Blood & Asia

[Joe's Dad]

If anything, we're more similar to Joumon culture... 冗談じゃない。　(Not kidding.) I have compared various Native legends to those of Japan's Joumon and Yoyoi periods as well as extant Ainu texts and cultural artifacts of both regions. My conclusion is that there was possibly trade at the very least because of cultural and artistic similarities between Ainu and Haida peoples. There are also some religious ideas that bear similarity such as a belief in a Creator and vast number of spirits of nature. There's also a resemblance between the story in the Kojiki of the sacrifice of the Food Goddess resulting in people being forced to toil for food and the sacrifice of the Corn Woman (Selu in Cherokee Mythology, called various other names and seems to be nearly the same story among the Maya) which had the same outcome. However, I must point out that the most recent that migration could have happened, is 5-9000 years BP. Even if this were not the case, Koreans living at that time are not the same Koreans alive today. The Han invaded from China and wiped them out at the end of the 3 Kingdoms Period. People living in Korea now are a mix of the Han and later occupying Mongols. After the fall of the Great Mongolian Empire, Joseon Dynasty lasted until 1910 when the King died. From the Mongols, the Koreans received Hoh Tolboton, the Blue Mark, said to be the blessing of Tengri. Now, since we know for sure due to genetic studies that we're related to Mongolians, that could be why Koreans get confused. But our shared ancestry is Mongolian, not Korean. Interesting to note: Tengri is a Sky God represented by a wolf and an eagle. Tengriists believe cardinal directions are important and they are represented by different colors. Heck of a coincidence... but not a whiff of this in Korean Religion. The Han were Confucian and followed the 7 lucky gods as well as Buddhism.

TL:DR
Ancient Japanese and NDNz share some cultural similarity and may have made contact. Mongolians share some ancestry according to DNA. Koreans' only relation is because Mongolia conquered them. Even if ancient Koreans came, they wouldn't be related to modern Koreans.

My DNA is not related to mongolians.

If you have to read who you are and where you came from...you don't know who you are.

[Maize-Grower]

My DNA is not related to mongolians.

If you have to read who you are and where you came from...you don't know who you are.

About Mongolian Genes:

Well... Science says otherwise. This isn't politically correct, but Nat-Geo is a very credible source so I think it's safe to say it's correct to the best of available knowledge. I know my ancestors' creation story; and I know it's impossible for the whole continent to float on the back of a water bug. I take these stories as metaphors or life lessons, not literally.

Is This Russian Landscape the Birthplace of Native Americans?

About knowing who I am:

I don't get that from books. I get that from introspection.

[Grits & Beans]

^^^are you a scientist?

[Joe's Dad]

About Mongolian Genes:

Well... Science says otherwise. This isn't politically correct, but Nat-Geo is a very credible source so I think it's safe to say it's correct to the best of available knowledge. I know my ancestors' creation story; and I know it's impossible for the whole continent to float on the back of a water bug. I take these stories as metaphors or life lessons, not literally.

Is This Russian Landscape the Birthplace of Native Americans?

About knowing who I am:

I don't get that from books. I get that from introspection.

Am I understanding you went inside yourself to find out your heritage and culture?

[OLChemist]

Maize Grower, I am a scientist. The ink on my PhD was a quarter of a century old last year and I've been working in academic, government and industrial labs for over thirty years. I do not say this to dismiss or belittle you. But, instead to suggest I might have a POV you would like to consider.

I'm not going to debate population genetics or mutational frequencies. I don't really care about where, when or how the alleles drifted. That is not this issue I have with the use of genomics.

Being a Native woman has raised a few ethical dilemmas in my pursuit of science. Science as practiced in every lab I've ever been in, discussed at every conference I've ever attended, taught in every book I've ever read is a dominant culture affair. And it clothes itself in an assumption of both a supremacy and universality that is at its very roots a Western, secular humanist affair.

In the ethos of science "truth," as discovered in the lab and espoused by the practitioners, trumps the transcendental. Assertions of "non-overlapping magisteria" or descriptive vs proscriptive still demand the imposition a very Western of a physical/spiritual divide that is very difficult to reconcile with my people's teachings.

This viewpoint carries over into the use of scientific knowledge within and by the body politic. When I worked on a DOD funded project associated with a weapons lab, I was routinely questioned about the existential implications of my work. But, no one in the larger culture asks about the existential implications of work in population genetics. Genomic information is packaged in the cellophane of "universal truth."

So, let's look at your Siberian DNA. Native people are just one more set of immigrants. They have no greater or lesser moral claim on the land. They are no different than the borderland militias whining about the Spanish speaking brown people. And more damaging, accepting this forces the secular humanist framework onto our cultures. We divide our souls to serve those non-overlapping magisteria. There are those within our communities who correctly ask those of us in science and who use science to guide our decision making to look at the data with Native eyes.

[gilisi]

Self made anthropologists have been pulling this ish for centuries.

Go to the tribe, learn about the tribe, then spread a bunch of theories that the tribe don't agree with.

[Grits & Beans]

Maize Grower, I am a scientist. The ink on my PhD was a quarter of a century old last year and I've been working in academic, government and industrial labs for over thirty years. I do not say this to dismiss or belittle you. But, instead to suggest I might have a POV you would like to consider.

