell, and the truth lies somewhere in between.
posted by A at 11:03 AM
<< Home