Did you read the article?

The only reason this information took so long to become available, was because scientists had to fight to prove that the provenance of the bones was not Native American. And the article states that the bones are more closely related to the moriori, as it turns out after the study happened more than 10 years later. So no stomping.. This is something that was required to be proved before the bones became Native American property to dispose of by law. The Corp's actions as described by this article, look unethical and against the interests of the American people (and for that matter mine, as a non-American).

There is no reason to believe that there is any stomping on any rights, except the rights of people not to have to make hollow gestures, in order to appease an aggrieved people. At least, that is how the article portrays it.

The article takes a very biased view of the situation. Look at it from the perspective of the Indians. They don't give a shit about our scientific understanding. To them, this is the equivalent of digging up grandpa and putting him on display in a museum. Their religion says they have been there since the beginning of time, so to them these ancient bones are their ancestors. The very process of conducting this study is odious to them.

This isn't just a hollow gesture. The Indians have certain special rights and privilege by virtue of their history, and the federal government has a legal duty to protect their special interests. The federal government is essentially required to take the Indians' side in a dispute like this one.

Also, the Indians have a big incentive not to allow any scientific inquiry that might disprove their claim to "First Nations" status.

This is a cynical way to look at the issue, but I don't see why it's not valid.

At least for the American Indians, not much depends on their claim of being "first nations." Their legal relationship with the U.S. is defined by virtue of their occupancy of the United States at the time of the founding and subsequent expansion of the country, and our displacement of them, and their formal agreements with the United States during that period. I don't think anything would change for them if it was proven that someone else was in the U.S. first.

I'm okay with honoring existing laws and treaties with the Indian tribes, but the scientific evidence strongly indicates it's not their ancestor. Are we obligated to honor what is essentially their version of creationism as evidence of ancestry? Maybe we are, I don't know the wording of the law.

The nature of the federal government's obligation to the Indian tribes goes beyond just honoring treaties and laws. Its more in the nature of a guardianship/trustee relationship: http://www.nihb.org/tribal_resources/indian_health_101.php. The government is not obligated to believe the Indian version of facts, but federal agencies responsible for Indian affairs are not and cannot be neutral parties when others make claims that affect Indian interests.

>Their religion says they have been there since the beginning of time

So? They haven't.

The legal info in the article was not news to me. The litigation is pretty old news; the ethical implications are well-trodden ground. "Ambivalent" means I see both sides; it does not mean I completely agree with Native American side.

It's not your use of the word "ambivalent"; it's your phrase:

  > but it comes at a cost of stomping on Native American rights

If the Kennewick man is not an ancestor of the Native American people, then the Native American people have as much claim to the Kennewick man remains as they would to an ancient Viking's remains. From that perspective, how are their rights being stomped on?

I consider it "stomping" because the law says the remains belong to the tribes. I'm not fond of that law, but it is clear about who pre-Columbian remains belongs to. I'm very surprised the scientists got any access.

The implication in the article is that the Corps of Engineers knew or should have known that the remains were not related to local tribes. They wanted to use the skeleton as a bargaining chip with those tribes; adherence to the law was just a cover for their inexcusable behavior.

The article might lead you to think the Corps was the only one in favor of turning over the remains. That's just not true. The Corp had bi-partisan support in Congress for their actions.

I live an hour from Kennewick. My very rudimentary understanding of the history of the area can account for at least a half-dozen tribes in the area, many of which were nomadic over a vast area and some of which are not represented by the Confederated tribes that were quoted in the article. So, can someone explain to me how a body gets returned to anyone without some forensic evidence that said body is related to those groups? This corner of the world may be a backwater now, but it was once crawling with Oregon Trail pioneers, fur trappers, explorers, and lots of distinct tribes some of whom were not allies. Are these federal laws really so naive to assume any body that isn't instantly recognizable as modern is automatically given to whatever group chooses to assume that it is theirs? Obviously all the local tribes should be part of such a negotiation, but to conduct no due-dilligence would be galling.

But why did they support it? Because they wanted to make a deal with the tribes so they could bring more pork into the district? Or because they genuinely respect the tribe's beliefs and thought the skeleton was related to them?

One of my biggest pet-peeves is when someone uses a process-based argument to conceal their true motives, and the article sure does a good job of painting it that way. I'd love to hear the other side of the story, whether from the relevant Congresspeople or the Corps.