I'm not going to debate population genetics or mutational frequencies. I don't really care about where, when or how the alleles drifted. That is not this issue I have with the use of genomics.

Being a Native woman has raised a few ethical dilemmas in my pursuit of science. Science as practiced in every lab I've ever been in, discussed at every conference I've ever attended, taught in every book I've ever read is a dominant culture affair. And it clothes itself in an assumption of both a supremacy and universality that is at its very roots a Western, secular humanist affair.

In the ethos of science "truth," as discovered in the lab and espoused by the practitioners, trumps the transcendental. Assertions of "non-overlapping magisteria" or descriptive vs proscriptive still demand the imposition a very Western of a physical/spiritual divide that is very difficult to reconcile with my people's teachings.

This viewpoint carries over into the use of scientific knowledge within and by the body politic. When I worked on a DOD funded project associated with a weapons lab, I was routinely questioned about the existential implications of my work. But, no one in the larger culture asks about the existential implications of work in population genetics. Genomic information is packaged in the cellophane of "universal truth."

So, let's look at your Siberian DNA. Native people are just one more set of immigrants. They have no greater or lesser moral claim on the land. They are no different than the borderland militias whining about the Spanish speaking brown people. And more damaging, accepting this forces the secular humanist framework onto our cultures. We divide our souls to serve those non-overlapping magisteria. There are those within our communities who correctly ask those of us in science and who use science to guide our decision making to look at the data with Native eyes.

[Maize-Grower]

Am I understanding you went inside yourself to find out your heritage and culture?

No, there's a difference between who and what. Who you are is only something you get from taking a good look at yourself's inner thoughts and feelings. What you are physically or ethnically is entirely out of your control since it's what you were born as or into. Who is a question of the inner being, what is a question of the outer. You get what I'm saying now?

[Maize-Grower]

Maize Grower, I am a scientist. The ink on my PhD was a quarter of a century old last year and I've been working in academic, government and industrial labs for over thirty years. I do not say this to dismiss or belittle you. But, instead to suggest I might have a POV you would like to consider.

I'm not going to debate population genetics or mutational frequencies. I don't really care about where, when or how the alleles drifted. That is not this issue I have with the use of genomics.

Being a Native woman has raised a few ethical dilemmas in my pursuit of science. Science as practiced in every lab I've ever been in, discussed at every conference I've ever attended, taught in every book I've ever read is a dominant culture affair. And it clothes itself in an assumption of both a supremacy and universality that is at its very roots a Western, secular humanist affair.

In the ethos of science "truth," as discovered in the lab and espoused by the practitioners, trumps the transcendental. Assertions of "non-overlapping magisteria" or descriptive vs proscriptive still demand the imposition a very Western of a physical/spiritual divide that is very difficult to reconcile with my people's teachings.

This viewpoint carries over into the use of scientific knowledge within and by the body politic. When I worked on a DOD funded project associated with a weapons lab, I was routinely questioned about the existential implications of my work. But, no one in the larger culture asks about the existential implications of work in population genetics. Genomic information is packaged in the cellophane of "universal truth."

So, let's look at your Siberian DNA. Native people are just one more set of immigrants. They have no greater or lesser moral claim on the land. They are no different than the borderland militias whining about the Spanish speaking brown people. And more damaging, accepting this forces the secular humanist framework onto our cultures. We divide our souls to serve those non-overlapping magisteria. There are those within our communities who correctly ask those of us in science and who use science to guide our decision making to look at the data with Native eyes.

I agree that it is politically and emotionally difficult, but I also know that most of the genetic material is unaccounted for and there are some hypotheses suggesting that the migration was from here to there since most of the DNA hasn't been found in the Eastern Hemisphere. Even if it turns out that we did all immigrate, we were still here first, and the first to claim something has always been the one to own it. In my humble opinion, the land claim is not diminished in the slightest by accepting the scientific analyses of the ancient past.

[Grits & Beans]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NbTXJLs22fo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

yeah that totally makes sense....

[Zeke]

Shovel-shaped incisors.

There's some sort of genetic connection.

I don't perceive this as problematic.

[OLChemist]

No, there's a difference between who and what. Who you are is only something you get from taking a good look at yourself's inner thoughts and feelings. What you are physically or ethnically is entirely out of your control since it's what you were born as or into. Who is a question of the inner being, what is a question of the outer.

Hmmmmm. Maybe this is just a Cherokee thing. To me it reads much more as western dualism. But I'm not Cherokee :)

I'm not sure how I could form or for that matter examine my inner thoughts and feelings except as they relate to other people or powers -- mostly with some type of culturally kinship relationship and responsibility. As a human I exist within a culturally prescribed and proscribed framework. This shapes the mores and norms I live by, governs the modes and nature of my interaction with transcendent powers, and dictates the language which molds my worldview.

From my perspective, who is a product of what.

Or maybe I read too much Sapir and Benedict as an undergrad -- dang liberal arts education.

I agree that it is politically and emotionally difficult...

Here is where we get into Rose's Unofficial Ethics of Being a Non-enrolled, Mixed blood. As a non-enrolled person, I have to be aware that I am insulated from the political fate of my Nation. My kinship connections are more tenuous, so I am less subject to mechanisms of social constraint. This means there may issues where I may hold a point of view contrary to the community consensus, but my circumstances insulate me from aspects of the damage asserting my viewpoint would do. These are areas where I believe it is incumbent on me to be circumspect.

Conversations about these types of sensitive issues need to occur among those socially and politically fully invested in their tribal communities. It is not the place of outsiders -- sorry, in my book that is what many of us, urban born, non-enrolled, mixed bloods are. Further, it is my responsibility is be especially sensitive to the will of the community in these matters.

Now, you say what is the harm in the land bridge. Ignoring the land claim for a moment, consider that when you say:

I know my ancestors' creation story; and I know it's impossible for the whole continent to float on the back of a water bug.

you are potentially challenging someone's deeply held religious belief. You are asserting that your understanding of the water bug as a garden variety member of Dytiscidae is superior to their understanding of a supernatural being. With an adult this is just confrontational. But with a child, you are calling into doubt the teachings of his parents and community. Didn't we get enough of that in the boarding schools where our beliefs, manners, languages, even foods where regarded as primitive determents to development?

In my humble opinion, the land claim is not diminished in the slightest by accepting the scientific analyses of the ancient past.

Promise me that the politicians and American people will see it that way.... But I bet it will just lead to another chorus of: "we came, we conquered, we won, you lost."

[gilisi]

Hmmmmm. Maybe this is just a Cherokee thing. To me it reads much more as western dualism. But I'm not Cherokee :)"

It's the OP's thing....he/she said as much

[gilisi]

No, there's a difference between who and what. Who you are is only something you get from taking a good look at yourself's inner thoughts and feelings. What you are physically or ethnically is entirely out of your control since it's what you were born as or into. Who is a question of the inner being, what is a question of the outer. You get what I'm saying now?

If who you are is seperate from your ethnicity, what are you doing here? You might as well put on a FUBU shirt and do stand up at the Apollo, Or go on the 700 club wearing a tight tie and a toupee.

I saw on another thread you were asking about the Cherokee language.. Why don't you learn Mongolian? What part of you desires to be in touch with your NDN culture? If Cherokee is only what you are but not who you are.... you aren't Cherokee.

Maybe in February...
(Inside joke)

[Maize-Grower]

Hmmmmm. Maybe this is just a Cherokee thing. To me it reads much more as western dualism. But I'm not Cherokee :)

I'm not sure how I could form or for that matter examine my inner thoughts and feelings except as they relate to other people or powers -- mostly with some type of culturally kinship relationship and responsibility. As a human I exist within a culturally prescribed and proscribed framework. This shapes the mores and norms I live by, governs the modes and nature of my interaction with transcendent powers, and dictates the language which molds my worldview.

From my perspective, who is a product of what.

Or maybe I read too much Sapir and Benedict as an undergrad -- dang liberal arts education.

That's just the way I see it. Mom always said we are our soul (which she defines as the mind, will, and emotions), and we have a body. If there is a consensus among Cherokees, it probably follows the Christian majority's perspective. (Cue the christian in-fighting.)

Here is where we get into Rose's Unofficial Ethics of Being a Non-enrolled, Mixed blood. As a non-enrolled person, I have to be aware that I am insulated from the political fate of my Nation. My kinship connections are more tenuous, so I am less subject to mechanisms of social constraint. This means there may issues where I may hold a point of view contrary to the community consensus, but my circumstances insulate me from aspects of the damage asserting my viewpoint would do. These are areas where I believe it is incumbent on me to be circumspect.

Conversations about these types of sensitive issues need to occur among those socially and politically fully invested in their tribal communities. It is not the place of outsiders -- sorry, in my book that is what many of us, urban born, non-enrolled, mixed bloods are. Further, it is my responsibility is be especially sensitive to the will of the community in these matters.

I should be more sensitive. I'm told quite often that I'm too blunt and tend to rub people the wrong way. (PM coming about the rest.)

Now, you say what is the harm in the land bridge. Ignoring the land claim for a moment, consider that when you say:

you are potentially challenging someone's deeply held religious belief. You are asserting that your understanding of the water bug as a garden variety member of Dytiscidae is superior to their understanding of a supernatural being. With an adult this is just confrontational. But with a child, you are calling into doubt the teachings of his parents and community. Didn't we get enough of that in the boarding schools where our beliefs, manners, languages, even foods where regarded as primitive determents to development?

I totally thought the people I was talking to were adults. I don't see the various sacred stories as primitive. I think they're useful as metaphors and teach people to live a good life. Every culture has them.

Promise me that the politicians and American people will see it that way.... But I bet it will just lead to another chorus of: "we came, we conquered, we won, you lost."

Yeah, I can't. I think the bulk of the US population is incapable of rational thought when it comes to politics. Seems like most folk run entirely on emotion. Kinda disturbing really. I got into it with some people my age who said that Japan's big tsunami in 2011 was God's punishment for Pearl Harbor... That's pretty absurd on its face but people are crazy these days.